Worthy of Glory by the Way of the Cross

Call to worship: Psalm 24.
Lessons: Revelation 4–5 and Matthew 21.1–16.

Procession+in+the+Streets+of+Jerusalem+by+James+Tissot

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

DEAR brethren in Christ, we are gathered today to fear God and worship him. Today, on the Sunday before Easter, we remember when the Lord came to Jerusalem on a donkey’s colt and knocked at the gates of Jerusalem’s heart. Today, we remember that the Lord Jesus came knocking to bring us near to God, as he has said in the seventh of the letters in the Revelation to John:

‘As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.’

We are here today to remember a victory that our Lord won by passing through the darkness of the shadow of death. The path to the knowledge of the glory of God leads through Jesus’s death on the Cross, and by the promise of God this path of humility is the noblest in the world.

In the Revelation to John, as soon as our Lord Jesus has dictated his letters to the seven churches of Asia, the very door of heaven is opened, and the scene changes from letters on earth to visions in heaven. So our author is taken up to heaven by the sound of a trumpet. Many decades after the Lord Jesus has been taken back up to heaven, to sit down as a man at the right hand of God the Father, now the old man John is taken up to heaven in order to see things which, in his words, ‘must be hereafter’. Thus he is caught up from earth to heaven to see what, at the time of his writing, is yet to come. Hear the sound of the trumpet that speaks to him: the trumpet says, Pay attention! The wisdom of heaven; let us attend.

And immediately, says John, I was in the spirit. What he saw, these spiritual realities, he saw by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Let us then see what John saw. A throne is set in heaven, and there is one who sits on the throne. We are reminded of the last throne John mentioned, when he said, ‘To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.’ Let us look at this throne, and at him who sits upon it.

This is our God, whom John sees in heaven by the Holy Spirit: His throne is girded about with a rainbow that gleams with the depths of an emerald. Around his throne are the twelve tribes of ancient Israel and the twelve Apostles of the new Israel – this is you, if you put your trust in Jesus – clothed in white and crowned to reign with God, forming the circle of the cosmos. He himself sits upon a throne with lightnings and thunderings and voices, and his seven fiery spirits blazing before him. This is the God whose face none can see and not die.

The Lord, he dares you to be lukewarm in the presence of his power, before the vision of his throne. Look at a sight like this, look at it truly, and tell me if you can be lukewarm. Either you will share in this glory and be drawn into it, or you will flee as far as you can flee from this presence. You can be hot, or you can be cold, but think which you will be.

And before this throne are four angelic beasts full of eyes before and behind, and six wings on each of them, wings full of eyes. As they cry ‘holy, holy, holy’ to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, day and night, the twenty-four elders fall down before him that sits on the throne, and worship him that lives for ever and ever. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. This is the God who was, and is, and is to come, the God who spoke the worlds into being.

This is the worship into which we are come today; this is the worship into which we are come every week, into the presence of uncountable angels, into the presence of the living God; this is the worship for which mankind itself was made, for which the Church was made, for which the only-begotten Son of God rode up to Jerusalem the Sunday before Easter, that in heaven he might offer this worship up to God. This is a noble and worthy purpose.

But who is worthy to open the book that lies upon the open right palm of him who sits on the throne of God? Who is worthy to open the seven seals that seal the book, to open up the knowledge of God, that his heart might lie open to us, and that we might lie open to one another, heart to heart? The voice of the angel that asks this question, his voice pierces heaven, earth, and hell; his voice pierces, and the human heart answers. This is the longing of the heart, to know what is in the book of his future purposes, to look into the future and see the heart of God and see him face to face. But no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. This is why Jesus rode up to Jerusalem the Sunday before Easter, because no man anywhere could open that book of life where everything is declared.

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. How did he prevail? The word of God declares it, by the pen of Matthew. The disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the donkey, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. When a true king is crowned, there is always rejoicing. But this ‘hosanna’, the Sunday before Easter, was not Jesus’s victory. It was only a sign of the praise he would receive for the victory he was to win in a week. Jerusalem hears the great noise of people rejoicing, and David asks in Psalm 24, Who is this king of glory? This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee, the Lord of uncountable hosts of angels: he is the king of glory.

Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? Who can open the seven seals of the book in God’s right hand? Matthew shows us. Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

But he had ridden that day into Jerusalem not to be proud, but to be humble; not to be served, but to serve, and to give up his life as a ransom for many. His cleansing of that filthy temple, his kicking out the buyers and sellers, his overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers, was for you. God is to be worshipped, and Jesus had to stand in his holy place and make us able to worship. One does not simply walk into the worship of Almighty God. In the Old Testament, under the law of Moses, in order for God to live with his people, the priest had to wash the temple with blood, because the sins of the people stained the temple and made it a foul place, too sickening for God to dwell in. That foul sin in the temple, that corrupting of God’s praise into the seeking of gold, of gain, of money, of all the things we grasp for instead of God – the soap for scouring that sin out of our hearts is blood. Blood is the price for sin. Sin is in our hearts, and the seven seals of the scroll could not be opened, and Jesus had to humble himself that week.

And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that Jesus did, and the children calling out in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased. The path to glory is not an easy one. The course of true love never did run smooth. The rich and powerful opposed Jesus. They hated Jesus. If you love Jesus and follow in his footsteps, they will hate you. If you are willing to stand for the truth against all the power of the newspapers and the schools and the banks, they will call you anything they can think of to break your heart. At school, they will call you a fool and an enemy of science; at work, they will call you a sexist, a racist, and a homophobe; at church, they will call you a blasphemer against the Name of God. Imagine this: You know that both the Old and the New Testaments call homosexual acts a shameful and hateful thing before God. You see a Christian friend come out as ‘gay’. What do you do? If you see that friend’s post and refuse either to like the post or to write a favourable comment, people will try to get you rejected at school, and sometimes they will get you rejected; they will try to get you fired, and sometimes they will get you fired; they will try to get you shunned by Christians, and sometimes they will get you shunned by Christians who are afraid and call you a judgemental, unloving, false Christian. Can you bear this rejection by people you know, or will you never reach that point? Think carefully whether it is better to be with Jesus or to be against him. If you choose every day to be with Jesus and not with his enemies, those who hate him will also hate you and call you haters of mankind. Jesus himself rode into Jerusalem to cleanse the temple, and the chief priests and scribes were displeased and tried to find a way to kill him.

But there is something noble here. Jesus saw what was before him, he saw what he had come to do, and he humbled himself to do it. The book of God’s right hand had to be opened for us, that we might know God. He who was God and had laid the foundation of the earth, he now trusted in God. He knew he was coming to his death. He had chosen to do this. He willingly came to give himself up to his enemies, and to lay his life down before those who did not want him to cleanse the temple and show himself as the Root of David. A man who hands himself over to his enemies without any hope of being vindicated, justified, upheld, so that his case is justly avenged, such a man is a fool. There is nothing noble in being a fool. There is only shameful death, to die alone, scorned, rejected, and supported by neither man nor God. And Jesus, on the path to his own kingly glory and to bringing many sons to glory, accepted having this said about him, that he was a fool. He knew that his powerful enemies and the whole nation of the Jews would despise him and mock him, saying, ‘He trusted in God, that he would deliver him, if he delight in him.’ Trust, if not based on facts, is useless. But Jesus was willing to be called a fool, because he was not a fool. His mission was already declared by the prophets who spoke in the Old Testament, and he trusted that God would vindicate him as righteous and wise and worthy. Therefore, for good reason, he would humble himself lower than he deserved; and in lowering himself as a man, betrayed, beaten, stripped of all his clothes and hung upon an instrument of dishonour and death, he would become worthy to be the king of Israel and of all the nations of the world.

This is how he humbled himself in order to truly and spiritually make the worship of God clean, spotless, holy. On Friday morning, five days after today, Jesus was delivered by the Jews to the Roman governor, and by the Roman governor back to the Jews, and he came to the place where he took upon him all our sin and shame. He had taken the nature of man upon himself in order to deliver it from sin, to make it holy again; and now he was nailed to the wretched thing that the Romans used to kill criminals and slaves. As some Christians sing on that Good Friday,

Today he who hung the earth upon the waters is hung on the tree,
The King of the angels is decked with a crown of thorns.
He who wraps the heavens in clouds is wrapped in the purple of mockery.
He who freed Adam in the Jordan is slapped on the face.
The Bridegroom of the Church is affixed to the Cross with nails.
The Son of the virgin is pierced by a spear.

Why did Jesus do this? He knew that God’s promise to him was faithful and true. And so, being a man like us, he trusted in the justice of God. He trusted that the mockery of the bystanders saying, ‘He trusted in God,’ would be changed by God into a testimony of his worthiness. ‘Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.’

This is the path we must all take if we would see the glory of God, if we would have the seven seals of the book of God opened to our eyes. As people say, No guts, no glory. Weep no more, says the elder: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. When we say we follow Jesus, we must follow him in the path of the Cross, to be killed in the flesh with all its lusts for comfort and ease and power, so that our souls and bodies may be justified with him in glory.

And God, who is faithful and just, did not leave Jesus in the land of the dead. And I beheld, says John, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. Jesus had been slain, had been shamefully slaughtered before the eyes of all Jerusalem, but here he now stood in the midst of the throne of God, surrounded by the winged beasts and all Israel of the Old and New Testaments. His human body had been raised from the dead in glory, and 40 days later his human body had been lifted up to heaven, where he now stood. And here, in John’s vision by the Holy Spirit, the God-man Jesus came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Take part in the glory of Jesus. Accept, as he did, the shame and spitting of those who hate him. If you already love him, do not be afraid. If you live your life trusting in what he has done for you, you are there in heaven today when you worship him with your whole heart. God by his Holy Spirit lifts you up in Christ Jesus to those heavenly places where John saw this vision. If Jesus is the one you trust, you are there in heaven today with the four beasts and twenty-four elders. You have nothing to fear from the enemies of God, because the one you love is with you, and being despised and rejected like him will only make you partake of the glory into which God has transformed the Cross.

Jesus comes knocking at your door, and he has ridden up to Jerusalem today to cleanse the temple of your heart. He wants you to be able to worship him in the purity of truth, in the beauty of holiness. He humbled himself; he wants you to bend the knees of your heart and follow his humble path to the Cross. He wants you to die to yourself every day, that you may truly live. Every nation must bow before him, because the earth is his, and everything in it. As he says at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’ The reward, of knowing God and inheriting the earth with Jesus, is for those who humble themselves now because of the love he has humbly showed to us. As he said to the church in Philadelphia, so he says of his enemies and yours, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

Let us pray.
ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who, of thy tender love towards mankind, hast sent thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, to take upon him our flesh, and to suffer death upon the cross, that all mankind should follow the example of his great humility; Mercifully grant, that we may both follow the example of his patience, and also be made partakers of his resurrection; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Psalm of response: Psalm 130.

Advertisements

China: a Fourth Rome?

Last month Thermidor Magazine published my article on the idea of China as a fourth Rome (#China4thRome); my article was also picked up by Geopolitica. That was pretty cool. May the Lord direct the growth of his Church in China, and purify the saints there, that his Church may serve his purposes and not unwittingly those of Antichrist.

Flimsy Grounds for Dismissing Jason Reza Jorjani

My eyes are shot, enough that I donʼt believe I can take my final exams, but I thought I would post some comments from an email I sent a while ago, on a statement written by the history faculty of the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers University against Jason Reza Jorjani:

The entire statement is to denounce Jorjani’s ‘views on race’. I cannot feign knowledge of the details of Jorjani’s views on race, enough to judge his ability to ‘educate and evaluate [NJIT’s] students’. Some of the details given in the statement, however, are not to the purpose.

First, the ‘exposé’ cited is classified even by the New York Times as an opinion piece. Jorjani is there quoted as saying, ‘We will have a Europe, in 2050, where the bank notes have Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great. And Hitler will be seen like that: like Napoleon, like Alexander, not like some weird monster who is unique in his own category – no, he is just going to be seen as a great European leader.’ While I disagree with classing Hitler together with Napoleon and Alexander the Great, I also think no good is done by maintaining a mythos in which he is the one great unique man of Europe, ‘without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life’, whether favourably or unfavourably. Is it objectionable to glorify Hitler? For his objectionable deeds, aye. But I do not think Hitler’s genocidal behaviour toward Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and others unique. It is those who most strongly play up The Holocaust™ as a culture-defining mythic event that have most often find it useful to attribute to Hitler a quotation about the Armenians as a genocide no one remembered:

Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space [Lebensraum] which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

Indeed, I cannot see who still remains as a proper subject of guilt for The Holocaust™. The desire to foist it upon all White Europæans, and even upon all who can plausibly be called White (except Jews), is itself at least as despicable as the desire to rehabilitate Hitler for which the op-ed blames Jorjani.

