In the final point, Julius Evola addresses the question of spirituality. He first considers Catholicism, the last Tradition in the West, but rejects it as inadequate in our time because the Church no longer represents that Tradition. If, instead, had it maintained that Tradition, had it still represented the only force against the modern world, and had it held firm to the principles of the The Syllabus Of Errors (which everyone should read), Evola would support it.
Evola does not propose some other tradition, alien to Europe, but rather counts on new men, aware of the transcendent, aware of life beyond death, to forge a new spirituality, in expectation of a blessing from above. Given his anti-clerical attitude, this is a somewhat inconsistent position. What is there to prevent such men from recovering that tradition on their own? Why must they wait passively for the “church” to give it to them? The Kingdom is taken by force.
Let us briefly consider a final point, that of the relationship with the dominant religion. For us, the secular State, in whatever form, belongs to the past. And, in particular, we oppose its parody that asserted itself, in certain circles, as the “ethical State”, the product of a weak, spurious, empty “idealistic” philosophy associated with Fascism [that of Giovanni Gentile], but through its nature such to give equal approval, like a dialectical game of dice, to the anti-Fascism of a [Benedetto] Croce.
Yet though we oppose similar ideologies and the secular State, a clerical or clericalistic State is likewise unacceptable for us. A religious factor is necessary as the background for a true heroic conception of life that must be essential for our political alignment. It is necessary to feel in oneself the evidence that there is a higher life beyond this terrestrial life, because only those who feel this way possess an unbreakable and unconquerable strength, only they will be capable of an absolute enthusiasm. But where this is lacking, to defy death and to take no account of one’s own life is possible only in sporadic moments of elation or in the unleashing of irrational forces: nor is there a discipline that can be justified, in the individual, with a higher and independent meaning.
But this spirituality, which must be alive among us, does not require obligatory dogmatic formulations of a given religious confession; however, the style of life that must be drawn from it is not that of Catholic moralism, which aims for little more than a virtuistic domestication of a human animal; politically, this spirituality cannot but foster mistrust in respect to everything that as humanitarianism, equality, principle of love and of the forgiveness instead of honor and justice; it is an integral part of the Christian conception. Certainly, if Catholicism were capable of making a program of high ascesis its own and exactly on this base, almost like a recovery of the spirit of the best Medieval crusader, makes of faith the soul of an armed bloc of forces, almost a new close-knit Templar Order, relentless against the currents of chaos, breakdowns, subversion, and the practical materialism of the modern world—certainly, in such a case, and also in the case that, at the minimum, it held firm to the positions of the Syllabus, there could not be a single instance of doubt about our choice.
However, as things currently stand, given the mediocre and, fundamentally, bourgeois and parochial level, to which today practically everything that is confessional religion has descended and given the modernist destruction and the rising opening to the left of the post-conciliar Church of the “aggiornamento”, for our men, pure reference to the spirit will suffice, precisely as the evidence of a transcendent reality, to appeal to another force in order to graft onto our force, to have a foreboding that our battle is not only a political battle, to attract an invisible consecration on a new world of men and leaders of men.
I am willing to accept that, Graham, but do Christ’s words extend to the temporal sphere of things ? Is Peter Caesar ?
“Now, I think Evola’s dismissal of orthodoxy comes from his reading DeMaistre’s book on the Pope where he considers orthodoxy to be another form of protestantism.”
Christ himself established the Petrine Primacy: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church…’ . This was accepted with docility by the Eastern Fathers for hundreds of years, until the wanton rebellion that led to the Great Schism. Under such conditions I’m not sure how one can believe that the East “preserves the doctrine of Imperium.”
Regarding Hesychastic initiation:
As we indicated above, genuine Hesychasm is so exclusive that any attempt at popularization and vulgarization is impossible.What is scattered in the modern world is a pseudo-Hesychasm which gives many the illusion that they obtain an initiation by repeating the Prayer of the Heart or practicing other techniques made public.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81326126/Hesychasm-II
Catholicism seems to have created a confusion between temporal power and spiritual authority. The Pope’s pretence to temporal power and the attempt at usurpation and annexation of the duties that rightfully belong to the Emperor have created many problems in the West.
In the East, there was no such confusion. Orthodoxy certainly is a path that is dedicated towards contemplation and purely metaphysical knowledge. However, this does not exclude the participation of more active types in the tradition.
The advantage that Orthodoxy has over Catholicism is that the latter has as its supreme point of reference the Supreme Being. The former goes beyond this point and considers the Supreme Identity and synthesis between Being and Non-Being.
DeMaistre, while I greatly respect him, does have some limitations because of his exclusivist Catholic upbringing. Even his easy dismissal of Luther and early Protestantism doesn’t stand, as the problem is more complex than he seemed to consider. I have seen this sectarian type of exclusivism in many Catholics, which is a really assumptive attitude on their part. After all, it was in Catholic Europe that the modern deviation began, and it was from there that it spread all over the world. Catholicism has not only been unable to do anything to stop it, but, with Vatican II, it even gave in to it and began accepting whatever terms modernism imposed on it.
As always, realization is indirectly proportional to the level of boasting.
In place of the western Crusade doctrine, Orthodoxy appears to have its battle theology encapsulated in the histories of the Orthodox nations. Tsar Lazar of Serbia, who chose the Kingdom of Heaven over that of Earth and died in a holy battle, is an example.
