Anyway, one thing that I found particularly interesting in the docuмentary was the hospitality.  I was told by a convert from Turkey that we could convert so many Arab and Middle Eastern gas station attendants and so forth if we invited them into our homes for a meal on a feast day, since they would understand and appreciate the hospitality.  She said that that is how she first met the Christ, was through the hospitality of an English Catholic family that invited the Mohammedan students at one of the universities in England out to their country homes for Mass, meals, and fellowship on the weekends.  

In the Middle Ages and Late Antiquity, Christians were renowned for this hospitality to strangers, believing that they might, as the saying goes, be welcoming angels in disguise.  When did this change, and why ?  What about the social attitudes of Catholics caused so many in Western countries to no longer be so generous or trusting ?  Nowadays, people say there are threats, that people might be criminals or perverts.  Given the state of society today, I don't blame people for saying this, and I am certainly wary for the same reasons.  The again, wasn't this always a risk ?  If only welcoming people you already know and trust fully counts as hospitality, where's the virtue in it ?

There does seem to be a difference, however, between older times and today.  In former times, there were often many travelers, pilgrims, or people going along their way for whatever reason, especially in mountainous areas and grasslands.  This doesn't seem to be the case as much, now; most of the regular travelers would sleep in their cars or at motels.  The poor often spend time socialising with the denizens of the immoral districts of larger cities.  I would, of course, bitterly regret bringing somebody into my home if he would hurt or scandalise my family.  Many people would think I were crazy; but is this really the virtuous mentality ?  It's a tough problem to sort out.

Ultimately, however, my mission on Vladimir's thread here is to determine what exactly the nature of our crisis and corruption is.  If we do not know the heights from which we have fallen and where we have been, how do we know where we are going ?  What, precisely, would the restoration of the Kingship of Christ look like ?  What is the Church capable of making her own ?  What are the problems the Church faces today, not only the obvious infiltration by liberalism and the Robber Council, but the political and social problems that were the root of this liberal sickness of the heart ?  The investigation could easily get too big for this forum, much less this thread, since we would be covering issues related to the histories, present state, and possible futures of China, Russia, Japan, India, the Middle East, the EU, the US, the British Commonwealth, Africa, Central Asia, and the South American sub-continent in the context of international relations and two hundred years of social turmoil.  This thread is more modest, focussing on the Far East and its natural goods, how they could be embraced by the Church and possibly have their lessons applied elsewhere.

I imagine that the Reign of Mary would include a vigorous practice of hospitality by Catholics again.  Does the Christian hospitality of the Middle Ages and the Mongolian hospitality of the steppe necessitate smaller cities and more culturally homogenous societies, or is that an excuse ?  The answer is probably somewhere in between, but I think it's something to think about.

I would be interested to see what Graham thinks about all of this.

I appreciate the disclaimer and will keep in mind when viewing.  Thank you, PereJoseph!
I fear we are inured to offense, bombarded everywhere with all forms of pornography (in this sense of the definition: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>.)  
Perhaps because we are so desensitized, we've dumbed down our standards, and some may judge your disclaimer as extreme?

Who knew that Stalin made HORSES ILLEGAL???

The poor people lost their ability to function without this noble animal.  It seems to have been replaced with vodka.

No offense, but given everything I've said on this forum, I think that this statement of yours just sounds like paranoid silliness.

Well, I'd rather be inclined to paranoid silliness than pompous silliness. Do you think of the Index or the Holy Office as being somehow "paranoid seriousness"?  Holy Mother Church has always been solicitous of her children wandering away from salvation, so certain guidelines were established.

I've admitted that perhaps I just don't understand where you are coming from. I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I've never heard any one claim on an internet forum that it would be necessary to follow their whole body of work on the forum to get an idea what they are talking about.

I threw in Merton because he seemed to be the predominant example of what too great an enthusiasm for the Far East might lead one. But, perhaps, you are not familiar with his tragic life story and fall from grace.

Two things that will be dealt with in two separate posts.  First, this thought of mine from the "White Power" thread is pertinent to this Far East thread, specifically the underlined portions :

"Furthermore, Indo-European Japhethites clearly have the authority to protect and preserve their own nations and races from being erased or dissolved, and this for the same reason that any race does.  In fact, I think this is eminently desirable and good.  Our Lord clearly chose the Roman Empire for a reason, given the amount of structure and cultural inheritance that the Church Militant has used as the flesh for the Faith.  Catholic culture is also Roman culture, as only a basic familiarity ancient Roman history, culture, and institutions makes painfully obvious.  The Church is uniquely Roman in its culture and organisational structure as well as the language by which it articulates its mind and has taught the nations.  It is Hellenic, of course, too, and in a special way due to most of the Gospels and Epistles being originally written and preached the most in this language and according to the thought and genius of the Greeks.  

The appropriation of these cultures is unique and can never be replicated in the same way, except perhaps for the premium cultural incarnation of the mind of God in a covenant, that of the ancient Semites descending from the son of Noe through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then becoming the Hebrews in Egypt and eventually the Israelites before becoming Judaeans.  Obviously this culture and legacy is at the core of the Faith, as we see in the Mass, the priesthood (of Melchizedech), the symbolism of the church building, and in the entire context from which the life of Our Lord derives its meaning.  In any case, the Roman heritage of the Church -- which consists chiefly in the Church's whole-hearted and irrevocable use of Roman customs and language for even the most sacred rites -- is different than all others.  Apparently, in God's eyes, the Romans were the best and greatest people for the accomplishment of the Church's mission.  That seems self-evident to me.

Yes, the Church has vested herself with cultural elements from other peoples, exceptionally the Celts and Germanics, but these elements, I would argue, are not at the core of Christianity in the way that the Roman, Greek, and Old Testament cultures are.  That is not to say that they are not real contributions and that they should be done away with, of course, but I don't see how they are appreciably different than the Church's use of Confucius might be, nor how the use of Aristotle for an ethics based on teleology and realism is substantially different than, say, a future use of Confucius as a basis for fleshing out the way of keeping virtuous relationships.  I think that many people take the experience of Germanic and Celtic cultures in the modern period (the last five hundred years) and, for lack of any readily apparent alternative, exalt them to an idolatrous level out of reaction to real damage being done to the social order.  I fault them for this, but I can understand it and have sympathised with it myself in the past. "


Perhaps somebody could comment on that line of thinking, suggest it is on the right track or is flawed ?  Maybe it's stupid.  Think about it.  I would be especially interested in Vladimir's input on this thread.  I have not really studied Confucius, but I like most of what I have read (with obvious exceptions, of course).

Listen, you seem to be assuming something about my positions or mindset such that you think it is pertinent to ask me whether or not I believe in the principle of censorship and its practice by the Church.  I have no idea where your thought process could have begun, based on anything I have written, that would lead you to ask such things.  Thus, it seems to me that you are making rash judgments based on a poor comprehension of these very few posts of mine in this thread alone.  I am advising you to know more about my or anybody's posting history before making such assumptions.  Nothing I have written, I believe, justifies treating me as if I were heterodox.  You seem to have an unfounded suspicion about my orthodoxy, however, despite nothing in this thread suggesting heterodoxy.

I don't believe I have "treated you as if [you] were heterodox". (I have wheels and chains downstairs in the dungeons that I use for that.  :furtive:)

Questions are always fair play in a venue like this. Your hair trigger move from question to accusation surprises me.

In any case, we are mostly in agreement about items, so I suggest we not overdo rattling our cages.  I have no knowledge of Japhethites so please feel free to continue your presentation without bother from me.