Last week, in a post speaking about the lure of the "easy answer" to the so-called "true traditionalist," I referred to a group known as the "counter-revolutionaries."
With Lent now underway, I figured it would be a good time as any to address the problem of the "counter-revolutionary," and how referring to oneself as such is detrimental to one's spiritual life, speaking as someone who once considered themselves to be a counter-revolutionary.
To give this topic due diligence, it is necessary to split it into two parts. This post will give the ideological basis of the counter-revolutionary position, while a subsequent post will explain the foolishness of such a position.
Essentially, a counter-revolutionary holds themselves to be the best possible solution to two problematic positions that they see as making detrimental concessions to the modern world. These other positions are termed "neo-conservatives" and "neo-traditionalists." According to the counter-revolutionary, a neo-conservative exhibits the following characteristics while attending either the Novus Ordo or the traditional Mass:
- Being pro-life is more important than being Catholic, otherwise known as "Pro-Lifeism."
- They just "LOVE" the American Constitution.
- The separation of Church and State is utterly sacrosanct.
- They keep the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ "hush-hush," or very quiet.
- They are feminists.
Additionally, many of them supposedly exhibit the following personality traits:
According to my sources, it is best to refer to these personality traits as "pinko" so as to highlight the fact that neo-conservatives are liberals who think they are not.
A neo-traditionalist is merely someone who holds these same views yet goes to the traditional Mass exclusively.
As one can expect, a counter-revolutionary holds themselves to be in complete opposition to the ideas espoused by neo-cons and neo-trads. They consider themselves more Catholic, not always explicitly, but implicitly. They degenerate the American Constitution. They advocate the union of Church and State. They vocally promote the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ, with the added condition of a monarchy being the only government where this can be realized, while participating in a democracy in a direct fashion (such as voting) is mortally sinful. They also speak against feminism, and the evils of allowing women great independence.
Such a position is ridiculous. Why? That will have to wait for a future post, but for now, consider how elitist and snobbish holding oneself to be a counter-revolutionary is. It is imagining oneself to be a solution to a problem that will not only never go away, but contributes to it.
Is this what our Lord wants of us?