Evola is very contradictory. Here it seems that if the beliefs of the Vatican hierarchy were the same as those of the SSPX, Evola would be pro-Catholic. Yet when the Church was under B. Pius XII (who is denigrated by the enemy az a nazi) and fighting communism with success in Spain and Portugal, not to forget Croatia, and working with fascism from above through the Society of Jesus to make it into a positive state-building force while eliminating the negative destructive elements much as Evola was trying to do himself, Evola was totally anti-Catholic that whole time !
For myself, I am trying to decide on whether to adopt a western Orthodox or traditional Catholic practice. I lean towards orthodoxy because it preserves the doctrine of imperium as well as initiation through hesychasm and deification/theosis; but the one flaw I find in orthodoxy is that it does not have a theology of holy war the way catholicism does. I actually think traditional Catholicism as being somewhat more masculine and warlike than orthodoxy
Now, I think Evola’s dismissal of orthodoxy comes from his reading DeMaistre’s book on the Pope where he considers orthodoxy to be another form of protestantism.
The Eastern Roman Empire (known today as the Byzantine Empire), preserved the old Greco-Roman traditions and laws and incorporated them in a Christian synthesis.
Not to mention the fact that Orthodoxy preserved throughout the centuries an initiatic path- Hesychia. Of course, this is a jnanic, contemplative path, which I doubt would attract much of Evola’s interest. Still, I am pretty sure that he had no idea of it, because in one of his articles he said something like “The notion of a Christian initiation is, today, a pure fantasy”, while it is clear that Hesychia is not a fantasy, even though it is quite difficult to obtain such an initiation.
I think Evola’s view of Christianity was much too influenced by his early Nietzsche period, and this carried on, even if only residually, throughout the rest of his life.
Thanks for the clarification Cologero, but now my reading list has expanded yet again to include Boethius and the documents of the Council (read in light of the Syllabus).
What are your thoughts on the chivalric orders that have survived into the present? As you point out, they are no longer warrior organizations in our current age.
Evola has been remarkably inconsistent over the years on this question. This is probably one of the reasons for Guenon’s accusation that Evola was full of prejudices. Orientations was updated toward the end of his life, as the references to Vatican II make clear. Nevertheless, if the church still supported the Syllabus (which I don’t see how Evola could agree with in toto) and there were warrior orders, he would support Catholicism. Keep in mind that the purpose of those orders was to (1) destroy paganism and (2) recapture Jerusalem. Which of those programs does Evola support? Or who else should they fight? Perhaps liberals? Is open warfare really the best option today? These and other obvious questions are never addressed.
Guenon and Evola disagree fundamentally on this issue. Guenon asserts that Christianity was esoteric at its source, hence Western Medievalism was also. For him, there would be no problem with Orthodoxy, particularly since it preserved much of the neo-platonic tradition. For Evola, on the other hand, early christianity was an aberration that was corrected in the West only by its fortuitous encounter with Nordic influence. The East did not have that encounter, but I doubt Evola even gave it a moment’s thought.
As for the church today, which is embarrassed by the Middle Ages and treats the Syllabus with neglect, how can it be the same? Vatican II opened the door to the modern world, ignoring completely both the crisis and the revolt. All that is necessary is to read, for example, De Monarchia or Consolations of Philosophy to realize there was quite a different thought process. Since the Middle Ages was the last Tradition in the West, it is the place to start. To mindlessly repeat Evola’s prejudices, which we run into quite often, is to really miss the point.
Evola indicts Christianity as a whole: “These forces worked spiritually, through primitive Christianity, to destroy the European spirit. At first, they concealed themselves within the lunar spirituality which took shape in the Catholic church, that is to say, a spirituality whose type is no longer the sacred king, the solar initiate, or the “hero”, but the saint or the priest who bows before God, whose ideal is no longer the warlike, sacral hierarchy and “glory” but fraternal community and caritas.”
I doubt that Orthodoxy is that different on these points given that the teachings of Catholicism and Orthodoxy both spring from the same Founder, the same scriptures. That is not to say that there are not differences, only that these differences are insubstantial in comparison to what is held in common.
I disagree with Evola on his rejection of Catholicism as the religious form for the West. The old imperial paganism and the cult of Mithra may be more ideal (from Evola’s perspective), but they are both long dead because there is no succession in these religions.
I also don’t follow on what has changed in the Catholic Church that has rendered it completely illegitimate. It was arguably valid in the Middle Ages. True, Western Civilization has changed, but the change has been in spite of the Church, not because of it.
“it is an integral part of the Christian conception”
The problem with Evola, in respect to his view of Christianity, is that when he speaks unconditionally about “Christianity” he actually has in mind Catholicism, which is certainly not the whole of Christianity. He is usually right when he criticizes certain failings of Catholicism, but- it is clear from his writings- that he completely ignores and has no knowledge of Orthodox (Eastern) Christianity.
It is true that here he only speaks for western Europe, but in general, he writes about Christianity as if there is nothing there except Catholicism.
Also, I agree that when talking about a positive solution to bring Europe back to Tradition, he only gives equivocal solutions.
“[….]for our men, pure reference to the spirit will suffice, precisely as the evidence of a transcendent reality, to appeal to another force in order to graft onto our force, to have a foreboding that our battle is not only a political battle, to attract an invisible consecration on a new world of men and leaders of men.”
At best, this may only work for a few, very gifted, persons; but even they need a certain form in which to practice their spiritual aspirations. All in all, this really doesn’t answer to the question of a “practical” spiritual life.