What on Earth is an Avalonian?

Avalonian Triple Cross

Avalonian Triple Cross

Over on the right-hand side of the website, you’ll find a new link to our “Avalonian Societies” page. Should you have any questions about them which aren’t answered either by the page or by this post, we encourage you to ask in a comment on this post and we’ll try our best to explain the reasoning behind “our” call for the rejection of the “American” identity altogether in favor of this radical alternative.

Death to America

The American Revolutionary War was a regicidal revolt of greedy merchants against throne and altar, a Masonic plot contrived by wealthy peasants and Jews contemptuous of traditional aristocracy and ecclesiastical stewardship. To the extent that the founders and the founding generation were Christian, European, and virtuous, it was the extent to which they had failed to fully develop and manifest their vaunted ideals of freedom, egalitarianism, materialism, secularism, and all else mercantile. While the founding generation happened to be White, and more or less retained a sense of racial identity for a few generations, there was no meaningful commitment to our European identity, only a lingering collection of biases and demographic realities of the time.

“America” is antithetical to faith, family, and folk. It always has been, and it always will be. To the extent that it has appeared to align with these things in the past, they’ve been unprincipled exceptions to a metaphysical vision and metapolitical order in which the “pursuit of happiness” is more sacred and cherished. Unlike our European sister identities abroad who have legitimate traditional identities within easy reach, we do not. This is not to say that we as a people are uniquely devoid of identity, or that our identity is integrally decadent and mercantile. Our traditional identity is within reach, as well. We must, however, reach a bit further back in time.

Those who object to embracing a new and distinct identity on the grounds of practicality are the ones being impractical, refusing to grasp the full nature and scope of our identity crisis, the futility of half-measures and half-hearted reforms, and the limited time remaining. To be bold and direct is what’s practical in this circumstance. This is not a democratic mass-movement targeting the comfortable and “moderate” middle-class, and it’s not designed to promote good digestion in those who aren’t prepared to shake their identities to their very roots. It’s designed by and for a vanguard of radical crusaders prepared to vote with their hearts, minds, and souls; and if necessary, their fists and their lives.

The Avalonian Faith

Before the Great Schism of 1054, European Christendom was united, with a coherent and Christian and aristocratic worldview and social order. It’s this medieval and chivalric Western Christianity, what we refer to as Arthurian Christianity, which we’re rolling back to. It’s not a new Christian denomination, but rather a retreat back from a millennium of error and corruption to the original faith of our ancient forefathers. It will be Orthodox, and in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which has been preserved in the East. We must be mindful to avoid bringing politics, controversy, or persecution into the parishes, humbly returning to the Faith as individuals joining whichever parishes are most accessible and accommodating.

The Avalonian vision eventually entails having a national Church in which throne and altar are united in Symphonia, reviving the ancient Western Rite mass of our ancient forefathers. These goals are, however, distant and secondary to the far more important preliminary goal of becoming Orthodox in faith, philosophy, and culture, immersing ourselves in the works of the Church Fathers, and studying the lives of the Saints. Conversion to Orthodoxy and study of Orthodoxy is the most important part of our work, because it’s central to the Greater Crusade, the one which takes place within ourselves, to uproot the decadence and Modernity festering within each one of us. This transformation, this Death to the Self, necessarily precedes political and cultural transformation.

The Avalonian Culture

A critical difference between a mere “conservative” and a “traditionalist” is that the former is sentimental, taking refuge in aesthetics, even when the aesthetics are devoid of essence. A vital culture is one which doesn’t consciously strive to look and behave in a certain way, but rather one which happens to behave that way as a product of genuine differences in disposition and principle. The Avalonian won’t try to pull off an anachronistic Renaissance Fair vibe, but will assuredly over time prove outwardly distinct from the Americans he leaves behind as his inculcation of an integrally Christian worldview and practice of traditional chivalric virtue transforms him into an Avalonian who is on–but not of–this Earth.

The Orthodox Christian spirituality must be suffused with a collection of themes and dreams unique to our people. The Arthurian Cycle provides a great reference point for reviving the morals and habits of Western Europe’s antique Christian culture. The myth of the messianic return of King Arthur and the romantic notion of North America as Avalon provide the poetic inspiration for our contemporary political work. Embedded within the Matter of Britain lies an allegorical vision pointing us in the direction of victory. We need only grasp that goal and transform ourselves into men and women capable of achieving it.

The Avalonian Struggle

In the several years that we have maintained active Avalonian societies undergirding much of the visible work being achieved, multiple people who’ve been introduced to the idea have proclaimed, with more than a little concern, that we’re “…basically like Al Qaeda, but Christian!” Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that we’ve undergone (and continue to undergo) personal transformations like jihadis do where we are prepared to live and die for our faith, family, and folk. We cherish human life and reject terrorism and beheading of innocents, so we’re not like ISIS in that sense. In the tactical context of hyper-militarized post-industrial America, the Outer Crusade against our enemies typically involves more mundane sacrifices than a suicide bomber might make, namely gladly suffering workplace harassment, social scorn, financial marginalization, and such.

