Whilst not a a Roman Catholic, I am a Christian. I certainly understand and agree with you that Christianity as a religion today, no matter which institution or denomination you align with, is not the Christianity that Christ taught. Far from it. The apostles warned vehemently against what they saw entering the Church even in their day. We must get back to first principles as followers and worshippers of Christ. God speed.
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
True story- Our Latin teacher taught at another school. So the assignment was to create a Hadrian Age newspaper. We titled ours- the Roman Forum. However- those smart kids over at the Paxon Hollow - The Roaming Forum. Peripatetic tinkers as we thought.
'Outpreach and outfox Asa Hawks', Hazel founds his own religion,
“The Church Without Christ,” and announces his mission:
“I'm a member and preacher to that church where the
blind don’t see and the lame don’t walk and what's dead stays
that way.”
It is Enoch Emery, a boy with “wise blood, like his
daddy,” who discovers for Hazel a manger-child in a building
labeled 'Gargantuan'
1000% true. There is no Christian Church without Christ. The entire edifice collapses.
1000 angels dancing on a pin.
I just get distressed about doctrine. IF you want to call yourself a 'Christian' there are certain requirements. You do not get to pick and choose. Without getting down into the weeds of Catholicism- either you agree that Christ was sent down from heaven- to die upon a cross or- you do not.
But as the old order dies- there will be a new order- and it will have a rainbow. Apparently.
Wise Blood is a magnificent book about the price - and indeed the wages - of the loss of God. It is also hilarious. See the bit about Enoch and Gonga the Gorilla, for example. 😂
By the same token, if you want to call yourself a 'Catholic' there are certain requirements, you do not get to pick and choose: you either accept the authority of the Pope over the Church, or you do not.
It is the prerogative of any Catholic to support Schism, however, in doing so, they cease to be a Catholic.
I recently attended a funeral for a beloved uncle in New York City at a Unitarian church.
The building itself was quite beautiful. I had never been in one before, and likely won't again, but quite honestly I was kinda diggin' their whole vibe. (Did not dig the $120 parking ticket later on though)
They seemed willing to accept other traditions and different ideas.
The Quakers tried this, there was a sort of schism in that church- the offshoot group believe that each person has an 'inner light' Sounds reasonable enough. But that group was politely asked to leave, IIRC. They probably fought over the real estate, it often comes back to that in organized organisations.
I like an ecumenical vibe- which is to say although the Catholic Church may not accept Quakers as Christians, it would be difficult to assign them elsewhere. Then there is a whole other rabbit hole there with the 'Church of Latter Day Saints' aka Mormons.
But we were discussing Modernism and the Catholic church. I did have an extensive conversation with the AI research assistant. I will clean it up and post it to my own substack- in the notes it used this article to generate some answers. Pope Leo XIII 'suggested' rational thought is compatible - and in fact helps- spiritual development. So he was trying to bridge the gap between the 19th and 20th centuries.
There's either one true church or there's none. There can't be 2 3,4,5 or 6 variations. Our Lord didn't tell St Peter to smash up the rock in to denominations and build other churches.
The user's theological argument can be translated into Boolean algebra by defining the existence of denominations as the negation of the "One True Church."
Let:
$T$ = The One True Church exists (singular, undivided).
$D$ = Denominations exist (multiple variations).
The premise "There's either one true church or there's none" establishes that $T$ is a binary state, but the user's second sentence ("There can't be 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 variations") explicitly rejects $D$. The statement "Our Lord didn't tell St Peter to ... build other churches" asserts that $D$ is false.
In Boolean logic:
The existence of denominations ($D$) is the logical negation of a singular, unified church structure ($\neg T$).
The user asserts that multiple variations do not exist: $D = \text{False}$.
Therefore, $T = \text{True}$.
The translation is: $\neg D \implies T$
Given the user's assertion that Peter did not build other churches, $D$ is False, which logically necessitates that $T$ is True under the exclusive choice provided. However, if "none" refers to the absence of any true church (i.e., $T$ is False), then the existence of denominations ($D$) would also be False, resulting in $T = \text{False}$ and $D = \text{False}$.
Most accurately, the user's stance is: $D = \text{False}$ (No denominations) $T = \text{True}$ (One True Church exists)
Yeah, but, how do you explain a civilization in which the institutions turn against the people? Government, business, religion, education, law, medicine-they’re all out to get us, but why?
“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have someone write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.” ― Milan Kundera
“Church” and “revolution” are two words that are only associated by modernists or “neo-traditionalists” as I call them. The fruit gives a hint of the tree.
Wonderful work, Frank. Thank you, and please keep it coming! You help me make sense of this terrible mess.
Thank you Frank . Now I will dive into some of your links.
Tell the Gardone gang I said hi.
Will certainly tell everyone I met that you said hello Hilary! Thank you for the beautiful images you bring to us here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtMUIjhlsrc
Whilst not a a Roman Catholic, I am a Christian. I certainly understand and agree with you that Christianity as a religion today, no matter which institution or denomination you align with, is not the Christianity that Christ taught. Far from it. The apostles warned vehemently against what they saw entering the Church even in their day. We must get back to first principles as followers and worshippers of Christ. God speed.
