Guenon's conception - and likely those of most on this forum - was idealistic pap wholly divorced from any semblance of reality. The problem with it in the main is, of course, that it looks to undo the last quarter of a millinium without addressing why
history has played out as it has. Eleison
himself acknowledges this when he writes that
Beyond, the errors of the Church in the medieval times are to be avoided.
Of course, you cannot avoid
the "errors of the Church in the medieval times", because the structure of the Church since the "medieval times" has not even remotely changed: it remains, today as ever, essentially feudalistic in structure, devoted to a decaying stratocracy based around dogma. The notion that this stratification has anything to do with 'vir
' or a 'caste system' is utterly ludicrous: ascension through the ranks of Catholicism has absolutely not a whit to do with merit. Catholicism despises merit. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has far more to do with how well the various officeholders of that organization promote whatever line the reigning Pope professes than any ability to think for one's self -- Ratzinger, for example, was made Chief Inquisitor simply because he agreed with John Paul's "compassionate conservative" social policy in e.g. Africa, and was able to justify it theologically in writing a little better than the usual pedestrian bilge that comes out of that office.
This insistence by certain parties here that we 'make amends' with Christianity, in the name of a false and artificial anti-liberalism, is ahistorical. It treats liberalism as something quite other than what it actually was: a justifiable
movement against the falsity of the social structure of the Dark Ages. And the enemy of my enemy is most certainly not my friend - better modernism, which at least gropes for reality and fails, than Christianity.
You would have us leap from humanism to humanism in the name of a 'tradition' which is not and has never been ours. And when 'tradition' - a concept with a quite inflated stature here - begins to take precedence over cold and hard reality, your philosophy has failed.
This Manichean view of history that, sadly, many ANUSites seem to take for granted - hallowed, holy tradition against virulent modernism - is not only not supported by the historical record, it is dogmatistic hogwash. Modernity was, during its first stages, a welcome break from the era of feudalism, which in turn was a reaction against the decadent, decaying, centralist tendencies of the late Empire. Not to be too dialectical here, but most discernible historical 'epochs' try to be the antithesis of the one which came before, and most of them have at least some reason for doing it. Far better than reacting blindly to modernity's errors by charging headfirst into the 12th century would be to examine the doctrines of all
centuries, see which is most useful and most approaching some harmony with reality as we know it, and incorporate it into our frame of reference. But that is scientific, evolutionary, and - gasp! shock! horror! - slightly modern, and so runs contrary to the artificial image of the misanthrope most here seem to want to project.