We’re Really Not Your Enemy!

Did you ever feel sorry for old Mr. Potter in Frank Capra’s classic film It’s A Wonderful Life? Here was a man who had all the money and prestige in the world, but, because he’d wasted his life stockpiling power and human manipulation, he just couldn’t see how wanting his moral coffers were, even as death began to stare him squarely in the face. In his warped worldview, the little town of Bedford Falls could never have been large enough to hold both his significant business interests and those of the little one-horse Bailey Building & Loan. By the end of the film, Potter is so consumed with scheming against his competition that he becomes reduced to a sort of pathetic character, wheeling about in his chair, resentful and angry at everyone.

Sometimes the neo-Catholic vs. traditional Catholic war reminds me of this classic David and Goliath story. Given that they are the ones who have at their disposal all the powerful television networks, the high-profile authors and apologists, and a plethora of glossy magazines and newspapers, one can’t help but to wonder why the neo-Catholics feel so threatened by traditional Catholics.

In the latest issue of The Wanderer, for example, the next installment of a six-part negative critique of our book, The Great Façade, appears. I doubt that there’s been another instance in the history of that paper where six consecutive issues were devoted to a single negative review. No, check that— there was one other. It was that 7-part series written by one of our former columnists and published in The Wanderer back in 2000. So that makes two extraordinary editorial decisions carried out purely in reaction to Remnant projects. I suppose a little outfit like ours should feel flattered.

This latest article is titled Rhetoric, Manipulation, And Ferrawood’s "Neo-Catholic" and it’s penned by a youngster, I’m told, fresh out of college. I have no intention of critiquing this chap’s critique of traditionalism (thinly disguised as a sort of mega book review). Neither do I question his goodwill in taking on his assignment; I presume he suffers from what all well-meaning neo-Catholics suffer: An inability to fathom just how dire the situation in the Church is and just how high up the chain of command the crisis reaches.

As for attacking The Great Façade at this point, it really wouldn’t make much difference who authored the “devastating critique”. The book has already received rave reviews from eminent theologians, priests and laymen around the world (including one from The Wanderer’s great columnist, Joe Sobran) and sales have far exceeded even our most optimistic expectations.

It’s also true that the last anti-traditionalist series published by The Wanderer netted nearly 1000 new subscriptions for The Remnant and, come to think of it, led to the publication of one of our most successful books to date—The Great Façade.

From a marketing standpoint, then, it would be foolhardy of me to try to discourage my cousin from giving wings to his latest endeavor. But something else strikes me, and I would like to share a few thoughts on it.

Given the horrific state of affairs in the Catholic Church today, one is sometimes tempted to imagine that the neo-Catholics must be intentionally refusing to accept the logical traditionalist arguments put forth in this instance by the two authors of The Great Facade. But, this is not necessarily the case. In fact, I suspect that most neo-Catholics are well meaning and are but one more scandal away from becoming traditionalists themselves. Most of them are sincere (if misled) in their thinking. And as for their continued “attacks” on traditionalism, well there’s little to fear there, either. Traditionalism is not some pet theory of ours. It’s nothing neither more nor less than the practice of historic Catholicism. Its infrastructure, if you will, is composed of Catholics armed with basic apologetics that have withstood the test of time for over 2000 years. Simply put, it’s the Catholic faith, whole and entire, as it was practiced for centuries before Vatican II.

There could be nothing worrisome, then, about The Wanderer’s little “devastating critique” of traditional Catholicism. In fact, if anything these critical assessments of the traditionalist position tend to strengthen the resolve of traditional Catholics. Time and again we see traditionalism attacked only to emerge stronger than before, without sustaining so much as a scratch. This is God’s doing, of course, not ours. His truth will always win out in the end, and traditionalism’s invincibility, if you will, is a direct consequence of the invincibility of Catholic truth itself, and has nothing to do with our opinions or our “clever” polemics. To the extent that we invent nothing new in our attempted defense of traditional Catholicism, we can remain confident that it will never lose a single argument. And whether it’s the neo-Catholic press’s newfound preoccupation with everything traditionalists are publishing these days or that so many headlines out of Rome refer to historic traditionalist developments—it’s becoming clear that the little traditional Catholic movement is emerging as a sort of avant-garde force within the Church. The Novus Ordo is faltering so pitifully that the Church’s grand liturgical and teaching tradition (which is all we’ve ever claimed to defend, no matter how inadequately) is itself drawing more and more faithful Catholics back to its ancient bosom.

EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo, for example, suddenly thinks nothing of interviewing Mel Gibson, a “radical traditionalist”, and in fact only smiles patiently when Gibson adamantly insists that the Tridentine Mass is the only Mass he will ever attend. Would EWTN have aired such a blatant slap at the New Mass even five years ago?

Under bold, front-page headlines, even neo-Catholic organs such as The Wanderer are beginning to insinuate themselves into discussions on Campos, the SSPX, and any number of formerly taboo (for them) traditionalist topics. This is good news, of course, and one hopes that their abrupt 180 carries with it an implicit abandonment of the neo-Catholic defense of the indefensible regime of novelty. Regardless, traditionalism is clearly winning the day over neo-Catholicism, even if the faithless, the scandalous and the heretical (neo-Modernist, liberal “Catholics”) still maintain a death grip on much of the human element of the Church as a whole.