Avalon vs. TradYouth

Avalon actually precedes TradYouth, which now happens to be hosting Avalon’s introductory material. TradYouth won’t change, and will continue to exist as a broad and ecumenical network of identitarians of every identity and Radical Traditionalists participating in a wide range of traditions. Other projects are welcome to leverage the site’s chapter, group, and forum functionality for their own tribal and traditional initiatives. The whole point of tribalism is to find and embrace a living tribe, just as the whole point of traditionalism is to find and embrace a living tradition. We aim to facilitate that universally.

The Traditionalist Youth Network will continue to perform the function it was created for, which is to introduce high school and college-aged youths to tribalism and traditionalism as alternatives to the individualism, multiculturalism, and materialism they’re inundated with by the system. TradYouth has hosted the views of non-Orthodox, non-Christians, and even non-Whites. And it will continue to do so, though we Avalonians aren’t going to censor or muffle ourselves to help others feel more welcome. Others are certainly welcome, though they’re encouraged to raise their voices to match our volume rather than expecting us to tone ourselves down.


Peter Erickson

Thank you for announcing this exciting new venture.

There’s one sentence in your otherwise very clear prose that left me confused:

“In lieu of clergy who are currently comfortable with or even tolerant of our worldly political goals due to the potential threat of controversy and persecution, legionnaires must necessarily muddle through the rather murky ecclesiastical circumstances of the Orthodox Church’s myriad archdioceses and ethnic parishes in the United States as humble individuals.”

You can’t possibly mean that “legionnaires” are to take the place of the clergy; I’m assuming that “in lieu of” here means “in the absence of guidance from.” And what does the “our” refer to here? Americans in general? And I don’t get the logic of being “comfortable” as a result of a “potential threat”.

Forgive my nitpicking. I only do it because these are such important matters, and I am seriously interested in and favorably disposed towards the Avalonian Societies.


You’re right. That sentence is a mess.

I’ve updated the post, replacing it with, “We must be mindful to avoid bringing politics, controversy, or persecution into the parishes, humbly returning to the Faith as individuals joining whichever parishes are most accessible and accommodating.”

I certainly am not speaking of creating our own clergy or politically engaging the church. Our political fight within the church can and should be limited to ensuring that Avalonian identitarians aren’t denied communion because of their ethnic identities. Ironically, this is textbook ethnophyletism masquerading as anti-ethnophyletism. It’s also politically expedient cowardice masquerading as Church Tradition; as if Scripture or the Church Fathers would have singled out one sub-race of man (Western Europeans) for whom ethnic pride is a grave and intolerable sin, while confirming that it’s a virtue to be encouraged and celebrated for the rest of mankind.


The best way, the only way to solve social problems is through the church. Government welfare programs take from the workers (whites) and give to the non workers (drug dealing, drug using blacks). Since the 1960’s we have thrown away over a trillion dollars on affirmative action programs. Black IQ’s are as low now as in the 1800’s.


Agreed, though it’s not just about race and IQ. The bottom line is that there’s no way to automate altruism, and attempts to achieve that prerogative categorically, as a flat mathematical matter of game theory,will always result in decadence, exploitation, and dereliction. Charity and welfare which aren’t administered by directly present human beings with a coherent ethical framework will eventually, given enough time, harm more than help.

Devolving charity and welfare to the local parish level (without reducing its volume) is the elegant and sustainable solution.

Fr. John+

By the blood of the Martyrs, and for the return of King Arthur! The first time I heard “Jerusalem” by Parry, I cried tears. Two summers ago, while driving through the Lake Country, I came upon an open C of E parish, with a tapstry of a young Man with the vales and hills of the very church valley behind him, and the notes embroidered on the tapestry of that same hymn.

When I read C.S. Lewis’ ‘Space Trilogy’ and read of the return of Arthur, and the simple phrase, “Why do you think you are called Ransom,’ my heart leapt in my breast.

Today, I have experienced once again, hope and joy for my people, my land, my language and culture, and for the restoration of Christendom.

May God applaud your efforts. May He crown us with success. And may we confound the enemy.
“Live in peace with your enemies, but only your personal enemies, and NOT the Enemies of God.”- St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves Lavra

Gavin James Campbell

I am happy to inform you that “Jerusalem” by William Blake was his call for England to become a democratic republic. That this is so can be seen from the facts that Blake arranged for “The Rights of Man” by Thomas Paine to be published in England, and that he was also a member of The Friends of the French Revolution.

The joke is on you, John, to whom I will never address as father, seeing that you are not in any way a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am indifferent, however. To me, Blake was a painter of novelties and a writer of gibberish.


As someone who has recently exited the Reformed tradition to become a catechumen in a western rite parish, these Avolonian Societies are quite intriguing to me. There’s so much decadence and incoherence masquerading as culture in our society that the task before us is to show our people the beacon’s on the path of salvation. These societies can be such a beacon. You point out that the Death to Self must precede any sort of political and cultural transformation. This is a crucial truth to digest.

Thank you for this.


One quality of this path forward which I’m especially fond of is how scalable it is. Even if this falls flat as a popular movement, it’s a great transformation for an individual or family to embark upon. This project has been going on in private for years, and the few of us who’ve been in the loop have all become stronger Christians and more reliable opponents of decadence and degeneration as a result.