Second, believing in differences in IQ distribution among broad population groups keeps no one from recognizing academic ability and achievement in students of all genetic and ethnic backgrounds.

Third, given most people’s firm support for keeping the likes of Peter Singer at Princeton, I cannot see how this quoted opinion of Jorjani’s is particularly problematic: ‘With the emerging technologies of embryo selection and genetic engineering, it would be possible, with the right leadership and government planning, to restore the pre-Arab and pre-Mongol genetic character of the majority of the Iranian population within only one or two generations.’ The implicit approval of abortion and related evils is objectionable, but that is not at all what the authors of the statement consider objectionable. Nor does it give any more reason to find Jorjani more inappropriate an instructor than Singer. A fortiori, if approval of abortion be insufficient to consider Jorjani unable to educate and evaluate students, so is approval of genetic engineering aimed at restoring a certain genetic character to a countryʼs population.

Marginalia on What?

In light of the impossibility of hope, I return to Dávila for Jerusalem.

Sang Calon Lân and Put It on YouTube

For YouTube, donʼt you think singing is easier than talking?

Symeon the New Theologian’s Account of Regeneration Agreeable to Reformed Theology?

symeon-nowy-teolog-autorzy-filokalii

The Byzantine monk Symeon the New Theologian, in Discourse 24.3, says that what unlocks the treasure enclosed and sealed up in the word of God, ‘eternal life together with the unutterable and eternal blessings which it contains’ (24.2), is God the Son himself, who has said, ‘He who loves me will keep my commandments, and my Father will love him, and I will reveal myself to him.’ The only way for the chest of knowledge to be opened, Symeon says expressly, that we may enjoy, partake of, and contemplate its good things, is for God to ‘[live] in us and [move] among us’, and perceptibly to reveal himself to us; thereupon we consciously contemplate the divine mysteries hidden in Scripture. These mysteries, says Symeon, consist in perfect love toward God and neighbour, contempt of visible things, mortification of the flesh. And it is in seeing immortality, incorruption, the kingdom of heaven, adoption as sons through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, that we indeed become sons by adoption and grace, and are called heirs of God and fellow-heirs of Christ.

But it is not clear to me whether Symeon sees this work of God himself – for he says no one but God can do it, since it is ultimately God and not the fulfilment of the commandments and the practice of the virtues that opens the door of knowledge – as being given all at once or over a protracted length of time, and how it is related to those works of ours. He does say it is by means of our fulfilling the commandments and practising the virtues (both given by God, as the commandments and the virtues) that God opens the door of knowledge to us, but he does not say explicitly how God uses these things to open the door. Instead, he contrasts those who enjoy the blessings and those who ‘lack the knowledge and experience of any of the things of which we have spoken’, who ‘have no taste of their sweetness, of the immortal life derived from them, since they lean on the mere study of the Scriptures’; for the latter ‘wish to commend themselves as though they were to be saved apart from the exact observance of Christ’s commandments, and so they altogether deny the power of the Holy Scriptures’. Nevertheless, by denying that our own fulfilment of the commandments and practice of the virtues is itself the power that opens the chest of treasure, Symeon seems to disclaim any notion of God’s respecting these things as meritorious works: they are instruments in some way, but God is the one who unlocks all these gifts to us when we cease to commend ourselves (trusting in our own meagre merits?) apart from the exact observance of Christ’s commandments, which is the true power of the Holy Scriptures!

To a Protestant, the expression here is unfamiliar, but the substance seems very much related to what Protestant divines held about regeneration in the broader sense. This intuition leads me to wonder how a Reformed scholastic such as John Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, might have interacted with the thought of Symeon the New Theologian on the topic of regeneration. In a letter to Samuel Ward, Master of Sydney Sussex College, Davenant does treat carefully and sometimes subtly of regeneration in relation to infant baptism and perseverance of the saints. In that letter, Davenant’s purpose is different, but his categories might fruitfully be brought to bear on Symeon’s somewhat mysterious account here of the way in which God enlightens the soul and thus unlocks the treasure borne by Scripture, a treasure that none can reach by commending themselves, but that God himself must unlock.

The Huguenots and Anglican Worship in Ireland: Lessons for Today?

Ruth Whelan, in ‘Sanctified by the Word: The Huguenots and Anglican Liturgy’, part of the edited volume Propagating the Word of Irish Dissent 1650–1800 (Four Courts Press Ltd, 1998), 74–94, gives us a look at the Huguenot refugee community in Ireland which complicates the picture often painted of French Protestants readily conforming to the established Anglican worship of the English-speaking countries in which they resettled. Though the French Protestants recognized the Church of Ireland and the Church of England as fellow Reformed churches, with whom they basically agreed in doctrine, differences in practice shaped differences in piety between them and Anglicans who conformed to the Book of Common Prayer. Practices that strictly were adiaphora (in themselves indifferent) were nevertheless, for much of the Huguenot refugee community, part of the Huguenots’ ethnoreligious identity.

The article also shows us some history that could be useful for dealing with the problem of Phyletism – which Wikipedia calls ‘the idea that a local autocephalous Church should be based not on a local [ecclesial] criterion, but on an ethnophyletist, national or linguistic one’ – as well as with the practical mess of the Byzantine communion’s overlapping ethnic-associated jurisdictions in America.

Appropriating Geʼez Music as Chinese?

Æthiopian music like this can probably be adapted into Chinese music. It already sounds similar.

Ramiro Ledesma Ramos: National Bolshevik (Part 2)

ramiro-ledesma-ramos-1905-1936

This is my [Lue-Yee Tsang’s] translation, done a while ago, of part 2 of a piece whose first part was translated in 2012. Since I don’t speak Spanish, some of my translation may be inexact, but I trust that my knowledge of English and linguistics is enough for me to have at least usefully conveyed the general sense of the Spanish original by Juan Antonio Llopart Senent.

Ramiro, Falange, and the Expulsion

On 13 February 1934 was concluded the merger agreement between the JONS of Ramiro and the FE [Falange Española] of José Antonio.

This union was born with strong discrepancies among the Jonsistas themselves. Within their bosom coexisted two positions: that of opposing such union for fear and distrust of the Falangists, considering them too right, and that of accepting the agreement with the Falangists, believing that both organizations would be strengthened and enriched. The choice that prevailed was the second. As soon as he was informed of the decision of the Jonsista Council, the JONS Galician leader, the former communist Santiago Montero Diaz, sent a letter to Ramiro resigning from the organization.

Thus, a merger took shape that was marked by dissension. In fact, no one can deny that within the FE there were excessively rightist nuclei with relevant strength in the movement.

But it is also true that some within FE also had reservations before the merger; for let us not forget that in their bosom coexisted monarchists, rightwingers, true revolutionaries, and a certain other future Carlist militant, Ricardo Rada. The main concern of the Falangists was the strong social burden imposed by the Jonsistas, especially their economic radicalism: what they feared was the proletarianization of the FE.

It should here be remembered that one of the points of the merger between the JONS and the Falange Española stated the following: ‘It is considered essential that the new Movement insist on forging a political personality that does not lend itself to confusion with right-wing groups.’

On February 16 was released the first issue of La Patria Libre. Ramiro, along with other old Jonsistas, had parted company with the Falange Española. With this new publication they tried to enter the political breach from the anti-bourgeois and national-syndicalist revolutionary angle of the primitive JONS.

The supporters of the ‘Joseantonian truth’ did not waver, nor did they hesitate, to discredit Ramiro, to bury him in the most fallacious criticism. He was accused of being envious, he was ridiculed by José Antonio himself when he warned about certain ‘revolutionaries’ in allusion to Ramiro’s pronouncement of errors. In most books on National Syndicalism written by Falangists, Ramiro is considered a secondary player in National Syndicalism, to whom the trail is lost after the split-up because of the Falangists’ expulsion [sic].

