Da roof, da roof, da roof is on fire! I suspect that anyone reading this has already noticed the rising wave of indignation sweeping trad social media in recent days, but ICYMI, Dymphna sums it up nicely. Or rather, not so nicely.
Something is happening in Trad land. That’s not a deep thought since something is always happening where there is life but I mean that something new seems to be stirring. People are talking back to the leaders of Trad Inc. and asking questions. Benedict Carter has come out with his suspicion that the people we’ve been told represent and are the leaders of traditional Catholics are really controlled opposition who do it for the money, honey.
So, forgive me if I am aghast at college credentialed individual who has obvious talent and cleverness who wants me to donate to his cause so his kids can eat. Sir, go get yourself a job, handle the responsibility that God gave you and then come back to me. Finally there is one lay professional Catholic who writes on and on and on some more about stupid and worldly (you and me) people but wants us to send our worldly cash to him/her. I say again, you are by your claim, more righteous than me. You are by your claim, more holy than me. You are, by your claim, more educated and sophisticated than me so why exalted sir or madam do you not get a job and support your rent and food that way and run your site?
I like her.
Read the rest HERE.
13 thoughts on “Blegging, controlled opposition, and profiting off of the present crisis”
Her article is good, thank you for linking it here in your site. Spot on! The Trad Inc people remind me a lot of the “conservative” novus ordo people. When I came into the Church, I immediately gravitated to the conservative n.o. side. But, as I grew in my faith and began to discover the Traditional Latin Mass, they started to really show themselves. Looking back on that era, so many priests just had to throw “how great the second Vatican council” was into their homilies and private conversations, despite the blatant proof that absolutely zero good came from the council. The Trad Inc people today are 10x nastier than the conservative n.o.s but I gotta wonder if there really is an official controlled opposition out there and if so, who are the sugar daddies?
Absolutely correct! I can’t tell you how many times I think, these guys of Trad Inc. need to GET A REAL JOB! I suppose that is what contributes to their nastiness, since they know deep down that they are not making an honest living. That reality is making them angry, especially when smart women point this out.
So … just who’s who in the zoo? You cant leave us hanging out wondering !… “Speak the truth and do so boldly! ” …. as St Jeanne D’Arc’s angel so said.
The issue of “controlled opposition” is a smokescreen masking the true disagreement among some of the major traditionalist players: whether Pope Francis is truly the pope. Benedict Carter, aka the Great Stalin, obviously disagrees with, inter alia, the people at The Remnant.
But the Walter Matt family has been in the traditionalist movement since the 1960s, having broken with The Wanderer and thereby splitting the Matt family, and the idea that Walter’s son Michael is serving as controlled opposition for Pope Francis is rather odd. Michael Matt is doing nothing different from what his father did during the papacy of Paul VI and what he himself did during the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Chris Ferrara is an attorney in private practice; he doesn’t need any money by soliciting Catholics through a website or news organization.
Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara, Steve Skojec, and Hilary White, among others, disagree with Ann Barnhardt, Louie Verrecchio, and those who follow their opinions. Understood. But neither side can, a) prove that it is right or, b) do much about it to begin with.
I assume Pope Francis is the pope, but if that assumption is wrong, what can I do about it? The majority of the world and the hierarchy believe him to be pope, so it’s an exercise in futility to constantly talk about why Pope Francis is not the true pope. What does that accomplish exactly? This is not the 10th century, where armies went to Rome and dethroned sitting popes. No one seems to be doing that. We’re just a bunch of laymen making comments on the Internet and arguing over something that no one can do anything about, and it’s that issue which all of a sudden is causing people to question “Trad Inc.” and the money that people make.
I wish both sides would give it a rest. Is there someone who thinks there should be no Catholic newspapers (or the modern equivalent) or Catholic publishing houses? The people who run those places make money, and they need to do so in order to remain open. Who doesn’t understand that? Mr. Nelson of TAN Books lived by selling books. It’s not a new thing.
No one questioned those things until this pontificate and the disagreement that has arisen among traditionalists regarding its legitimacy. For my part, I wish both sides would give it a rest.
People in the early years of the Church lived and died not caring who the pope was. There were several instances where several popes in succession lasted mere days, and by the time the news of the death of the pope reached the Catholics in, say, India, there had been two subsequent popes.
DJR: An interesting perspective, especially the context of the current disputations. Informative.
As to your comments, regards the Pope, (“both sides, give it a rest”) it makes all the difference in the world when the visible Pope is burning down the Church and all her sacred, core Traditions. If you accept Francis, then that has implications in regards to obedience to the Holy Father’s will as Christ’s Vicar. Or … if (like most Catholics) you don’t care either way, and it is for others to decide – that also has implications in regards to obedience (you must and will). You can’t call Francis Holy Father out of one side of the mouth, and then ignore and oppose everything (the main things) he does out of the other. He has specific goals for the Faithful. Those in communion with him must follow – in communion with his authority.