I don’t expect the majority of “White Nationalists” to take to this before seeing how catalyzing it is, for precisely the reason you suggested. Acknowledging that the first and most important step in our political work is identifying and repairing what’s spiritually wrong with ourselves as individuals goes against the prideful and outwardly-directed contemporary American mind. They’ll cling to the vain hope of victory through voting, boycotting, and “raising awareness”, and such.

Time will tell.

Fr. John+

Actaully, Stubbs, the American Revolution, because it was largely Protestant in its ideological formation (repudiation of the existing order, to be ‘semper reformanda’) mandates, rather, a ‘course correction’ element within its’ very Weltanschauung.

So, instead of ‘rejecting’ it, a move such as this is the only logical step, once one sees that the American experiment failed precisely on the grounds that it is filled with ‘prelest’ -what the Fathers call an overweening pride and an ‘I know it all’ mentality. The first mark of humility for a sinner, is to recognize that one does NOT ‘know it all.’ As Americans, we can look back to our country’s founding, and see (as Matt wrote above) that there was a measure of ‘common grace’ that clearly marked us out as a ‘city set on a hill’- but one can say that of England, France, and even Germany under Hitler (remember, AH was Time’s “Man of the year”- a sobering thought!) at certain points during each of those respective countries’ histories.

But, (as the old hymn says) ‘Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide.’ America chose long ago, to abandon her Founding charter, her covenant of Grace. Once that has irrevocably happened (and with the election of a “Xenos” in the person of Barack Hussein Obama- twice…well, clearly the finality of that covenantal/racial/cultural breach was palpable) no honest Christian can, any longer, give allegiance to an antichrist state.

We are merely self-actualizing Anglos, to borrow a phrase.

Mac Tíre

For anyone interested andrewespress.com sells a nice and reasonably priced Book of Common Prayer revised to conform to Orthodox doctrine.
I believe Andrew Fraser (The WASP Question) would be sympathetic to your aims.


I have a copy of this, and can confirm that in addition to being very spiritually fulfilling, is an artfully bound and attractively typewritten book. It’s one of the few books that’s really worth paying the premium and having a hard copy of, even for this e-book enthusiast.

Dalmation Ham

I am black, Christian, and my ancestors have contributed to the United States for centuries: first as slaves, then as industrial laborers, in the second world war, and as successful professionals. I am a philosopher on track to my PhD and have great interest in fascism and national socialist movements. Please email me. I want to get involved in establishing a race-neutral chapter in my area. I believe that rather than races per se, the love of immediate family should be extended to people that are like minded, and believe in healthy social values and national autarky over individualism, determinism and identity politics. Please reach out to me so I can learn more.

Fr. John+

Fraser’s book should be one of the first historical analyses one reads, along with Dr. Joseph Farrell’s [PhD., Oxon.] “God, History, and Dialectic;” and his ‘Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.’

Clement Pulaski

I’m always a bit confused when I hear Americans promoting monarchy, because it’s unclear to me exactly how this is supposed to work.

Are you saying that the English Monarch is the rightful ruler of America, and that our political goal should be to make America subject to this monarch? Is Queen Elizabeth the rightful ruler of America? What does it say about monarchy when the current European monarchs appear to support cultural Marxism just as strongly as elected politicians?

If the Queen of England wants England to become a multi-racial and multi-faith community, should the English accept her decision, or is their loyalty to be contingent on the monarch holding up his end of the bargain? But of course if their loyalty is contingent, then you are saying very much the same thing that our Founding Fathers did.


No. The English monarchy doesn’t factor into the equation. And I agree that ‘monarchy’ in and of itself is no guarantee against decadence or subversion. What monarchy does provide is visibility for the elites and a socio-cultural lodestar of status which is (theoretically) aligned with the love for and support for one’s kingdom/tribe.

My quibble is that the Founding Fathers didn’t really have a strong case for independence. The alleged abuses were rather limited in scope and generally without malice. The rather banal fate of Canada confirms how little was being fought over in the Revolutionary War.

Ideally, the king’s ability to subvert the founding ideals would be limited by the church, the military, and the vision drummed into the folk from an early age.


You desire aristocracy. Aristocracy is always oligarchy. People with the most wealth always rule. When we had an agrarian economy it was the landowners who had the wealth and, as a consequence, the power. Now we have a post-industrial economy so it is the technocrats who have the wealth and, as a consequence, the power. The fall of traditional aristocracy was an inevitable consequence of the Industrial Revolution. If you want aristocracy you will have to give titles to people like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates.

Gavin James Campbell

I can sum up your project for you very elegantly.
You want to create a Disneyland. But instead of Disneyland with rides, it will feature reconstructed Catholic masses performed by clergy who claim to be Orthodox, but are in fact in schism from the canonical Orthodox Church. With no-one of darker colour of skin allowed admittance.

For people who live in the real world, Project Avalon has all the resemblances to Charles Mason’s dream of locating a bottomless pit in Death Valley. It’s another flavour of Kool-Aid.


The Sarum Missal is nearer to the Anglican than Catholic Mass, but whatever.

We intend to remain in communion with the canonical Orthodox Church.

People of darker color would be welcome into the parishes to take communion and enjoy fellowship. They would be excluded from permanent residence or citizenship by secular state legislation, as is currently the benign and sensible practice the world over. But they wouldn’t be banned from setting foot in the country and couldn’t be banned from setting foot in the Church.