Thus we find statements like this one by Francisco Bravo: ‘Ramiro could not behave with sufficient decorum.’ The Francoist Ximénez de Sandoval points out, ‘Ledesma had the mistaken concept of believing that a National Revolution needed the type of proletarian leader … to possess the right creative arrogance.’ But if there is someone who deserves a comment, it is Raimundo Fernández Cuesta, one of the main culprits of the Falange’s rightwinging for so many years, the main lackey of the pro-Franco Falange and the one who united the Falange elbow to elbow with the most reactionary far right during the Spanish transition; this subject says in a letter dated 9 February 1942, ‘The episode of expulsion [sic] of Ramiro has its origin in the personal envy he felt for José Antonio, born perhaps of differences of origin, environment, and education. It was the expression in the Falange of the class struggle, which in Spain threatened all activities. That, along with Ramiro’s difficult economic situation, made him fit to be an instrument of right-wing parties, who wanted to sow tares in our ranks.’ In short, Ramiro, the third national leader of the Falange Española, the founder and principal theoretician of the National-Syndicalism, was but an envious and poor man who had been bought by the rightists to provoke the ruin of the Falangist movement.

There are numerous opinions about Ramiro’s split, but perhaps it would be more correct to read what Ramiro himself said about the split: ‘Whoever believes that our break with the Falange Española was due to mere whim and that it lacked deep dimensions is gravely mistaken. We, the Jonsistas, observed the limitations mentioned, clearly saw that the time had come for radical changes in orientation, tactics, and leaders; and since none of this could be achieved there, we gave new life to the JONS.’

For some time, the verbal and even physical confrontations between some thugs of the FE and the Jonsista followers of Ramiro were constant. ‘There is not a day when any of the leaders of the JONS are not provoked on the street by one of the ten or twelve wage-earning ruffians available to [Primo de Rivera],’ ‘the attacks that the Falangist leaders have launched against those of the JONS are themselves, we have said and we repeat, of ruffian beings, of residual beings, who live beyond all moral solvency and every clean purpose.’

Francisco Bravo himself acknowledges in his book José Antonio: The Man, the Leader, the Comrade, that the sale and distribution of La Patria Libre was hounded by the Falangists, while affirming that ‘José Antonio prevented any of us, excited by the unjust attacks on the founder of the JONS, from sticking him with a shot’ (83). It’s a shame that Bravo does not tell us who of ‘his’ was trigger-happy about the Jonsista leader.

Ramiro never wanted to respond to the Falangist attacks, and whenever he was forced to do so, he did so in the pages of La Patria Libre.

The truth is that Ramiro, together with Onesimo Redondo, Manuel Mateo, and Álvarez de Sotomayor, had met in the Fuyma cafeteria to discuss the situation of the FE de las JONS. At that meeting, both Onesimus and Matthew pointed out the need to do something, since the situation was distressing. According to Martínez de Bedoya, ‘José Antonio was surrounded by gentlemen, who occupied positions, jealous of their competences, and who even had fixed salaries.’ The decision of the four assembled was to separate from the Falange Española and reorganize the JONS. For this, Mateo guaranteed the stalwart support of the CONS (Central National-Syndicalist Labor Union), which together with the backing of the strongest delegation, the Valladolid of Onesimo Redondo, gave a certain confidence of success. But in fact, once Ramiro was convinced, who of the four was the most reticent toward the separation, only Álvarez de Sotomayor ended up supporting what was decided there. Mateo defected and was named (as a reward?) as head of the CONS by José Antonio.

Onesimo Redondo decided at the last minute to remain under the orders of José Antonio, forgetting the agreement with Ramiro. Was this a strategy of the Falangists to separate Ramiro and his immediate collaborators from the organization? Few were those who followed Ramiro – Martinez de Bedoya, Gutiérrez Palma, Poblador – and Montero Diaz rejoined the fight. But what really mattered was that the banner of revolutionary National Syndicalism was raised again.

Ramiro continued his political activity, and neither the attacks on his militants by the Falangists, nor the assault on his social premises at Calle Amaniel in Madrid by troublemakers commanded by Aznar and Valcárcel, nor the constant reproaches, made a dent in him and his comrades.