In a few years, the next generation of Wanderer Catholics—weary as they must be of this neo-Catholic doctrine (which is now about as new and exciting as a lava lamp)—will hardly be blamed for anxiously admitting the obvious: It’s over! A return to tradition is the only Catholic recourse in the face of these new religionists who have the audacity to call themselves “Catholic”.

True, the older generation of neo-Catholics is less prepared to see the Revolution for what it is, and this is certainly understandable. They’ve invested years preparing for the “new springtime of Vatican II” that for decades they were promised was imminent. When it never came, they were left standing somewhere between Catholicism and modernism, while the progressivist revolutionaries they idolized began to grow irrelevant, even powerless in the face of the rabble which has begun to take control of the Church in recent years (Cardinal Mahony, please call your office). In recent months, these disillusioned defenders of an aging regime of novelty seem to be wandering in a rightward direction in search of those discarded core principles that, forty years ago, the revolutionaries insisted were dispensable.

To be sure, some of the older neo-Catholics are not readily admitting that they were hoodwinked. Perhaps a little irrationally, in fact, they are ratcheting-up their rhetoric against traditionalists, even attempting to banish us from the Church. In one last desperate campaign, they’re enlisting the aid of untested rookies to argue their case that those who resisted the Revolution of Vatican II all along did so from foul territory… we were out of bounds. Thus the constant references to “schism” and “dangerous trajectories”. But even this is carried out with less and less conviction as the extent of the ecclesial devastation becomes overwhelmingly obvious to the whole world. The evening news as much as anything else is causing neo-Catholicism to simply run out of steam. Anyone who’s paying any attention knows full well that the traditional Catholic position is being vindicated.

These neo-Catholics should probably be pitied, really, for scrambling to proffer a new definition of traditionalism that might somehow include them, even enable them to retain some modicum of pride when they look back over long careers filled with exuberance for Vatican II and the New Mass. Theirs is a human reaction, of course. It’s not altogether dissimilar to what Pope John Paul himself seems to be doing now in his twilight years as that same springtime of Vatican II, like some phantom roaming the halls Castle Gandolfo, shows itself to have been nothing more than the illusive fantasy of an old man’s unfulfilled dreams.

To varying degrees, these men too are victims of a demonically inspired plot against the Catholic Church which for forty years hid its ugly visage behind a façade of novelty and innovation. And as this great façade finally begins to crumble and that true face of the Revolution is revealed, its neo-Catholic defenders must make a choice between tradition and novelty…between the old religion and a new one. It is our opinion that, in the last analysis, the majority of them will choose correctly. At this point, in fact, it seems that the “most popular pope in history”—an aging revolutionary himself, whose out-of-control Revolution is even beginning to leave him behind—is all that stands between them and their return to tradition. The next conclave will in all likelihood be followed by a massive influx into the traditionalist movement.

So, there’s little cause for concern over these neo-Catholic last gasps. The Great Façade—the book—like traditionalism itself, is, at bottom, a systematic presentation of the obvious…a reiteration of the basic truths of the pre-Vatican II Church. As such, it is unassailable and it can not suffer in the least from underdeveloped neo-Catholic polemics penned by enthusiastic youngsters who don’t even remember the days of Paul VI.

The two authors of The Great Façade, whom The Wanderer editor (in what appears to be another example of this same neo-Catholic desperation) has accused of “shooting holes in the hull of the Barque of Peter,” are well within their rights to simply take a pass on putting together yet another point-by-point response to The Wanderer. Why should they be expected to write another book in answer to yet another verbose critique? Where would it end, especially when the thrust of the current Wanderer initiative seems to have less to do with an actual ideological debate and more to do with a personal grudge? Consider the following sad attempt to place Woods and Ferrara beyond the pale:

The book [The Great Façade] no doubt has a certain appeal to those Catholics, mainly younger ones, who have little education in the Catholic faith or Church history and who are troubled by the widespread confusion and chaos in Catholic teaching and practice as the surrounding culture seems headed for the abyss. Yet shooting holes in the hull of the Barque of Peter and attacking its helmsman, as The Great Façade seems to do, appears to be a strange approach to addressing real problems.

Does he imagine that his readers are going to somehow miss the contradiction here? After all, why would he feel compelled to devote six issues of his newspaper to unmasking a lowbrow, worthless book, which is at best capable of appealing to a few undereducated teenagers? Clearly, the editor is trying to convince his readers of something he’s no longer quite sure of himself.

Finally, let’s juxtapose Al Matt’s rather embittered summation of The Great Façade to one written by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published in the March issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review:

Ferrara and Woods think that Paul VI and John Paul II have erred seriously by introducing novelties and rejecting much of Catholic tradition. That is why they contrast them with their predecessors. They argue that the Pope is supposed to preserve and defend the tradition and not to be an agent of change. They do this as faithful and obedient children to an erring father who has the right and the duty to resist novelties in the Church…

The Great Façade presents the case of traditionalists against Vatican II and the post-conciliar popes. To establish their case, the authors present many serious arguments in order to bolster their position. There is no name-calling or wild accusations. The authors are not sedevacantists, or heretics or schismatics. They deny no dogmas of the Catholic faith. Simply put, they disagree with the changes in the Church since Vatican II…They think that the confusion and crisis in the Church, which is obvious to all, is a result of Vatican II, so that the way to solve it is “to close the book on Vatican II.”