Clement Pulaski

I guess I don’t understand why the English monarch wouldn’t factor into the equation. If the Founding Fathers were usurpers of royal authority, then the monarch is still the rightful holder of that authority. I don’t see how you could affirm the antecedent and deny the consequent.

And I still don’t get how this is supposed to work practically. Supporting monarchy maybe makes sense in a purely theoretical or “metapolitical” discussion, but what does it mean for our real world political struggle? How should the pro-monarchy sentiments of American nationalists shape their activism? If you’re not proposing a reunion with England, then what are American monarchists working towards? Creating a new throne in America?

Gavin James Campbell

It’ll be just like your quixotic attempt to get the State of Indiana to secede and become the “Hoosier Nation”.

Fr. John+

And your fear of oligarchy leads us to… what?

We already HAVE an oligarchy!

What we are suggesting is a RACIALLY unified field view. I’d much rather submit to a man who shares my faith, my ethnicity, my morality, and my culture, than these bastards pretending to be such, today.

Your point is useless. Coupled with a Monarchy, is a return to a distributivist model… which has not failed, it has not even been tried. Jews like Zuckerslime and schmucks like Billious Gates would have no place in a godly Anglo Monarchical state.

Fr. John+

Fruitcake Campbell, I can sum up your hatred very elegantly.

You suffer from penis envy. Because you don’t have one- ontologically speaking. Because you are an accursed sodomite, and your brain is infected with the pornographic dreams of your abomination state of being, you cannot speak truth at all, let alone truth to Truth. How DARE you presume to come and speak to Orthodox faithful who see a kingdom, where you see vast masses of illiterate jungle bunnies, waiting for your sexual ‘come-ons;’ you are an anathema to both God and man.

Matt Parrot, you are still too young to understand. If you desire a homogenous monarchy, you CANNOT allow the ‘xenos’ into your midst, into your communion, into your BODY. For the Theanthropic body of Christ is just as chromosomally unique as a human body. What is the sin of ‘Adultery’ if not the adulteration of the body? Why are there different terms for fornication, yet the command actively prohibits the very thing that will destroy the ‘image and likeness of God’ in Adamic man? i.e., Adulteration with another species, via miscegenation? Do you not realize that this was the norm for all of European humanity, until about 70 years ago? Disfigurement of the Body of Christ, therefore, is even more so a transgression of this commandment, in fact. If we truly were a ‘multiracial’ body as the Church, then Christ’s own choice of one seed would never have happened, and He would have (may it never be!) incarnated via a miracle, to be a hodge-podge of differing and different DNA’s, garnered from all over the globe.
This is pure, unadulterated Liberalism, of the worst sort. Do you know of that smarmy 1960’s song, ‘Some children see him black and white’? I puked when but a child, knowing that Christ alone can be ‘fairer among ten thousands.’

“Some children see him lily white
The baby Jesus born this night,
Some children see him lily white,
With tresses soft and fair.

Some children see him bronzed and brown
The Lord of heaven to earth come down,
Some children see him bronzed and brown
With dark and heavy hair.

“Some children see him almond eyed
The Savior whom we kneel beside
Some children see him almond eyed,
With skin of golden hue.

“Some children see him dark as they
Sweet Mary’s Son to whom we pray
Some children see him dark as they
And oh, they love him too.

“The children in each different place
Will see the baby Jesus’ face
Like theirs, but bright with heavenly grace
And filled with holy light.

“Oh lay aside each earthly thing
And with thy heart as offering
Come worship now the infant king
Tis love that’s born tonight.”

Lyric by Whila Hutson and Alfred Burt (Hollis Music Inc. BMI).

But thi is not Christ. This is the IDOL OF LIBERALISM. Christ did not incarnate ‘multiculturally.’ He worked out a very specific genealogical record, (‘before the foundation of the world’- as St. Paul says, under inspiration of the H.S.) and YHWH God in Chirst, set out his own racial parentage via election and predestination, as clear as can be: GOD chose Adam, then chose Seth, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, etc., on down the line.

Christ can no more be the Saviour of ‘His People’ [ Matt. 1:21] AND be the ‘Saviour of the whole of hominidity AT THE SAME TIME, than Satan can claim to be both ‘prince of the power of the air,’ and ‘King of Kings.’ (which is, of course, blasphemy – on either hand.)

The satanic rot that is Jewish multiculturalism deeply infects ALL of the Churches. You need to step away from the Perverted Kool-Aid that fools such as faggot Campbell offer, as well as heretics such as Marx, Alinsky, Sonntag, Ignatiev, (Jews) as well as Welby, Spong, Wiliams (false shepherds in England) and Jones, Limbaugh, Paul, and Obama (in post-political Amurrika) continue to spew.

Multiculturalism is White Genocide, and White Genocide is CHRISTENDOM’s Genocide, for the ‘Ecumene’ was meant to be, and (for its first 1000 years was confined) only to the lands known as Europe. ALL THE OTHER missionary activities of that millennium apostatized into either cults, or heresies (Monophysitism, Eutychianism, Arianism, etc.), thus proving the fact that, even after Rome’s schism, the Holy Spirit’s ‘turning back’ the apostles in Acts 16:6-7, was the ‘ensample’ for all of Christendom. Only in EUROPE, among the WHITES OF ROMANITY, did Orthodoxy remain ‘the faith once delivered unto the saints.’ And there is a REASON for that.

