Tuesday, December 18, 2018

More Traddie Sniping


There's a lot of snark and calumny going around on blogs and social media recently with Trads sniping each other. The so-called "circular firing squad" strikes again. I would have assumed that with the liberal coterie in the Church in full ascendancy, traditional Catholics would be forming alliances and finding new unity in a common effort.

Nope. If anything, the opposite seems to have happened. Traditionalist outlets and commentators are descending into mutual accusation and recrimination of each other. The reasons for this are varied, and some are bigger offenders than others. "The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You shall go out one way against them and flee seven ways before them" (Deut. 28:25). This curse seems to have befallen us, as we not only flee seven ways but make sure to take pot-shots at our brethren while we do so.

Yes, there are always rationales. "I'm just defending my reputation"; "So-and-so is leading people astray"; "All Catholics have an obligation to speak out against X"; "They started the battle, not me." And so on.

Personally, I love Rorate Caeli. I love 1P5; I count Steve Skojec as a friend of mine and have always enjoyed my banter with him. I also respect Michael Voris and Church Militant. I love The Remnant. I love Vox Cantoris. I chuckle when I read Mundabor. I love Ryan Grant. I love Fr. Zuhlsdorf. And there's a whole slew of other traditional blogs, media outlets, and individuals whom I respect and count as allies. I don't find liking anyone of them precludes me from liking any other, nor does 

Do I agree with them all? Of course not. But that's okay. We are really in uncharted waters here, and everybody is pursuing the course they think best. Everybody is just trying to make sense of our situation. I've taken my fair share of sniping as well; one of the outlets mentioned above once said I was "doing the devil's work" and unlinked me because I disagreed with them on an extraordinarily minute issue that was entirely prudential. And I myself have doled it out in the past as well.

But I don't think now is the time for it. Now more than ever we need to set aside petty squabbling; not to say all disagreements are "petty"—a person who is insisting that Francis is not the Roman pontiff is making an extremely serious accusation. But to be honest, most of this sniping is petty. It's about people preserving their "turf" and maintaining their street-cred as traddie luminaries. I guess a charitable explanation would be that the developments in the Church have everybody on edge and are making us overly sensitive and irritable, like how people get when on a long car ride and someone takes a wrong turn and gets lost and everybody becomes cranky because of the situation.

A less charitable explanation would be that some traditionalist outlets have begun to think of themselves as a "Trad Magisterium", veritable thought leaders and opinion setters who equate their own positions with orthodoxy itself. I spoke about this some time ago in a post called "No Trad Magisterium" (Feb. 2015), the central thesis of which was that "there is no one website or blog, no organization, no one author, no one order or society, no one publication, no one prelate, no one individual who authoritatively speaks for Catholic traditionalists, and whom to disagree with is to risk ostracism. There is no trad Magisterium." But if you want to read a more eloquent explanation of this, I recommend the essay "Faithful Catholics and Theological Positions -- A Difference Which Must be Overlooked" (Dec. 2014) on Eponymous Flower by guest contributor Victor Clemens Oldendorf.

People have often challenged me publicly in my 10+ years of blogging; often someone with the attitude of "Boniface, I debunked you on this very long post (**includes link**); how will you answer? Debate me!" My response is usually to yawn, congratulate them on such a witty rebuttal, and move on without answering or sometimes even reading the article. I don't personally care. Perhaps I should care more. Perhaps I'm just a bad blogger. 

Well, whatever. People are gonna do what they're gonna do. Let's just not take ourselves too seriously. We ought to always take the Faith seriously while maintaining a certain amount of levity about ourselves.

God bless all my fellow bloggers.



15 comments:

Phyllis Schabow said...

I would love to read this but old eyes cannot see well when the print size is so small. And, I'll bet most of your readers are over fifty and need the easiest format possible. Also, reading white against black is not nearly as convenient as reading black print over white background. I suggest a change in print size and background color! Please!

Kathleen1031 said...

Phyllis I'll respond to you first. There are a few ways to increase font size. This usually works...

See the Ctrl key? See the key with the plus sign on it?
Hit Ctrl and the + (plus) sign, and the font should increase.

Want the font small again? Hit Ctrl and the - sign, next to the plus.

There are other ways to do it but that should work.

Kathleen1031 said...

hmm. my comment disappeared, and I didn't even mention Muslims.

Ok, try again. Phyllis, to increase the font hit the Ctrl key and the + key. To make the font small hit the Ctrl key and the - key (next to the +)
There are other ways as well.

We are watching the division that probably naturally occurs when people are so frustrated and fatigued they are reaching their breaking point.
We've forgotten civility and manners and patience. Put people under enough pressure, they'll break. This diabolical papacy is enough to make everybody crazy. God help all involved. This is delightful to the progressives, and Satan must be enjoying it immensely.

