He who exalts himself…

One of Tradistan’s inherent traits is that it is basically a “feudal” society (in both the historic political sense, and in the literal sense): a disjointed mish-mash of competing cults, all going in different directions, and (of course) all feuding with one another -- and at one another’s expense.  Each tries to convince everyone that it is the only “ark of salvation,” and that the others are “invalid” (or “flawed” in some way) – and each has its own pet reasons why this is so.  Each has its own particular axe to grind, to promote itself (and to disqualify everyone else).

Sometimes it’s rubrics that separate them, and sometimes it’s “doctrine” (or what they perceive as doctrine), making sure that these differences are irresolvable (so that they can perpetually argue about them, and continue to claim some sort of exclusivity to differentiate them from one another).  With the Dimonds, it’s “baptism of desire.”  And with Dannie and Tony, it’s “una cum.”  Big Don (who was actually the first to beat the “una cum” drum) is best known for his trademark “hellfire and brimstone.”  The CMRI, on the other hand, has nothing really “distinguishing” it, except perhaps that, in a sede world known for the poor formation of its priests, theirs are extra poor -- from the top down.  (Pivarunas, their leader, didn’t even finish high school).¹

But, feudal mini-lords that they are, there are some common threads that loosely bind them together.  For instance, they’re all sedevacantists of one type or another (although their reasons vary).²   And there are some “alliances” that unite some of them (SGG and MHT, for instance).  But the biggest thread of commonality running through Tradistan – at least in the “Bishop-led” cults -- is that they all try to emulate the pre-Vatican II Church “in all its pomp and glory,” – its cosmetics, that is.  Whether it’s Dannie’s SGG, Big Don’s MHT (or CMRI, or the Dimond Brothers, or any of Tradistan’s other entertainment hubs), each tries to outdo the other with its letter-perfect ceremonies (done “down to the n^th detail”) and all the other trappings to make it look as “traditional” as possible.

In just about all of the “Bishop-led” cults, their leaders are self-appointed mini-potentates, all trying to outdo each other at “spectacle” and at “playing dolly dress-up” – and all acting as if it were they who were occupying the chair of St. Peter.  And, accordingly, they imagine that they should be accorded all the pomp and deference due to real clergy.  The problem, though, is that, being outside the institutional Church, they are NOT real clergy.  They have no such credentials whatsoever.¹  And that being the case, NONE of these “bishops” has the right to any of the ceremonial privileges associated with the office of bishop.

Of course, Dannie (and the others) demands such deference not because he wants to “keep the traditions of the Faith,” but because it’s what a cult-master must do to keep the sheep in “shock and awe.”  He does it not because he is “religious,” but because he is worldly and arrogant.  Plus, such pretense is necessary in order to impress his Gerties -- to make them think that he’s “the real thing” – and, consequently, to convince them to empty their wallets for him. 

This, of course, is what got the Church in trouble in the first place: its worldliness.  By the late Middle Ages, it had become the richest and most powerful force on the planet – and it became corrupt and worldly.  And it was this corruption that, in many ways, precipitated the Protestant Revolt.³  What the cult-masters of Tradistan are doing is making that mistake all over again – except that they are in many respects even worse than their medieval counterparts. ⁴

And as for their over-the-top “pomp and protocol,” we’re sure that when our Lord bade the apostles to “go and teach all nations,” He did not intend for them to exalt themselves -- to be rich, proud peacocks, bidding their people to bow down before them in groveling fealty, as the cult-masters relish (and demand).  Rather, He taught the opposite: that “he who exalts himself shall be humbled” -- and vice versa.  And our Lord set that example by humbling Himself – “even unto the death of the cross.”  (And so too did our Lady: she was humanity’s model for humility.)  It is safe to say that, if the Church’s clergy had followed their example, the Church certainly wouldn’t be in the mess that it’s in now.⁵

But one might ask, “What about “respect for the cloth?”  Well, respect is one thing, but groveling servility is another – especially when it is totally unwarranted and unearned.⁶  Also, “obeying the precepts of the Church” is one thing, and mindless submission to whatever the cult-masters say -- whether it’s right or not -- is quite another.  These “make-it-up-as-they-go-along” imposters try to pass themselves off as “authorities,” when in fact they’re only autocratic; and they masquerade as patrician, when they are merely pretentious.  In totally disregarding everything that our Lord said about humility, these vainglorious tinhorns have forfeited whatever right to respect they may have ever once had (or claim to have had).

If the Church is to reform – to really reform -- it must practice the humility of its Founder – not the faux “humility” of “Franken-Pope” or the cult-masters.   It can do this only if good, selfless men – men who are truly detached from the things of this world – take the helm.  In fact, it’s not just necessary for reforming, it’s necessary for survival.  The Tridentine reforms of men like St. Francis of Assisi were a good start; but now that work must be re-started.  How this will play out, we are not certain.  But one thing is for sure: whatever is done, it must include getting rid of the self-serving, pampered prima donnas of Tradistan, and replacing them with men who lead by example, not by decree.  They who have exalted themselves must be humbled; and one can help set that “humiliation process” in motion by not supporting these bums -- by keeping one’s wallet in one’s pocket, i.e., by starving the beast.

__________________________

¹ They’re also known for their “wishy-washy” attitude – for not taking a stand on critical moral issues.  For instance, when one of his wealthy parishioners asked him if it was okay for their daughter to get a heart transplant, Pivarunas okayed it (because he was afraid he’d lose them as donors if he didn’t).  Of course, he didn’t want this generally known, because of the controversy it would create.  He has also taken a non-committal attitude on other critical moral issues as well, for fear of “ruffling feathers.”  In short, he has shown himself to be a spineless coward.

² Being a “sede” is not only important as the “differentiation” ploy, but – since it claims that there’s no “boss” there in Peter’s chair -- it also allows one to be answerable to nobody – and thus allows one not only to make up whatever rules he wants, but to be able to break them as well.  It also allows cults to have one set of rules for the cult-masters (and their “elite” families), and another for the poor schmucks who make up the congregation – in other words, a double standard.

³ The Protestant Revolt was just as much an economic revolt as it was a religious one.  Church prelates were becoming “fat and rich”; and abuses such as simony and lay investiture were causing much resentment (as was the selling of indulgences).  Also, bishops and cardinals regularly had mistresses, (as did even a few popes).  The late Middle Ages were truly a dark chapter in the Church’s history.  It was only AFTER the Protestant Revolt that real reform took place – and it’s time for that reform to start again.

⁴ The Church in the late Middle Ages, corrupt as it was, at least ran hospitals and charitable institutions to help the sick and needy.  All the cult-masters provide is a “show” (and an occasional  “serf appreciation party” for the cult-slaves, who get peasant fare, while the cult-masters feast on gourmet food and fine wines).

⁵ That being said, this writer seriously doubts if our Lord intended for his apostles (and those who followed) to be addressed as “Your Grace,” “Your Excellency,” etc.  Many of these clerical titles (and protocols) were actually taken from secular counterparts.  “Your Excellency,” for instance, was (and still is) used to address certain high-ranking officials (such as governors, ambassadors, etc.); and “Your Grace” was how one addressed a duke.  And much of the protocol for clergy is derived from that used by secular nobility. 

⁶ The point was made earlier about traddie “clergy” – being outside the institutional Church – not being entitled to any clerical “protocol” anyway.  But even if people like Dannie, Tony, and Donny were “inside the Church,” they wouldn’t warrant any such deference, for the simple reason that they don’t deserve it -- because they are SCUM.