The Ten Commandments of Chivalry: Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and shalt observe all its directions.
Here's my attempt at analysing the first of these
The Ten Commandments of Chivalry for those who do not know, were written some years ago by Léon Gautier, who summarized the ideals of Chevalerie in Ten simple rules, and they have been conveyed to me lately in a manner most respectful and interesting in nature. His own book is of far greater quality than my own writings on this topic and ought to be recommended and read by all who love chivalry or wish for an escape of sorts from the ‘mental programming’ of sorts set down by modernity.
The first of the ideals proposed by Gautier was that one should believe all that the Church teaches and observe all its directions. The trouble with this is how far should one take this? Does it mean one must obey the Church, if so sure. But if it means obeying the Pope, that’s where things get sticky at times. Popes are notoriously fallible and prone to error, on matters of basic morality and simple human decency (look at Alexander VI, Stephen VI and a number of others).
The truth is it is a complex question for those of us not trained in theology, and that said the Church has changed over the course of two thousand years. It has splintered and reunited at various points, and yet it has remained as important to the Catholic faith as ever. But there is a difficulty with warming itself up to the masses, and this struggle lies in that people are moving away from the faith.
The trouble is that in the Modern Era, how the Popes have had to deal with even worse press than ever before, with countless accusations of looking the other way as priests abuse children. This is something that cannot be denied has happened, but on the other hand teachers have been proven to do it far more.
And let us be honest; what can the Pope really do? Well the most he can do is remove these men from the clergy and hand them over to secular authorities. That said, some Popes have discharged their duties remarkably well (such as John Paul II) others not quite so well (Bergoglio).
But the question must be asked; what is a Church? Is it a physical building? Is it a self-profiteering business? An arm of a meaningless, temporary government destined to disappear in five or six years or even fifteen years?
Arguably no. The Church is God’s representative on earth, and meant to spread his love and teachings. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that the Church can only exist and serve at the pleasure of true Christians who abide by the teachers of God? If so, does that not mean that those who reject Bergoglio’s treacheries and ridiculous decrees, and who worship quietly, observing the teachings of God and reading the Bible and abiding by the ideas set down by Him, the Church?
Really what must be returned to are the ideals set down by St-Augustine. It is quite right that there is a material Church and City, and a non-material one. It must also be argued that all Christians who observe the laws and ideals of Christ and his teachings, and who honour him are in direct obedience of the true teachings of the Church. Because if the Church as it has tried to do under the fiendish Bergoglio to excise God from Christianity, does it continue to be the Church and an instrument of God? Call me a firebrand, or a bad Catholic, but I just cannot bring myself to like him, or to follow his ideas.
His embracing of what is ‘fashionable’ among the elites of the world is hardly appealing, about as much so as Pope Stephen shrieking at his predecessor’s corpse. Really the LGBT nonsense, should not be humoured for a single moment, by the sitting Pope.
In truth the Pope has broken with the people, and therefore he is owed no further loyalty. The Church must remember that it was always meant to be a hauberk against the depravities of the local governments, not their enabler. And the Pope is meant to transmit the teachings of God to people and to push his message forward.
In my original version of this essay, I made visible and risible mistakes that in hindsight I have decided to remove. They were made hurriedly and without thought, so that after putting in more thought, I’ve decided to correct them (special thanks to
and for catching and correcting me on them). But we must also remember that there must be a distinction I think between the Church and the Pope. The teachings of Christ are supreme, the Bible comes before all else and helping our fellow Christians is of the utmost importance.The true Church is that of God, not some physical building. The true teachings of God, as passed down across countless generations is the Church to my mind. So if people think that Bergoglio is beyond criticism, that is a mistake. Remember that in Galatians, St-Paul criticised St-Peter. This lays down the precedent that Popes are not infallible (see Pope Stephen VI’s example for proof of that).
God is infallible, the Church as an instrument of faith is to be obeyed and revered just as God is. But the Pope is but a mortal man, and one who should be respected, but he is not immune to criticism (no man is, save for Jesus).
But let it be known that my criticism is not directed against the Papacy, nor the great St-Peter, who should be held as an example of a true follower of Christ (and who along St-Paul should be held as examples for all, as Christ’s chief Apostles). My criticism is purely directed at Francis/Bergoglio. Let us remember that there are two Churches, that which exist within this fallen world and the non-material one closer to God himself. The Pope is meant to guide the Church, and serve the faithful two things that Bergoglio has not always done well (in contrast to Benedict & St-John-Paul). My criticism is purely against him, and done without any joy. If I may add, I shall also say; pray for him to atone, as is your duty as a good Christian. Pray that he redeem himself from his many mistakes, even as you serve all those within the Church and who pray to Jesus daily.
With respect, the Papacy despite its issues (not denying it) is still the only way to go. As St. Peter once said, "to whom shall we go?"
I grew up in a low church evangelical setting. I'm familiar with "churches" breaking apart because of doctrinal issues or egos. This is where an overly spiritualized view of what "the Church" leads.
So issue goes, how do we live up to the Gautier's ideal even in the face of bad actors within the Church (who unfortunately had the Pope's ear). Honestly, I'm not sure. But I do know there is nobility in knights who are obedient to their lords even if said lords were not particularly good people. It's easy to obey when you're rewarded for your obedience. And I think this is (one reason) why God allows bad actors to enter into the Church, to test us.
So that's my take on that particular issue. Anyways, I'm looking forward to see what you have to say about the other "commandments" of chivalry. I'm actually aware of Gautier's book and have dug through a little bit thanks to the Internet Archive, though I didn't get very far for whatever reason.
I found the "Ten Commandments of Chivalry" (which I first learned from Charles Coulombe) in particular to be very eye opening. That's how I understand that chivalry is more than "simping" for some girl.
I trace my religious and ethnic heritage back to the founding stock of New England Calvinists. Certainly like any cultural and religious group they have their flaws and mistakes. But they recognized the reality of and irremovability of hierarchy and God's abiding sovereignty. They led the way in the struggle for independence. They sought to promote strong and effective governance to the best of their ability.
Many of their successor denominational groups have copped out to lazy Romans 13 application and political compromise, but I won't. And I hold onto the good within my local congregation and seek to challenge Current Year thinking if and when it ever reads it's ugly heads.