Obviously, the renowned Jesuit (a regular speaker at Wanderer Forums and certainly not a hard-core traditionalist) couldn’t possibly have missed those passages in our book where the authors “shoot holes in the Barque of Peter.” Father Baker, like Dr. Thomas Droleskey, Robert Sungenis, E. Michael Jones and so many others, has no doubt seen the handwriting on the wall. I mean no disrespect when I suggest that The Wanderer editor may well be haunted by a nightmarish scenario whereby, even after his years of service to the Church, history will nevertheless place him on the wrong side of this battlefield. His inflammatory rhetoric against the two Catholic authors (whom Father Baker concedes are “faithful and obedient”) only supports our contention that things are starting to unravel for the neo-Catholics. We should pray for them and be quick to invite them to join this fight against the full blown anti-Christian Revolution that is making frightening advances toward taking control of the Church in the modern world.

In most cases, it’s not because they are malicious that the neo-Catholics oppose traditionalists as they do. I believe it’s more on point that they’re terrified of the prospect that the Revolution in their beloved Church has been as devastating as we say, that the traditionalist position was justifiable all along, and that they, in their admittedly noble efforts to serve the Church, have instead and inadvertently served those who would destroy her.

Can you imagine a worse plight for a faithful Catholic? They are becoming the latest victims of this heartless regime of novelty which they themselves supported for so long. The Revolution is ruthless, and it is not above devouring its own. Remember, this is only the modern manifestation of the same Revolution that finally sent Robespierre himself to his own guillotine.

We pray for these Catholics that they might join the fight against the great façade rather than trying to prop it up and defend it ad nauseum. It’s not too late. In fact, I’m anxious that The Remnant should go on record as inviting The Wanderer to join the traditionalist counterrevolution now, before it is too late. The Church we all love…the Church that is now under universal siege…needs all her loyal sons. Let’s finally and at long last end this tired wrangling and go to her defense…together…united in the old Faith that our fathers and grandfather and great-grandfather lived and defended through the Catholic press apostolate for well over a hundred years!

She wants to look her best for her subjects.

Make a fashion statement. Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

Excellent! I'm glad Michael Matt put this up on the website! I was thinking of just typing it up from scratch off the newspaper.

Throughout the Wanderer's and friends' sniping, this has consistently been the attitude of the Remnant's writers.

I doubt that there’s been another instance in the history of that paper where six consecutive issues were devoted to a single negative review. No, check that— there was one other. It was that 7-part series written by one of our former columnists and published in The Wanderer back in 2000. So that makes two extraordinary editorial decisions carried out purely in reaction to Remnant projects.

There was also a series of 5 articles in The Wanderer attacking The Latin Mass magazine.

To me it's clear that The Wanderer has missed the boat. First of all, because the only real solution right now is practicing the traditional Catholic Faith in your own life for the good of your own soul. The Wanderer has emphasized criticizing the antics of the liberals, while ignoring the essential issues -- offering true worship and reparation to God through the traditional sacraments and traditional spiritual life.

By doing so one can develop the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and gain the ability to distinguish between true and false doctrine. The Wanderer tries to distinguish between true and false messengers, and ends up accepting lies as long as they come from someone considered one of the "good guys." Meanwhile it rejects the truth if it is presented by someone on its list of "bad guys."

The Wanderer has emphasized criticizing the antics of the liberals, while ignoring the essential issues -

Couldn't disagree more. I've found the Wanderer to be very spritually edifying. The Wanderer is completely traditional, including the tradition of union with Rome.

An inability to fathom just how dire the situation in the Church is and just how high up the chain of command the crisis reaches.

I think this sums up the difference between rad trads and those faithful to the See of Rome. The Rad Trads believe that their judgement of the situation is the only correct one, and they will go to any length to convince others that they are correct. Even when it means throwing out history, logic, and truth.

I hope you read Omar Gutierrez's critique of the Rad Trad position. It has been posted on the Wanderer website.

I hope you read Omar Gutierrez's critique of the Rad Trad position. It has been posted on the Wanderer website.

I already have; it’s laughable.

I hope you read “In Defense of the Neologism “Neo-Catholic”: What the Term Means and Why It’s Right” (A response to Mr. Gutierrez’s critique of “The Great Façade”) by Gerry Matatics.

Well, the article states that E. Michael Jones supports the book's thesis. I emailed Mike to see if he agrees with that statement.

Actually, what it says is: "Father Baker, like Dr. Thomas Droleskey, Robert Sungenis, E. Michael Jones and so many others, has no doubt seen the handwriting on the wall." But I'm not sure what Matt means by that with regards to Jones, or putting him in the same sentence alongside Droleskey and Sungenis.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.