On Uniting The Clans, Again

I read more articles about the Unite The Clans movement. This is something I find natural in principle and, actually, would seem unquestionable in a logical perspective.

You have noticed that this blog is very hesitant in engaging in personal battles with other Catholic blogs.

For example (and it is just the most egregious), years ago a blogger attacked me openly on his own blog. I took note of those who commented approvingly of his blog post and banned them from mine, both themselves as commenters and all blog posts written by them on their blogs. I also proceeded to permanently exclude said blogs from mine, refusing to link to it when links appeared in comments. I wrote a post about the event, but did not name names.

My good opinion, once lost, is lost forever. However, I did not engage in any crusade, not wanting to give our enemies the satisfaction of seeing Catholics attack each other in public.

Besides, I remember the two guys who, after having smeared me with their comment on that other blog, then proceeded to write an approving comment on a blog post of mine, on the same day, before noticing they had both been banned. This stupid and hypocritical behaviour is, in fact, a part of the problem, as there seems to be people who actually like to feed controversy, provided they can see their nickname in print, or can promote their own blog. The infighting is, in fact, not only a problem of angry bloggers. It is also a problem of eager cheerleaders.

I try to do the same with the squabbles I see on the Internet. When a fake Catholic publication attacked a true Catholic one, I have openly defended the true one, because in this case I do not consider the fake publication a part of the Catholic world. If two good Catholics offend each other, I tend to simply stay out of it.

Some controversies I simply do not recognise as such. I refuse to think that the FSSP priests want the SSPX dead, or are its enemies in any way, shape or form. I am firmly on the side of the SSPX, but I would consider myself blessed if I had a V II traditionalist institute near me. I am persuaded that most SSPX priests think highly of the FSSP ones, and vice versa. I am also persuaded that every good priest of any such organisation would, at least in private, suggest to me that I attend Mass by the other rather than going to the happy-clappy V II one.

I am, also, persuaded that most Traditionalists, and every soundly thinking Catholics, understand that Francis, not the SSPX or the FSSP, is the problem.

Uniting the Clan cannot be a centralised movement, by which someone with a prestigious blog indicates the movement’s direction and all others follow his instructions. It does not work this way, because blogging is a different exercise. I, like everybody else, would not allow anyone to tell me what I want to write about, in which terms, and with which tones.

But what can – and, I think, should – be done is a reflection on the effect that internal disagreements – I mean by this disagreements among bona fide Catholics – have on those who have started to timidly follow the movement and are there, fascinated, learning little by little, slowly understanding the wonderful world of true Catholicism (I was, once, one of them; and my ignorance was utterly appalling, besides being clearly culpable).

They should, ideally, see that whilst we have disagreement like everybody else, we try to deal with the disagreement among ourselves in a different manner. Not condoning, and neither being a doormats nor a sanctimonious bitch. But simply sending a clear message that this controversy is dealt differently because we do things differently. 

I think this would be enough, because we are all humans and we are all angry – and rightly so – when our integrity is questioned.




Posted on August 30, 2019, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. patertheophilus

    Part of the problem is even within Traditional Catholicism there is disagreement on the word “Catholic” .
    From the Catholic encyclopedia: “The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.” However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails…”
    Later the same article reminds us that “Catholic” as understood by St. Augustine is is “That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” “This”, he adds, “is what is truly and properly Catholic”.
    This opens up a can of whoop more complicated than saying “That what we had in 1950”.
    Select one: Does “Catholic” mean:
    1. the visible administrative structure (Novus ordo) or only one step derived from them (i.e. an independent priest or jurisdiction who left vs say CMRI etc);
    2. Acceptance of the 20 doctrinal Councils and associated mainstream Latin Rite custom exclusively;
    3. Acceptance of the 20 doctrinal Councils; but also those Traditional groups that differ in disciplinary practice out side of De Fide statements i.e A married Traditional Priest with valid succession married PRIOR to ordination like the Ordinarate and Eastern rites with permission to say the Latin Mass.
    4. In union with Francis administratively as well as spiritually; or
    5. NOT accepting John XXIII and the post conciliar popes as legitimate.
    And probably one hundred more examples we could come up with.
    So what does God want? I can almost guarantee He doesn’t want us working at counter purpose during a real spiritual war. (Some have suggested our minor differences would keep a persecuted Church safer).
    Thy will be done. Sometimes good Catholics get it wrong. Look at St Vincent Ferrar- he backed the wrong pope. He’s still a Saint as one who sought the Divine Will and built the Kingdom according to his vocation and situation/information he was given.
    So too- all the Trad factions cannot ALL be 100% correct. But we can agree to fight over details after the primary threat has been addressed. Rome must be retaken from the modernists. Many of these differing Trad jurisdictions who differ could be accommodated within a structure of post-restoration sub-rites or societies. The Church has always had a diversity of spirituality and charism but retained the One True Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
    My own view is that Traditional Catholic is anyone who:
    1. Believes in ALL the teachings of the 20 Doctrinal Councils;
    2. Acknowledges the primacy of the Petrine Office and wishes union under a True and Faithful Pope.;
    3. Honors and supports the Traditional Mass in the West as normative in any one of 1962 or prior variants; and
    4. Maintains a line of apostolic succession from a Catholic bishop.
    That net is pretty big. It brings most Independents together. FSSP, SSPX, Sede and non-Sede Independent. We all love the same faith and the same Lord.
    Our differences- God will sort. If we are faithful perhaps more wonderfully than can easily be hoped for on earth.
    God bless and protect you.

    • incontrovertibletruth

      Sorry…but the sedes can’t be with us. They’re apostates and heretics, one and all. They must forsake and be cleansed from the poisonous bitterness of their sinful rebellion, and return, humbly and penitently, to Holy Mother Church. Only then could they be embraced.
      I agree with the rest of your list, though.

    • You don’t need to agree with them. Just dedicate your energies to fighting against Frankie.

  2. Are you a supporter of the SSPX?

  3. The bitchiness in Catholic blogs always surprises me, because back in the day this was a woman’s industry, but now it’s open to both sexes (I refuse to use “gender”). I thought guys all pretty much got along and it’s one reason I always liked men better. It’s all the dog chasing his tail, means nothing, is boring and boorish, but people do it. All of Christendom is snarky and crabby, it’s part of our culture now. There is nothing different about the Catholic blogosphere in that aspect. I honestly can’t understand why everybody has their postage stamp of real estate and defends it like a mother bear.
    Unite the Clans sounds good because action sounds good. We have suffered these men six years now, and we have nothing to show for it. The level of arrogance from them is far worse than it was then, because now they know, they can do whatever they want and there’s not a thing we will do about it. Because we aren’t organized. Let’s change that.
    In my opinion it simply cannot be clergy. They are by definition hampered by their situations.
    Certainly we have zero hope for any Cardinal or bishop to lead, and any priest would immediately have conflict. It can’t be one individual because it’s too much. We are talking about trying to identify critical goals and strategies, and harnessing that into something functional. That alone is gargantuan. One person is going to get picked apart immediately and it will take too much of a toll on one person.
    Polls may be useful at some point. What do Catholics want from this, oh boy, billion dollar question. But what would be the goal.
    To me it’s always a matter of what do we have we can use. I believe it comes down to good or bad public relations for the pope and church, and of course, MONEY.
    Sorry for my long comment.

%d bloggers like this: