Author Topic: Prince Charles (Read 1953 times)

Jitpring · « **on:** March 12, 2012, 12:47:11 PM »

The apostate Rod Dreher thinks Prince Charles is a traditionalist:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/philosopher-prince/

Quote: "He is an anti-modernist to the marrow."

Really? What do you think?

Graham · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2012, 01:03:31 PM »

What's he doing being Anglican? Convert that man.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2012, 01:36:43 PM »

Prince Charles is a Freemason and is scuм. He's no "traditionalist".

Jitpring · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2012, 01:42:55 PM »

I've been banned from commenting on Dreher's articles. It would be great if some members here would analyze his debased conception of traditionalism.

Graham · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2012, 01:59:54 PM »

You sure get banned a lot. :roll-laugh2:

Jitpring · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:07:58 PM »

Quote from: Graham

You sure get banned a lot. :roll-laugh2:

True! :dancing-banana:

PereJoseph · « **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2012, 04:11:13 PM »

Fascinating. I knew of Charles's activities, but I had no idea how intellectually consistent and astute he was. I suppose I was silly to ever suspect otherwise, given the education and access that comes with his position. It makes me more hopeful about the future of the British Isles, certainly ! I would like to say a few things here about how philosophical traditionalism/perennialism's merits, but I don't want to re-open the other thread (either "WASP Baggage" or "Inter-racial mixing, &c.") during Lent, as I just do not have the time for that conversation. In any case, suffice it to say that many of the aims and positions and attitudes of these people align with my own and with, I think, the sensus fidei of the Mystical Body of Christ. That being said, if they are looking for cosmic integration, they should abandon anything that removes them from Christ the King, including their Nietszchean-tinted protests against Christianity. After all, the Church already defeated Julian the Apostate; if we want to restore the world and save souls, we do not need his latter-day heralds echoing repeating the essence of his beliefs today.

Wessex · « **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2012, 07:46:01 PM »

The best of the aristocratic bunch that still have a voice in Europe. He was born in an age of transition and can from experience compare the old with the new. I doubt his children will be saying the same things; their world in common with that of most of their generation is the world of hedonism their father both despises and enjoys. But does Charles represent the views of the common man otherwise they will end up being the preserve of an ignored group overdosed on nostalgics. The man in the street views the green agenda as an expensive imposition; ditto the organic fads; fine architecture is ignored on holiday in favour of boxed-in bathing pools on the beach; is ignorant of all religion and views Islam as an immigration scam; and has been shoe-horned into a self-perpetuating economic and social system constitutionally rubber-stamped by the House of Windsor. Some of his personal views may be laudable even if denounced by his critics as standard reationary fare but he is alas trapped between the largely indifferent dumbed-down masses and their masters now at the helm of corporate Britain. The future official role of Charles will be to pretend that he heads a hierarchy that protects the well-being of all ...... not to believe it and act accordingly!

WhollyRoaminCatholic · « **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:12:45 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Prince Charles is a Freemason and is scuм. He's no "traditionalist".

I think you misunderstand the broader uses of the word "traditionalist".

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:17:56 AM »

I'm unclear how his 'green' polemics, or his anti-population sentiments would qualify as traditional beliefs (either lower case 't' or capital 'T')

PereJoseph · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2012, 11:44:45 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

I'm unclear how his 'green' polemics... would qualify as traditional beliefs (either lower case 't' or capital 'T')

I don't see how they don't. What's un-traditional about them -- about opposing the degradation of the land and believing that it should be preserved and respected ? (For the record, I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change and so forth.) Anyway, the idea that man is no longer the steward of Our Lord's creation is new; the Enlightenment and, before that, the Renaissance, certainly seem to have created a fissure between man and nature, whereas before there seems to be an instinctive respect and love for the land and the animals, which God made, since it is necessary for them to be healthy for mankind's survival and flourishing and because their health constitute the working order of God's creation as well the way by which He shows us many of His mysteries and His beauty.

In the Middle Ages, it was a commonplace to say that the Scriptures and Creation were "the two garments of the Divinity." Since the rise of urban living as the Middle Ages passed into corruption and eventually devolved into the Renaissance, forests and nature -- which the Benedictines, Carmelites, and Franciscans saw as places of meditation --
were no longer seen as imbued with holy mysteries that can be learned if one is quiet enough and of a sufficiently upright heart; no, now the forests and animals were considered terrible and stupid, a giant resource machine that can be manipulated arbitrarily for man's profit and which, otherwise, is threatening and cursed, in need of being plowed up or else turned into a town, where 'reason' and 'order' alone prevail. (Notice that the order of nature itself is no longer appreciated, but it requires a man of a sufficiently humanistic background to give nature the order it needs.)

The early Romans revered natured, but as the cities grew and the Roman republic was succeeded by the Empire, the old Roman ethic of reverence was replaced with hatred for the land. This, precisely -- as well as the nominalism and Jansenism that saw nothing but corruption and disorder in nature -- is the belief system that rose again with the Renaissance, Protestantism, Jansenism, Scientism, Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution. It has led to the utter destruction of most lands and their replacement with mills and factories and dams; fresh food has been manipulated and treated with chemicals, and the natural balance of things has been scorned. Now, the great masters of nature -- who believe themselves separate from it rather than the stewards who sit at the top of the hierarchy but indeed are embedded within it -- have immune systems that are not functioning properly because of antibiotics and preservatives in their food, or else the great conquerors are obese and cannot even accomplish basic functions that, in a less luxurious setting, would be required for survival. (The prospect of widespread power failure and lack of antibiotics -- or a virulent epidemic that has adapted to be immune to antibiotics -- drive this point home.)

Anyway, the laws of nature -- which are expressions of Holy Wisdom -- cannot be ignored. The longer they are, the more those who ignore them go into nature's debt. One day, she will collect. It would be better for man to realise his limitations, and place himself once again within the bounds of the natural order which Our Lord has set for him. Otherwise, man in his pride will only secure for himself future death and destruction and chaos. Already having cut himself off from the beauty of the sacramental universe except, perhaps, in an abstract and academic sort of way, it follows that the disorder he has sown will be used to humble him through an equally serious punishment.

If that is not a traditional attitude, I don't know what is. To the extent that Charles shares those sentiments, I don't see how he is being 'un-traditional.' His enthusiasm for population control, on the other hand, is a different story.

Prophecy of Daniel Chapter III

[57] All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [58] O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [59] O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [60] O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[61] O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [62] O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [63] O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [64] O every shower and dew, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [65] O all ye spirits of God, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[66] O ye fire and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [67] O ye cold and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [68] O ye dews and hoar frosts, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [69] O ye frost and cold, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [70] O ye ice and snow, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[71] O ye nights and days, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [72] O ye light and darkness, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [73] O ye lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [74] O let the earth bless the Lord: let it praise and exalt him above all for ever. [75] O ye mountains and hills, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[76] O all ye things that spring up in the earth, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [77] O ye fountains, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [78] O ye seas and rivers, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [79] O ye whales, and all that move in the waters, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [80] O all ye fowls of the air, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[81] O all ye beasts and cattle, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [82] O ye sons of men, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Busillis · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2012, 01:19:14 PM »

He's a "regular visitor" at Mt. Athos: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3707317.stm

Don't know if he's a conservative. That term is so vague that I don't think it means much.

edit: or "traditionalist"

clare · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2012, 03:50:20 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Prince Charles is a Freemason ...

Apparently he's not.

Quote

Prince Charles has had great pressure put upon him to become a Freemason. He has refused point blank saying, "I do not wish to join any secret society."

Source

Graham · « **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2012, 04:10:40 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: Iuvenalis
I'm unclear how his 'green' polemics... would qualify as traditional beliefs (either lower case 't' or capital 'T')

I don't see how they don't. What's un-traditional about them -- about opposing the degradation of the land and believing that it should be preserved and respected ? (For the record, I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change and so forth.) Anyway, the idea that man is no longer the steward of Our Lord's creation is new; the Enlightenment and, before that, the Renaissance, certainly seem to have created a fissure between man and nature, whereas before there seems to be an instinctive respect and love for the land and the animals, which God made, since it is necessary for them to be healthy for mankind's survival and flourishing and because their health constitute the working order of God's creation as well the way by which He shows us many of His mysteries and His beauty.

In the Middle Ages, it was a commonplace to say that the Scriptures and Creation were "the two garments of the Divinity." Since the rise of urban living as the Middle Ages passed into corruption and eventually devolved into the Renaissance, forests and nature -- which the Benedictines, Carmelites, and Franciscans saw as places of meditation --
were no longer seen as imbued with holy mysteries that can be learned if one is quiet enough and of a sufficiently upright heart; no, now the forests and animals were considered terrible and stupid, a giant resource machine that can be manipulated arbitrarily for man's profit and which, otherwise, is threatening and cursed, in need of being plowed up or else turned into a town, where 'reason' and 'order' alone prevail. (Notice that the order of nature itself is no longer appreciated, but it requires a man of a sufficiently humanistic background to give nature the order it needs.)

Culminating in the philosophy of Mechanism, which saw animals and plants, indeed nature herself, as intricate machines, emptied of sanctity, emptied of God, as per the related philosophy of Deism. But Christian thought has always spoken of plants and animals as ensouled and even in communication with angels. Many of us have acquired a modern mechanistic habit of thought, which leaves us feeling that 'environmentalism' can be nothing but sentimentalism, new age fluff, or misanthropic extremism, when in fact love and respect for nature are, as it were, strictly logical consequences of our worldview.