Episode - 18 - Tracy Twyman

[wesowsley]

Had a great time talking to Tracy, which was the culmination of weeks of scheduling. Tracy is a fount of esoteric knowledge and we encourage our listeners to listen to her and her podcast.

[justinian]

I truly enjoyed this one, and am actually listening to this again. I think there's a great deal of truth to Tracy's current work in esoteric economics, and I'm definitely getting her newest book on the subject.

I thought the conversation took an interesting turn with Tracy's discussion of the vested power of priests in Roman Catholic ecclesiology. One of the things that I think needs to be cleared up is that this power she is talking about being given to priests in the RC belief system is that this is completely foreign to the EO ecclesiology and theological conception. In the EOC, the priest has no inherent powers--he serves at the pleasure of his bishop, for whom he acts in a kind of delegated capacity. As such, there is no ecclesiological problem with priests in the Eastern Church being defrocked of layicized, because the power that they call down to change the gifts does not come from them or the words they say (as with the "words of institution" in the RC system), but from the collective invocation of the Holy Spirit with both the people and the priest--and the priest's authority to serve the body and blood (and even to touch the things on the altar) is rests in his possession of written permission from his bishop (in the form of a piece of cloth, containing a relic of a saint sewn into a pocket of it, signed by the bishop, adorned with icons of the crucifixion and the gospel writers, called the Antimension). Indeed, in the EOC, even bishops are not above deposition and removal from their power and authority, as happened several times, especially in the Byzantine Empire, by an uprising of the laity; the most famous of these incidents of lay-nullification include the "robber-council" at Ephesus in 449 AD, and the rejection of the union at the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438/39 AD. The top-down, papal-centered authority from St. Peter theory of the institution of the Church that the RCC supports is definitely not the model of the EOC, which is one Church united in faith and mutual communion, but functions much more like a confederation of independent, self-governing churches all over the world. That is why the assumption that the priest being given irrevocable authority in the EOC context is absurd. It simply can't be. And priests that will perform church-services for money are under condemnation from both apostolic authority, and the authority of church canon law for centuries--it's called the sin of simony. If it is not being addressed by local churches, that's a big difference from saying that it is allowed.

As the situation goes, the system Tracy articulates within Catholicism is actually reminiscent of Neoplatonic magical systems articulated by Plotinus' student Jason Iambilicus. The theory of the priesthood and the whole ecclesiology of the RCC is virtually nothing more than a Christianization of Neoplatonic magic cultus, inherited from the Assyrians and Babylonians and wedded to the unique metaphysical blending of Platonism with Aristotle via Plotinus. My point is, no matter the outward appearances, or the confusion of "on the ground" sort of practices, the THEORY of how the priestly office functions is radically different in the EOC than in the RCC. For the EOC, Apostolic succession by itself means nothing--if one apostasies from the Orthodox faith, one necessarily forfeits any authority they inherit from the Apostles.

Of course, this makes it obvious that there is a huge gulf between these churches that puts the lie to the oft-repeated "sister churches" phrase, made popular by John-Paul II. However, if you want to look into a deeper connection to undermining of the Church by the occult groups (in particular the Freemasons), take a look at the history of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in the late 19th and 20th centuries--in particular Meletios Metaxas who brought the Orthodox Church the current near-schism over the adoption of the "New" Calendar for ecclesiastical use as well his novel (and oddly papal-sounding) ecclesiology surrounding the Ecumenical throne. And his successors, which have continued his legacy, are oddly comfortable with the RCC and the Pope. Make of that what you will.

Oh and, for the record, Peter Lavenda was never actually ordained as an Orthodox clergyman; he was involved in one of the pretend-orthodox, eastern-rite looking groups in the US that has no canonical backing or recognition beyond their own small cult group.

As far as Tracy's economic theories go--when she talks about "low tax neo-cons" is she thinking of the Austrian school thinkers? Because if so, I don't see much neo-connery in von Mises, Rothbard, or especially Hoppe.

[justinian]

Oh and, if you ever get Tracy back on the show, I wonder if anyone has ever tried to hold her feet to the fire over the whole Nicholas de Vere/Dragon Court thing? I'd LOVE to hear some real answers as to what all that was about, and what her connection to de Vere really is/was.