There is/was a reason for that- God has only called ‘the lost sheep of the house (oikos- race, clan, ethnic group in Greek) of Israel.’ This has NEVER been repudiated. You state you want to remain in communion with the ‘Canonical’ Orthodox Church, yet you saw how the Scoba-dox treated your fellow Christian? Fine and good. But what is “antichrist,” if not the denial of the explicit RACIAL fusing of Godhood with Adamic Manhood, in the Incarnation? And what is heresy, if not the SCOBADOX in America??? And, what of Fr. Seraphim Rose’s prediction, ‘In the end, ALL the churches will serve antichrist?’ Is not the worshiping at the altar of the non-White ‘goyim’ that very apostasy, foretold?


Lastly, continuing to allow an open sodomite to post on this forum, demeans your credibility as a Christian, and an Orthodox. Putin’s and Russia’s foreign minister’s continued denial of legitimacy to the sodomite faction speaks far more ‘Orthodoxly’ than your continued sufferance of Ms. Campbell, and its errors..
May God grant you the maturity and the strength of will to stand firm for YOUR people, and YOUR heritage, in the face of the Great Racial Apostasy from the great racial apostatizers themselves, the Deicides.

Rev. 2:8,9

Fr. John+

Clement, the current Monarch of England is not Orthodox. Moreover, what of the past 200 years?

Why raise up the claim that George III’s descendants have ‘first dibs’ on Amurrika, anyway?
That’s just idiotic.

Gavin James Campbell

A sodomite is a someone with a predilection for anal intercourse. Someone who disavows racial taxonomies of human beings is not, out of any necessity, such a person.

Clement Pulaski

If not the founding fathers, and if not the English monarch, then who does have a rightful claim to America?

It’s been 100 years since the death of the Russian Tsar. Would his descendents have a rightful claim to rule Russia?

These are honest questions, because new right monarchists speak in such vague terms, that I can’t understand what exactly they are advocating.


Matt, I’m not at all persuaded that monarchy is the way to go. I am, however, persuaded that the future white ethnostate will require a radically different approach to creating an elite, and that whatever the approach ends up being, it can’t be centered upon money.

Exactly what services members of the future elite should be expected to render, and what level of responsibility they should be expected to demonstrate, are interesting questions worthy of exploration.

How to choose and prepare such men? What will it take to consistently turn out a group of men that can truly be counted upon to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children? Not just for a generation or two, but in perpetuity?

I’ll also mention, concerning the other Matt, that I saw the video of his presentation at the Stormfront meeting. While I don’t agree with all of it, I do think that Matt is getting at something essential. Namely, that our cause isn’t about money or narrow self-interest (the quintessentially American way of looking at things). It’s about something far deeper and more fundamental, and a break with the American mentality will be required to achieve it. Again, while I don’t agree with everything that he advocated, he did a fine job.

Mac Tíre

More strong meat from Fr. John+ but, alas, too strong for most modern ‘Murican beta males. Trolls like Campbell contribute nothing to these discussions. Jimmy, I think I hear your mom calling. Bagel dogs must be ready…

the centurion

It is worth remembering that Corneliu Codreanu, may his memory be eternal, was murdered by a monarch. In his own writings, Codreanu speaks of a sort of natural elitism, in which the most capable and loyal sons and daughters of the nation should rise to positions of leadership. He is probably envisioning something in between the Roman Republic under the Senate and Plato’s philosopher-kings.

Erik Thorson

I concur whole-heartedly with your assessment of America’s founders and her founding. I wish you well in this endeavour. I have added a link to the Traditionalist Youth Network to my website, on the Diverse Causes tab.

Clement Pulaski

With all due respect to Heimbach, his speech gives a very misleading picture of the intellectual currents that influenced our founding fathers.
He ignores the Biblical warnings against monarchy, the legacy of the early puritan colonies, the influence of classical greco-roman republicanism, the influence of the frontier experience, and the conscious efforts of the founders to restore ancient anglo-saxon liberties:


Orthodox Mike

The truth of the matter is, the Puritans were heretics with nothing in common with traditional Christianity, and the Founding Fathers were all Enlightenment thinkers who were Deists and Masons. And monarchy is not admonished by God, but said to be a sign of Israel (the Church) forever.

Clement Pulaski

The Puritans very closely resembled the Church of the apostles, unlike the Byzantine state church and its offshoots with their Marian idolatry and worship of pictures.

The Bible clearly states that monarchy was a step down from the system under the Judges, and it also states that kings are likely to take from their subjects and give to their favorite courtiers (1 Samuel 8).
1 Maccabees also gives a very positive description of republican Rome. Following a passage describing the great military triumphs of Rome, the text states that:
“Yet for all this none of them wore a crown or was clothed in purple, to be magnified thereby: Moreover how they had made for themselves a senate house, wherein three hundred and twenty men sat in council daily, consulting alway for the people, to the end they might be well ordered: And that they committed their government to one man every year, who ruled over all their country, and that all were obedient to that one, and that there was neither envy nor emmulation among them.”
1 Maccabees 8:14-16

But it is understandable that those who are committed to Eastern Orthodoxy would defend oriental autocracy, the system of government that shaped their faith.