Perhaps it's time to call it a day. Maybe it's all been said, repeatedly, and checking daily on new apostasies and how the world is going to hell is taking it's toll. I think the 11 year old boy dancing for gay money, put in that gay bar by his own parents should be enough to convince us hell is real, and we're living it.
God bless all, and may God return soon and rescue us from this mess.

Michael Dowd said...

I'm with you. This internecine bickering is ridiculous. Who cares if Pope Francis is legit or not, or if Benedict is really the Pope? Maybe the sedevacantists are right, maybe not. Maybe Ann Barnhardt has the truth, maybe not. All of this is theory and speculation; there is no certainty on the current status of the Papacy. One thing we can all agree on is that Francis is a bad Pope because he doesn't follow the teachings of the pre-Vatican II Church and has made many heretical statements. What's important is that we reject Pope Francis as our leader and dismiss what he says and does as essentially anti-Catholic.

My main issue is the illegitimacy of Vatican II which has been a catastrophe for the Church. It must be abrogated in it's entirety.

Z said...

Well I don't equate sniping with debating, you little bitch

Aqua said...

Circular firing squad:

Catholics are united around the Supreme Pontiff, who is himself united to Sacred Tradition - all who came before.

Or we are not united at all.

We need the Supreme Pontiff. That is why the question of Pope Benedict XVI ("emeritus") is crucially important.

Unite around Francis. Unite around Benedict XVI. Choose.

Anonymous said...

Lol...as if it’s Francis or Benedict. Francis is the pope. He’s a shitty pope but he’s the pope. Any theory that Benedict is still pope is ridiculous.

Michael Dowd said...

Aqua--

I would rather have no Supreme Pontiff rather than the ones we have had since Vatican II. All of them have been poor to bad in my opinion. Vatican II was a catastrophe for the Church and must be abrogated in it's entirety. Now the Catholic Church is more Protestant than Catholic mostly all do to Vatican II.

c matt said...

Well, Ann is pretty uh . . vociferous in expressing her opinions. I get that all involved do see the seriousness of the issue - whether PF is legit or not is a pretty big deal, so getting it right is important. But precisely because it is a big deal, when credible arguments are made one way or the other, they should be addressed with as little snark as possible. Snark works when the argument attacked is ludicrous. It comes off as defensive (or worse) when the argument attacked has some legs.

Catholic 78 said...

Agreed... Cardinal Coco and the happy boys around him are gleefully rallying around the self mutilation that many of the Traditional bloggers are engaging in.. its actually sickening.

John R said...

The furor against the Benedict thesis is worse than anything I have seen before. And the line was crossed in the effort to stifle debate by condemning Faithful Catholics of heresy (Siscoe, Salza, and SSPX outlets) or schism (more ED and SP outlets).

No one takes Ann Barnhardt's excessive statements seriously. But were she not so hasty, she never would have spoken and the long ago circulated theses stifled in Rome would be unheard, unknown.

In any case that Catherine of Sienna said she would defend the true pope with her very blood should signal the importance of the question. Unity is one of the 4 marks and the pope is the very principle of unity. But condemning as heretic and schismatic the rightly confused faithful has crossed a line.

It does seem to me that Skojec's muse has left and just as he engaged this matter. On the other hand it seems there is no more for him to say.

All need more prayer and to draw closer to Our Lord, for He alone is and has the answer. Benedict perhaps was right to withdraw to pray and suffering and silence. Maybe there is nothing he can do.

For the AntiChurch to fully materialize it must lose all four marks and mimic them merely. A novel mass, a novel council, and now a novel papacy slowly realize this abominable Church which is likely to be the seat of AntiChrist. Pius X warned of it in his day already.

A true pope cannot be the false prophet.

But most trads, I think, are unprepared to face the full reality. Socci is on the right track here imo

Boniface said...

Why does everybody think this article is just about Skojec and Barnhardt?

Boniface said...

P.S. The Socci these is retarded

John R said...

It's more than Barnhardt and Skojec. I mentioned others and could list many more.

"Retarded" is not an argument. I've read Kramer, Violi, and many others. It's been my position for four plus years. Not one has seriously read or refuted these arguments, and I always take devil's advocate as well. Benedict IX resigned, an antipope was elected and accepted. Later the resignation was held invalid, on one ground only, not the four or five now suspected. The tradition is pretty clear here, but dismissers and scoffers prefer not to look. In fact, none have actually looked at the Canon law that Violi cites. While Canon law does not bind a pope where it is merely positive, where it describes the Divine and natural law, all are subject.

Regardless, condemning as heretic and schismatic those with just concerns is to exercise an authority lay bloggers lack. And theirs is strikingly similar to the decades old attitude of moderns who ignore, silence, and despise critics of Vatican II and the new mass.

Boniface said...

The Socci thesis has been thoroughly refuted. I have my own reasons for dismissing it, I just don't want to go into it here. But I find it a very silly series of arguments.