“Papologist” Dave Armstrong. Hey, if every radical Catholic reactionary can be their own pope, why not me, too?

* * * * *

Readers who follow this blog will recall two recent articles of mine [one / two] about radical Catholic reactionary Hilary White, who writes for The Remnant, and formerly for Lifesite News. We actually got along well (on a personal level) in our interactions here, but she certainly gave no quarter to my viewpoints in opposition to reactionaryism. In her view, I am a “Novusordoist” (apparently her own coined term; a bit like the popular reactionary epithet, “Neo-Catholic”) and now I am part of the group that she describes by the term, “papologist” as well (not one who studies papas, but rather, one who habitually defends the supposedly indefensible: Pope Francis). Hence her recent article that mentioned my name, among other fellow “Novusordoists”:

I think we’ve all had pretty much enough of the quislings and Vichys and their desperation, don’t you?

New What’s Up With Francis-Church policy:

Rejected posts and comments correcting the stupid crap of the papologists – the Akins, the Armstrongs (sorry Dave, I know we’re pals now), the Sheas, the Coffins, the Zeds – may come here and get an airing. Consider me a haven. A safe space, as the kids call it now. If you responded to something idiotic, dangerous, wrong, insane, contradictory, heretical or just plain stupid and got deleted, blocked or otherwise cast out, send me the comment in one of our WUWFC commboxes, together with the thing you’re responding to, and perhaps a link, and we’ll see about making it a post of its own.

Maybe at the end of the month, your own personal contribution to the Great Papologist Brushoff will be included as an official square in a new WUWFC papologist-excuse bingo card!

(Bring me your rejected, your outcast, your deleted and blocked…, What’s Up With Francis-Church?, 2-19-16; tagged on her site by “Oh what the hell … we’re effed anyway”)

Ten days earlier in another article, Hilary expanded upon her notion of “papologists” (the ones currently at the receiving end of a vehement, full, mocking assault by the reactionaries):

At the beginning of this speech she [Mother Angelica] recites the creed of the American Novusordoist conservatives: Vatican II was wonderful, but those wicked “liberals” highjacked it for their own evil purposes. It is a position that tried to create the compromise space that many American Catholics have tried to live in ever since.

It was this reasonable, nice, friendly, ecumenical position that made it possible for the Catholic leaders of the original pro-life movement of the 70s and 80s to draw in the conservative Protestants; all on the mutual unspoken agreement that we would set aside and never mention the irreconcilable breach between us. It is this false position, this “conservative” middle ground, founded on the new pseudo-doctrine of papal positivism that is now being closed with a resounding clang by the current regime. The old nostrum, the central conservative Novusordoist error of papal positivism: “I’m with the pope and whatever the pope says goes,” is being shown to be a false turn now.

. . . There are “liberals” of the Mahoney/Danneels/Bernardin ilk; the whole spectrum of Traditionalists from the SSPX to the Remnant followers (sedes are in a class of their own); and the conservatives, represented by the George Weigel/First Things/EWTN variety. Among these last have fallen the little group of what we have come to call Papal Apologists – the self-appointed priesthood who have tasked themselves with interpreting and explaining away Pope Francis’ every incomprehensible Pythian utterance.

But this third group, the ones who offered such a pleasing compromise, are the ones who are currently suffering the most. They are the ones who, having adopted the Conservative Novusordoist Creed recited by Mother Angelica at the start of that speech, are now thrown into confusion, frantically denying what is unfolding before their eyes because it fails to fit into their parameters.

I’ve been noting for over fifteen years now that the defining characteristics of the radical Catholic reactionary are ubiquitous antipathy towards and bashing of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Mass, and the current pope. The “papologists” are the most despised among the ones that Hilary calls “Novusordoists”: as these hostile words from a post, dated 2-24-16, attest:

Steve [Skojec] writes that the people who are still desperately trying to spin Francis and his pontificate as “fine, just fine,” are not our friends. They are, in fact, the mortal enemies of our souls and the souls of everyone we love. . . . This isn’t kid’s stuff, folks. This is the pope, the Vicar of Christ, lying about/misrepresenting the moral law, the teaching of Christ Himself, and leading millions – billions – into mortal sin and everlasting perdition. This is why we’re moving forward. And why it’s no more Mrs. Nicetrad.

Lest anyone think that Hilary’s antipathy is only towards Pope Francis, here she proves that she denies the orthodoxy also of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II (from 2-21-16):

[T]his is where we are in the Church these days nearly 50 years after Humanae Vitae and after over 35 years of “conservative” and “orthodox” popes.