Orthodox Mike

That’s funny.. I have read about the Ancient Church and the writings of the ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers, and NOTHING is like Puritan theology there! Mind you, many Ante-Nicene Fathers were taught directly from Apostles. If you do not like our Faith, you should find somewhere else to ‘slum’.

Clement Pulaski

It’s very telling that you went straight to the fathers, and not the Scriptures themselves, to justify your position.

Ancient Israel frequently went astray, and a return to the words of scripture, not human tradition, was the way to remedy the problem. The same holds true for the Church.

I’ve still yet to see a good Biblical argument that monarchy is the best form of government.

As for why I’m here, there’s a strong effort by catholics/orthodox/evolians to spread the idea that the blessed Reformation is the root cause of our problems. As long as that message is spread, I will attempt to counter it.

Fr. John+

Mr. Pulaski-
I would suggest you read your own Reformed authors, such as Faith and Heritage, as they continue to dissect the fallacies of the modern multicultural West, and leave the Orthodox alone, who have existed for a millennia longer than the earliest of the Protestant ‘reformers.’

I would also ask for a more irenic spirit, much like what Michael Hoffman has done in his book on Usury- quoting CI, RC, Puritan, and Reformed authors to show that all of them have, at one time or another, spoken God’s word against the Judases of their days.

Arguing on a forum such as this for the fallacy of ‘democracy’ is a dead end. Monarchy is the only, sole, ‘biblical’ form of governance, and the Presbyterians were wrong on this- totally. Moreover, they merely sought to come out from under Kingly rule, and nothing more. Merry Christmas.

Clement Pulaski

I certainly don’t advocate democracy, neither did the framers of the constitution. Their system was based on classical republicanism, not mob rule.

As for monarchy being the sole biblical form of governance, what passages would you cite to support this view?
I used to be pro-monarchy myself, but reading 1 Samuel 8 caused me to reconsider my position.

An observer

“It’s very telling that you went straight to the fathers, and not the Scriptures themselves, to justify your position.”

Of course – Acts 8.

30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The Fathers are our guides when it comes to the Holy Scriptures, you won’t find Sola Scripture around these here parts. The Orthodox Church has 2000 years of experience in interpreting the Scriptures, led by great saint and holy elders, and guided by Divine Revelation. Protestants have 500 years of squabbling and delusion. Take your pick.

Clement Pulaski

In Acts 8 we have one man who has not heard the Gospel expressing his inability to understand a specific prophecy of Isaiah: “The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.”
A man who knows the Gospel explains to him the meaning of Isaiah. It does not follow from this that there will be a perpetual church bureaucracy that will be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in its ability to interpret Scripture.

Clement Pulaski

I’m assuming you’re refering to 2 Samuel 7:12-16,

“And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.”

I don’t see how this could possibly apply to monarchy in general. This is a promise made to one royal family of one kingdom. God is not promising that kings in general will reign, but specifically that the seed of David shall reign. This promise was obviously fulfilled in Jesus, who is the eternal king of the spiritual Israel. No other son of David currently reigns upon a throne, so this promise can only be fulfilled by the reign of Christ. Furthermore, in this passage God makes a promise, not a proscription. He is not saying that we should establish kingdoms, but the He shall establish one particular family of one particular kingdom. And if this promise refers to the eastern orthodox monarchs of Byzantium and Russia, then these promises have been broken, because those empires are no more.

I’d be rather surprised if you could find any church fathers who would apply this passage to the byzantine Emperors, rather than to Christ.

As for Ecclesiastes 8, I think there are a few ways to take this.
1) this counsel is given to Israelites who are living under the king established by God over them. As the spiritual Israel, our king is Christ, and indeed we should obey him in all things.
2) this counsel applies to all men no matter what sovereign they live under. If this is the case, then the passage should be read in the light of Romans 13, which tells us to respect temporal powers, because “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God”. Romans 13 applied immediately to the corrupt, pagan Roman state that the early Christians lived under. It certainly does not follow that this pagan Roman government is recommended by God above other forms of government. Wicked kings are set up by God to punish the wicked. The Jewish system that we live under is certainly wicked, but it is still ultimately ordained by God to punish the West for our apostasy from Him.

I don’t see in either passage cited by you any indication that monarchy is the only or best system under which men should live. These passages do not contrast monarchy with other systems of government. 1 Samuel 8, on the other hand, explicitly contrasts monarchy with the system of government under the Judges.

Clement Pulaski

Just to be clear, are you still defending your argument that Acts 8 says something about a perpetual bureaucracy that can infallibly interpret scripture? It seems like you’ve abandoned that argument and countered by asking me to explain my position.