One must also point out, however, that Ramiro was never very well regarded by the Joseantonians, and we know that this assertion will anger the ‘purists’ of the Falange. But the truth is that, without Ramiro, National Syndicalism would not exist, and that is the truth. José Antonio helped give shape to National Syndicalism – essentially during the last months of 1935, and until they put out his life on 20 November 1936 – but without the settlement and foundation of Ramiro, the Falange would have been no more than a vulgar ultrarightist organization.

It would be unfair not to accept criticism of Ramiro, for it is undoubtedly true that everyone goes wrong sometimes. But when these criticisms are biased or when these attacks toward him only show a deep ignorance of their ideas, it is not only regrettable but condemnable.

Thus, in the journal Sindicalismo in which Sigfredo Hillers de Luque collaborated, there appears in the chapter ‘Talks of the Joyful Ball’ a section entitled ‘The Syndicalism of Ramiro Ledesma Ramos’ – this article appears reproduced 28 years later, without any type of comment or correction in number 22, corresponding to the months of May–July 1992 for the journal No Importa, organ of the Falange Española Independiente, so I think they approve what is there expressed – in which the following is affirmed: ‘The National Syndicalism of Ramiro Ledesma and that of José Antonio in 1935 have little or nothing to do with each other … the separation of Ramiro from the Falange, regardless of the personal problems (which there were, and which are supposed to explain everything), was undoubtedly due to the fact that Jose Antonio and Ramiro, still speaking with the same words, wanted different things. … Vis-à-vis the progressive fascist radicalization of Ramiro is the progressive syndicalist radicalization of José Antonio.’ It is a Falangist opinion, of course, but lacking any credibility in what concerns the progressive fascism of Ramiro, which he does not hesitate to say, ‘No longer do they [the Jonsists] pretend that he [Ramiro] and his comrades, organized fascism, even remotely. What there was of fascism in the old JONS is today collected by Primo de Rivera, above all in his last propaganda. They understand that their mission is something else’ (123).

Image

John of Damascus and Æternal Subordination of the Son

ess-memes

Degeneracy Is Just Not the Same as It Used to Be

Because Hong Kong in those days did it better.

Any Thing, Any Time, Any Where

Fear God, and what else shall you fear? Shall you fear armies or the wrath of the king? Is the Lord your stumbling-block or your sanctuary? Isaiah 8.

Holy Mount Cælestial

Now back to Zion goes the pilgrim’s eye,
Translating holy leaves into Chinese,
The sages for Aquinas. Riding high,
He circumambulates the Dipper’s keys.

Around the four directions goes his sign,
Yet stays where northern lights have made their home,
Facing the south, where province-cauldrons nine
Are come to offer to the lord of Rome.

For this is where we find Jerusalem,
And holy Zion in the pious heart;
This is the dwelling, faith the bosom’s gem,
Where Holy Ghost and Holy Church ne’er part.

By faith is fair Jeshurun in Cathay,
A promised temple for a coming day.

Having Children Study the Bible

St John Chrysostom

St John Chrysostom on having children study the Bible, in a homily on Ephesians 6.1–4:

Don’t say, ‘Bible-reading is for monks; am I turning my child into a monk?’ No! It isn’t necessary for him to be a monk. Make him into a Christian! Why are you afraid of something so good? It is necessary for everyone to know Scriptural teachings, and this is especially true for children. Even at their age they are exposed to all sorts of folly and bad examples from popular entertainments. Our children need remedies for all these things! We are so concerned with our children’s schooling; if only we were equally zealous in bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord! And then we wonder why we reap such bitter fruit when we have raised our children to be insolent, licentious, impious, and vulgar. May this never happen; instead, let us heed the blessed Paul’s admonition to bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Let us give them a pattern to imitate; from their earliest years let us teach them to study the Bible.

Having just come back from the 2017 Thematic Bible Conference in Princeton, I heartily approve. Even children can learn through inductive Bible studies to study the word of God for themselves, and even older high-schoolers should learn to make ready and lead a systematically inductive Bible study. It can be done, if only we will get it done by faith.

Dissolution of Parliament

One wonders how often such a measure, to prævent treasonable dissension and ensure lawful stability – thus creating law where law might not be – would be of use. Those who are committed to the ideology of liberal democracy, of course, will probably be horrified at such a prospect. But I think it ought not to be ruled out; nor in these times, with the New World Order liberal system showing its fragility, is it wise to double down on ideas that have not stood the test of time.