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
The Forum has been Roaming for some time.
True story- Our Latin teacher taught at another school. So the assignment was to create a Hadrian Age newspaper. We titled ours- the Roman Forum. However- those smart kids over at the Paxon Hollow - The Roaming Forum. Peripatetic tinkers as we thought.
Wise Blood tells the story of Hazel Motes .
In his struggle to
'Outpreach and outfox Asa Hawks', Hazel founds his own religion,
“The Church Without Christ,” and announces his mission:
“I'm a member and preacher to that church where the
blind don’t see and the lame don’t walk and what's dead stays
that way.”
It is Enoch Emery, a boy with “wise blood, like his
daddy,” who discovers for Hazel a manger-child in a building
labeled 'Gargantuan'
1000% true. There is no Christian Church without Christ. The entire edifice collapses.
1000 angels dancing on a pin.
I just get distressed about doctrine. IF you want to call yourself a 'Christian' there are certain requirements. You do not get to pick and choose. Without getting down into the weeds of Catholicism- either you agree that Christ was sent down from heaven- to die upon a cross or- you do not.
But as the old order dies- there will be a new order- and it will have a rainbow. Apparently.
FIRE NEXT time bitches.
Wise Blood is a magnificent book about the price - and indeed the wages - of the loss of God. It is also hilarious. See the bit about Enoch and Gonga the Gorilla, for example. 😂
By the same token, if you want to call yourself a 'Catholic' there are certain requirements, you do not get to pick and choose: you either accept the authority of the Pope over the Church, or you do not.
It is the prerogative of any Catholic to support Schism, however, in doing so, they cease to be a Catholic.
that depends on whether you think there is a pope.
Yes that is an excellent point.
I recently attended a funeral for a beloved uncle in New York City at a Unitarian church.
The building itself was quite beautiful. I had never been in one before, and likely won't again, but quite honestly I was kinda diggin' their whole vibe. (Did not dig the $120 parking ticket later on though)
They seemed willing to accept other traditions and different ideas.
The Quakers tried this, there was a sort of schism in that church- the offshoot group believe that each person has an 'inner light' Sounds reasonable enough. But that group was politely asked to leave, IIRC. They probably fought over the real estate, it often comes back to that in organized organisations.
I like an ecumenical vibe- which is to say although the Catholic Church may not accept Quakers as Christians, it would be difficult to assign them elsewhere. Then there is a whole other rabbit hole there with the 'Church of Latter Day Saints' aka Mormons.
But we were discussing Modernism and the Catholic church. I did have an extensive conversation with the AI research assistant. I will clean it up and post it to my own substack- in the notes it used this article to generate some answers. Pope Leo XIII 'suggested' rational thought is compatible - and in fact helps- spiritual development. So he was trying to bridge the gap between the 19th and 20th centuries.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=905
We can get into GK Chesterson on the next thread.
Also- Frank- Here is an article about Flannery O'Connor. Part two turns pure Southern Gothic.
https://counter-currents.com/2026/03/remembering-flannery-oconnor-5/
Part 2 is the fun one.
https://counter-currents.com/2025/03/flannery-oconnor-and-racism-part-2-down-on-the-farm/
There's either one true church or there's none. There can't be 2 3,4,5 or 6 variations. Our Lord didn't tell St Peter to smash up the rock in to denominations and build other churches.
The user's theological argument can be translated into Boolean algebra by defining the existence of denominations as the negation of the "One True Church."
Let:
$T$ = The One True Church exists (singular, undivided).
$D$ = Denominations exist (multiple variations).
The premise "There's either one true church or there's none" establishes that $T$ is a binary state, but the user's second sentence ("There can't be 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 variations") explicitly rejects $D$. The statement "Our Lord didn't tell St Peter to ... build other churches" asserts that $D$ is false.
In Boolean logic:
The existence of denominations ($D$) is the logical negation of a singular, unified church structure ($\neg T$).
The user asserts that multiple variations do not exist: $D = \text{False}$.
Therefore, $T = \text{True}$.
The translation is: $\neg D \implies T$
Given the user's assertion that Peter did not build other churches, $D$ is False, which logically necessitates that $T$ is True under the exclusive choice provided. However, if "none" refers to the absence of any true church (i.e., $T$ is False), then the existence of denominations ($D$) would also be False, resulting in $T = \text{False}$ and $D = \text{False}$.
Most accurately, the user's stance is: $D = \text{False}$ (No denominations) $T = \text{True}$ (One True Church exists)
This is represented as: $T \land \neg D$
Yeah, but, how do you explain a civilization in which the institutions turn against the people? Government, business, religion, education, law, medicine-they’re all out to get us, but why?
Because these institutions turned away from God.
“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have someone write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.” ― Milan Kundera
“Church” and “revolution” are two words that are only associated by modernists or “neo-traditionalists” as I call them. The fruit gives a hint of the tree.
The Church needs no revolution. So the ‘church’ you are speaking of cannot be the Church.