Also, let’s not overlook the fact that there are multiple churches claiming to be the real orthodox church, such as the old believers and the old calendarists. There are also a large number of modernists in the orthodox church, even amongst the clergy, so don’t pretend that the orthodox represent a united front.

an observer

It was not being used as some kind of proof text in the first place, sorry that was not made clear. It was being used as an example to show that we need guidance when it comes to interpreting the Holy Scriptures. It does not imply a continual infallible bureaucracy, as we know that that has never existed. You are correct in pointing out that the Orthodox Church does not have a united front – this is because many of our hierarchs have fallen away from the Tradition of the Church, and into Western methods of interpretation and thinking, but they are being called out frequently by those who are standing firm. A few bad apples does not ruin the batch.

What the text does point towards is the Orthodox teaching of the illumined and glorified saints, i.e. the Prophets, Apostles and Elders (who are generally not part of the bureaucracy, and generally stand against it in many matters, such as modernism and ecumenism) having the spiritual gift of interpreting the Scriptures. See Fr. John Romanides’ writings for a fuller explanation of this. Most of us are what he calls ‘idiotes’ who cannot interpret Scripture because we have not spiritually advanced past the stage of purification of the nous, and are therefore trapped in the deceptions and delusions of the devil.

Therefore, Apostle Philip, because he had been illumined and had received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, was able to interpret the Scriptures for the eunuch. You can choose to accept this or not, but it is the tradition of the Orthodox Church, and we have the Saints and Holy Elders from the Apostolic era to modern times to support our claims.

Clement Pulaski

So, Acts 8 is not a proof text for your view of who can legitimately interpret Scripture. Are there any passages that you would cite as proof texts for your view? Given that you did not provide any, I would have to assume that there are not.

It would seem, therefore, that there aren’t any Biblical proof texts to support either
1) that monarchy is the only Biblical form of government or
2) that legitimate interpretation of Scripture is limited to those who follow your tradition.

You mentioned that you don’t believe in an infallible bureaucracy, but you do seem to believe in an infallible tradition. When talking about the modernizing clergy, you say that they fell away from tradition (not that they fell away from God’s commandments). The orthodox put tradition first and scritpure second. But if the tradition isn’t defined by the Bible, and it isn’t defined by the hierarchs of the church, then what is it defined by? And if the glorified saints are the true interpreters of Scripture, then the question becomes, who gets to decide who is a saint? If the church hierarhcy gets to decide which saints are officially recognized, then how can the saints be said to stand against the hierarhcy?

I understand that for the orthodox, believing in their church tradition is a leap of faith, just as believing in the Bible is a leap of faith for us Protestants. But the orthodox tradition is full of things that contradict clear biblical teaching. The Bible says that it contains the commandments of God and that these commandments are not to be added to, while the orthodox church commands its members to do all sorts of things that aren’t mentioned in the Bible, like calling on the Virgin for salvation and saluting the “holy images”. In Revalation 19, John the Evangelist falls down at the feet of an angel, and the angel tells him to worship God only. In the orthodox church, members are required not just to fall down and pray to angels who are in their presence, but to fall down and pray to paintings of them.

With all that being said, I’d like to return to the topic that began this discussion: the content of Heimbach’s “Death to America” speech.
Above, Orthodox Mike mentioned that the puritans were heretics and that therefore their political contributions should be disregarded. But even if it’s true that the puritans were heretics, that doesn’t change the fact that their political tradition did strongly influence the American constitution. The same goes for classical Greco-Roman republicanism. Even if you don’t like Greco-Roman republicanism, it did have a profound influence on the political thought of the founding fathers.
It’s also incorrect to say that the American Revolution was just fought over taxes, or that the founding fathers were traitors to folk and faith. The Declaration of Independence mentions 27 specific grievances against the king. Taxes is mentioned as the seventeenth grievance. One of the grievances is that the king failed to protect his white subjects from the barbarism of the American natives. To quote the Declaration:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Heimbach gives the impression that traditional Americanism was an anti-white ideology dreamed up ex nihilo by Masons and Jews. This is demonstrably false.

Orthodox Mike

The Bible that you love to quote and claim to follow perfectly was given to us by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Period. It is our Book. The ones who compiled it were inspired by the Holy Spirit and have every right to interpret it correctly, as they were illumined by the Spirit.

An observer

We don’t need to cite proof texts, we’re not Sola Scriptura. As Orthodox Mike correctly points out, the Bible is OUR book. The Scriptures were written within and by the Church, compiled and arranged within and by the Church, and interpreted within and by the Church. The Scriptures are not beneath Tradition, they are a part of tradition.

The Church’s Tradition has been called ‘the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church’ (Lossky) and we experience it. Ours is a lived and experienced faith. This is all the proof we need. Where are your glorified saints? Where are your miracle-working hierarchs? Where are your clairvoyant elders? Where are your myrrh-streaming icons? Where are your incorrupt relics? The Orthodox Church has had them, still has them and will keep having them, until Christ returns.

Regarding saints, the (earthly) Church does not decide who is a saint, it merely recognizes who has been already glorified by God, usually at the behest of the people who have been venerating them for decades. They only stand against the hierarchy when the hierarchy is getting it wrong, such as when “the whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian” (Saint Jerome). They fulfill the timeless prophetic ministry of calling the Church back to God, back to the Truth, and back to repentance. See Saint Athanasios the Great, Saint Maximos the Confessor, Saint Mark of Ephesus and many others. Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis was abused and maligned by the hierarchs of his day, but is recognised as one of the greatest saints of the twentieth century.

