Apostolic Succession

According to some branches of Christianity, notably Roman Catholicism, Jesus ordained his disciples to perform certain sacraments, and they in turn ordained others to perform these sacraments, and only the legitimate successors of the apostles can validly perform these sacraments.   So supposedly most sacraments are invalid unless performed by a priest, by someone who has been authorized by someone who has been authorized … all the way back to Jesus.

Trouble is that because the official Roman Catholic Church has not believed in Apostolic Succession for some time, Pope Francis arguably never got ordained, in the sense that his ordination did not grant him power over sacraments, in the sense that it failed to say, or act out, the granting of power over sacraments,  and is therefore only a layman who cannot perform a valid sacrament.

If you do not believe in apostolic succession, then Pope Francis is just another man.  And if you do believe in apostolic succession, then he is still just another man, because ordained by people who corrected the ordination to avoid expressing belief in apostolic succession.

The radical protestant position, the puritan position, the leftist position is that any baptized Christian who inwardly and outwardly has right intention can perform any sacrament that is appropriate to his authority within the congregation. Unlike most puritan positions, there is reasonable scriptural support for this position, while scriptural support for the proposition that only a priest can perform a sacrament is lacking. Indeed, arguably the doctrine of special priestly power over sacraments verges on theomancy.

But even if the left is correct on this one, they are still arrogant, overbearing, and intrusive.

The left rules, and the Church complies.  Thus, in the sixties, Anglican priests and Roman Catholic priests, and indeed priests of every major Christian church, except for Greek Orthodox stopped ordaining priests as having special power to perform sacraments.  In particular Roman Catholic ordination dropped the line that they were endowing the supposed priest with the power to “offer Mass for the living and the dead”

Maybe that line was not necessary, because making the priest a priest implies it. But if you delete the line, then it no longer implies it.

Greek Orthodox does not have that line, but does have instead ritual that solemnly acts out the bestowal of special power over the Eucharist passing from the ordaining priest to the ordained priest.

The ritual changed because progressives reject apostolic succession. Changing the ritual therefore ends apostolic succession because that is what the change was intended to mean.

So, if you believe in Apostolic succession, you need to get your sacraments from someone who has been ordained in one of those schismatic micro churches by a bishop who schismed from one of the major Christian religions when they turned left and submitted to the Cathedral in the sixties.  Pope Francis is not a Pope, nor even a Bishop, nor even a priest.

Charles the First said “No Bishop, No King”, and ever since then the descendents of his enemies have been trying to eradicate Bishops.  In the sixties, they largely succeeded.

If there is such a thing as Apostolic Succession, and if Apostolic Succession continues, it continues in Bishops descended from the schismatics of the sixties – whose churches are the size of a mustard seed.

Protestants said “no” to popes.

Puritans said “no” to popes and kings.

Now Puritans rule the world.  Kings are gone.  Did you think popes would remain?

Neo reaction means that conservatism has expired.  There is nothing left to conserve.  Reaction has expired.  The old regime has died beyond possibility of revival.  Not only is the Pope not Catholic, you cannot find Catholics in the Vatican.  Apostolic succession of Bishops remains in a mustard seed of schismatic far right churches, but apostolic succession of Popes has lapsed.

Neo reaction is a radical, revolutionary, anti utopian movement.  We have no good solutions to the problem of collective decision making, and therefore it is time for bad solutions.

There is no Pope, and the only way you are going to get a pope back is if a new holy Roman Emperor summons a conclave of Bishops to appoint a new Pope.

A god who designed creatures, a maker as men are makers, a God in our own image, was a mighty defense of order.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

…

Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing colors,
He made their tiny wings.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

After Darwin, the designer God is dead.  There is no longer evidence of a God made in our image.

We must look to some different defense of order. Micro economics defends the capitalist order. Darwinism defends the natural rule of men over women and superior races over inferior races.

The Christian Church has been highly successful in resisting external attack, but progressives are entryists.  The holier than Jesus Church to which William Wilberforce belonged claimed to be Anglican, while they believed that members of their church were the elect, were saints, and regular anglicans were damned.  They swore to the 39 articles while believing these articles to be instruments of evil class oppression.

Entryists form an organization within the organization, claiming to be loyal members of the outer organization, indeed more loyal than thou, while working to its destruction, cooperating with those that are openly on the outside, while purporting to cooperate with those on the inside.

And, in the sixties, Churches that believed in the apostolic succession and ordained their priests with the special and miraculous power to perform sacraments, were taken over by those who quietly rejected that doctrine.  And thus, in those churches, the apostolic succession was ended.

Conservatives conserve their victorious enemies. Roman Catholics attribute to their Church a meaning it is not willing to express. A Roman Catholic believes that there is an important difference between his church and a protestant church such that his Eucharist is valid, and the Protestant’s Eucharist is invalid. But there is no important difference, cannot be any important difference, is not permitted to be any important difference, between progressive protestantism, and progressive Roman Catholicism, because they are all under the same thumb.

Ecumenism was quietly implemented when you were not looking. A progressive believes that all religions are precursors of progressivism. His Jesus is a sort of John the Baptist pointing the way to Obama. Jesus the community organizer replaces Christ the Redeemer. Feminism replaces marriage.

Apostolic succession is a doctrine that favors official religions.  And the official religion is progressivism.  Progressives have, supposedly, received the authority passed along by Jesus.

If a neoreactionary favors official religion as a force for order, and progressivism is official religion, what is his complaint?

His complaint is that progressivism is a force of disorder.  Progressives want to run everything, but, as Obamacare and the Occupy campsites illustrated, cannot run anything.  They are like a horde of locusts.  They take over everything and ruin everything.  The only way you can have an organization that functions is to have an organization that actively evades and resists progressive dominion.

Progressivism is a force of disorder because progressives are commies, or rather, progressives are not commies but commies are progressives.  Progressives want to submit everything to collective decision making, which is to say, progressive decision making, but we don’t have any good mechanisms for collective decision making.

A progressive thinks collective decision making is wonderful, and therefore should be applied everywhere on everything.  A libertarian thinks it is terrible, and therefore should be applied as little as possible.  A neoreactionary thinks it is terrible, so when we really need collective decision making we might as well use known terrible that have, in the past not been as disastrous as usual.