“What can I do about it”? Objectively judge the facts which are known and determine whether this man has the authority of Christ as Vicar. That means everything. No other earthly question matters in comparison. And then, inner assent based on that judgement.
I do not assent to Balls on the High Altar and in my home. I do not assent to sodomy in communion with God. I do not assent to married Priests. I do not assent to female Ordained. I do not assent to the equality of all religions. I do not assent to change in the Lord’s Prayer. I do not assent to change in God’s moral Law (eg capital punishment). And I most especially don’t assent, in fact oppose with all my inner conviction and strength, *Emeritus Pope*; Popes who remain and retire; transformation of the Rock upon which Christ established His Church ….. Etc … All of these things, (starting with “Emeritus” Pope) are illegal and illegitimate.
I *do* assent to one Pope at a time; which Pope must either die or resign his Office before a new Conclave may (legally) be called. I do assent to the validly elected Holy Father who remains grounded in Sacred Scripture and Tradition and remains in communion with the Church.
For me it is easy. You will never find a Baal in my house, nor will I ever bow down to one – and I don’t care whether Bergoglio demands that I do or not. Those who accept him as Holy Father kind of have to.
@Aqua: Well done! Like Deb said, to put it all together for us.
For some comedy relief: I don’t assent to “balls” in my house either. Especially golf balls that are so much fun to bounce down the stairs and into the glass of the grand (not so much any more) front door. God bless you and yours on this Septuagesima Sunday!
Islam_Is Islam: My spell checker does that to me all the time. I type in Baals and it comes out Balls. 😬.
Well, he put that on the High Altar too. He walked right up and for some strange reason placed a bright green beach ball from his Brazil trip, adjacent to the Tabernacle. It kept rolling off, and he really wanted the ball to touch the Holy Tabernacle. Kept shoving it and wedging it in.
In a way, the ball in that context qualifies as a Baal too. But I was referring to bloodthirsty Pachamama Earth goddess – a true Baal.
“Who cares if the Nazarene is the Messiah and Son of the Living God? The majority, if not all, the scribes and chief priests do not believe he is, nor do very many common people, and in any case neither side can, a) prove that it is right or, b) do much about it to begin with.
There is no Messianic kingdom in sight, the Romans still rule the whole world and they put him to death as a matter of routine. Good luck spreading news of this messiah to Rome, and all nations (LOL!). It’s an exercise in futility to constantly talk about how his kingdom is not of this world, or that it is not something people can observe, nor will they say “here it is” or “there it is.” What does that accomplish exactly? These are not the days of Maccabeus, when we at least had some fighting men to break idols within our own borders and giving us some semblance of a kingdom of our own. No one seems to be doing that.
I wish both sides would give it a rest. We Jews have always had our disagreements, and the important thing now is to unite the clans around our common traditions rather than provoke divisions. Generations of Jews have lived and died faithfully without knowing or seeing the Messiah; we’ll survive.”
Sarcasm + Irony = Truth
LSH: Well, if you put it that way.
I always seem to understand things better by drawing analogies; making the inexplicable, explicable by drawing from what is known to what is less than clear.
This is a very good, worthy analogy.
I understand why Catholics are perplexed and unwilling to acknowledge the enormity of what we face. I would think analogies like this can help light the way.
Well, there was that whole Arian crisis thing where like only two people in the entire Catholic Church got it right, and the rest eventually came around. Numbers alone prove nothing.
And in 4th century AD India, knowing who was the pope was probably less critical because, as you say, information took a while before getting around. Today, as soon as the guy steps out on the balcony, we know. Big difference, wouldn’t you say? Also, teachings and pronouncements in the before times took a while to disseminate, which probably had a braking effect on some heresies. Today, Bergoglio’s inanities traverse the globe before your first cup of morning java is consumed. If he is the Pope, then you must follow those inanities; if he is not, then not, and he is leading others over the cliff.
You can’t do much about who putatively, physically sits on the chair of Peter; you can do something about whether your circle of influence should treat him as Christ’s vicar or a (an?) usurper.
Let’s face it – if it wasn’t having any impact, Bergo wouldn’t be having tantrums, and no one would bother trying to refute Anne.
But, having said that, I feel no ill will towards Matt or Ferrara. It is not an easy position to come to grips with given the enormity of the ramifications, even for the sincere. I have a hard time with it myself. As someone one said “Poping ain’t easy.” Indeed.
Aqua; whoa, you nailed it! Thank you for putting it all together so clearly. I think we should be sending you a donation for that well thought out explanation. It helps everyone see it plainly.