I’m not even going to bother explaining the veneration of icons – it’s been done before in enough places. Look for Saint John Damascene, he solved this problem 1300 years ago.

Read Fr. John Romanides. Read Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos). Read Fr. Michael Pomazansky. They’re better than any of those Sola Scriptura nuts you’ll find preaching on any protestant circuit.

Clement Pulaski

The Bible was given to us by God, not by the church. If you listened to what the Bible says about itself, you would recognize this.

At the beginning of our conversation, you both started by giving Bible passages to support your position. Once it turned out that these passages don’t really support your position, then you say that you don’t actually need Biblical proof.

Regarding saints, the (earthly) Church does not decide who is a saint, it merely recognizes who has been already glorified by God, usually at the behest of the people who have been venerating them for decades.

So can the hierchy err in recognizing saints who have been glorified? Obviously the hierarhcy can err in other regards, but in recognizing saints will it always eventually recognize those who have been glorified? Do you see how your comment has not actually solved your dilemma?

Getting back to the question of monarchy, I’ll ask a very straightforward question:
If a king encourages heathen savages (who are known for killing women and children) to attack his white subjects, do his subjects have the right to rebel?

An observer

You’re getting the book about the Divine Revelation mixed up with the Divine Revelation itself. The Bible did not just drop out of the sky, or exist before time like the Moslems believe about the Koran. It’s true that we don’t need ‘Biblical proof’, as we have the lived tradition and experience to support any claims that we make. I cited Acts 8 as an example of our requirement of needing guidance when we approach Scripture, something any sane person would agree with.

As I said, saints are glorified generally because of widespread popular devotion by the faithful. The faithful laity, led by the glorified saints, have long been regarded as the defenders of the faith when the hierarchy have strayed, such as the unia at Florence. No one suggested an infallible hierarchy but you.

Again, as I wrote above, we have the empirical evidence to back up all of our claims, such as the incorrupt relics, myrrh-streaming icons, miracles, etc, that you have completely ignored. Where is the evidence to back up your claims? We have no dilemma. We have our lives in the Church, in which the truth of our faith is evident because it is experienced. We require no leap of faith as, in many cases, we can see with our very eyes and touch with our very hands things that bear witness to this truth. Protestant sophistry and proof-texting has no effect on the Orthodox Christian who has experienced manifestations of God’s Grace within their ecclesiastical life.

Clement Pulaski

You seem to be avoiding giving any direct answers.

I’ll ask these yes/no questions again:

1) Can the hierarchy of the orthodox church err in recognizing saints who have been glorified? Will the hieararhcy always eventually recognize those who have been glorified?
If you answer yes, then you are granting the hierarchy infallibility on this issue.

2) If a king encourages heathen savages (who are known for killing women and children) to attack his white subjects, do his subjects have the right to rebel?

an observer

You also seem to be avoiding replying to any of the points we made about the empirical proofs of Orthodoxy, instead obsessing over infallibility. But anyway:

Like I mentioned before, the hierarchy recognizes that which already exists among the people of God – the veneration of someone who they believe to be a saint. The entire conscience of the Church is infallible in these matters, the hierarchy just ‘make it official’, if you will. From the OCA website: “Orthodoxy upholds the reality that the Church, gathered together in Council under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is guided in making correct decisions and in enunciating truth.”

As for your second question, I have had no part in that sub-conversation and will not get involved.

Orthodox Mike

There are good and bad kings. A true king will represent and do what is right for his people /subjects. The Russians had Sobors as a checks and balances to the monarchy and to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It doesn’t make monarchy or ecclesiastical hierarchy bad in itself if a bad example of it comes along. Of course, there is the old law of harvest that states that sometimes the people get a ruler they deserve if they are outside of God’s will.

Clement Pulaski

An observer,

I don’t see how I’m “obsessing” over infallibility (the inability to err). The Bible is an infallible rule of faith. Having an infallible rule of faith is indispensable for the religious life. I’m trying to pin down what the infallible rule of faith is for the orthodox (because as you’ve stated, it’s not the Bible), but for some reason you seem unwilling to make clear statements on the issue. The exact locus of authority in the orthodox church is very important, because you claim that clear biblical commandments and examples can be overruled by tradition.

I don’t know why you can’t give a yes or no answer to the following:
Can the hierarchy of the orthodox church err in recognizing a saint?

Before you mentioned the saints as having authority over the hierarchy. But individual saints are certainly liable to err (and have done so) on certain points, so how do you know when a saint is erring? Do you turn to the hierarchy at that point?

Or do you hold that ecumenical councils are free from error, but that other pronouncements bishops and saints can contain error?

Orthodox Mike,

We all know what a good (or “true”) king is supposed to do. But there are bad kings, more often than not if we look at the kings of the Old Testament. Clearly the question is what we’re supposed to do when living under a bad king.

So, I ask again, and please answer with a yes or no:
If a king encourages heathen savages (who are known for killing women and children) to attack his white subjects (and the checks on the kings power do not act to stop this), do his subjects have the right to rebel?

Orthodox Mike

I would say that Holy Tradition, of which the Holy Scriptures came from and was produced from, trumps all.. Trumps kings and hierarchs both.

Leave a Reply