But getting back to the first post: it seems as if those whom I blacklisted or deleted in my comboxes have found a place (a reactionary psychiatric couch, if you will) where they can air their grievances, laying their exasperated heads on the compassionate bosom of Mama Hilary, pouring out their trenchant analyses: stuff like how much [tons of filthy lucre!] money I supposedly make, due to the pay-per-hit policies at Patheos [94 cents an hour, average, folks], how “no one” ever reads my writings, and how, if I dare to note that I have nine book royalty contracts, plus article contracts, and somehow make a perfectly adequate  living as a writer that no one reads, I am filled with “pride” etc. All of that silliness was part of the combox aforementioned. It’s an Ellis Island / Statue of Liberty-like “haven” and “safe space” for these  huddled [old] masses of poor, pitiful, put-upon reactionary trollers and would-be preachers.

Hilary knows that she was given full access to reply to my articles about her on my site. I even collected our exchanges and made a second post so that her words would get even more exposure on my site than they already received. That will hold true for this post as well. C’mon over, Hilary. I won’t delete you [she has already shown up in the combox below].

I am happy to suspend my own completely rational and self-consistent [linked at the top of my blog] Discussion Policy regarding reactionaries [non-allowance of pope-bashing, Vatican II-bashing, Novus Ordo-bashing, trollers, and insulters] in order to give Hilary free speech on my blog, to respond to my critiques of her. But rest assured that I would delete folks like your friend Jack (see below), because I actually promote Catholic standards of discourse in my venue, and moderate accordingly.

The funniest thing of all is the sort of comment she allows on her site.  Here is an example that is an absolute classic; one for the ages. I could write 101 papers about how reactionaries are so often angry, anal-retentive, filled with irrational, misguided angst, etc.: that this is part and parcel of the conspiratorial, pharisaical, condescending mentality, and I could never hope to convey what this one guy (“Jack”) does in his ranting, raving rage, in reply to someone else, not me [I’ve bleeped out profanities, but if even that offends you, don’t read the following indented citation]:

[S]top waving your freaking finger and scolding. So Catholics questioning this pope are the ones that are causing more scandal and “tipping shakey Catholics over the edge”? Are you f***ing insane? We’re told not to worry about what the pope says on an airplane, but a comment in a combox is going to drive people from the Church? And stop with the “prayerfully understand” crap, too. You don’t try to “prayerfully understand” evil. You condemn it, loudly, and from the rooftops. Take your faggoty “rush to judgement” s*** somewhere else you f***ing coward. I’m sick of gay priests, fag-hiding bishops, and heretic popes, and most of all, flying monkeys like you who try to defend them. Enough! I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.

That’s the reactionary spirit, folks: summed up very nicely! We have the “spirit of ’76” and “spirit of America” (a great old Beach Boys song); even “teen spirit” (like the famous Nirvana song), and, indeed, The Holy Spirit: God Himself. This nonsense shows you in a nutshell what you need to know about radical Catholic reactionaries. Now, Hilary, being infinitely more sophisticated than this crude and brutish loudmouth, uses humor and wit to express her anger and contempt, but rest assured that the latter is there: dripping through every patronizing observation about the Church and faithful Catholics who aren’t reactionaries (us despised “papologists” being targeted with particular ire). This guy’s “not going to take it anymore.” You know the type . . . I just thought some of my readers might be interested in the undiluted Real Thing. He “let it all hang out” in a sort of “spiritual debauchery”: for lack of a more descriptive term. What he said, in any event, speaks loudly and clearly.  I’m just trying to deal with my own head-shaking amazement at it, by describing it.

This is the type of comment that Hilary thinks is fine and dandy for her venue. These are her cronies and buddies; comrades-in-arms. Any idiotic thing goes, and any language whatsoever. She stated in her post about commenting rules: “Bad Swears will be considered on a case by case basis.” Obviously, Jack-in-the-[com]box must have passed muster and Hilary considered him an extraordinary specimen, who is, you see, superior (and immune) to the normal considerations of civil discourse that the rest of us mere Novusordoists and non-elitists live by.

I guess the priests who celebrate Tridentine Masses all swear like sailors, huh? “Real macho Catholic men use gutter language.” Perhaps these priests do it in their homilies, as good examples to the flock? Alas, when I went to the Old Mass last Christmas, our priest didn’t swear in the pulpit. We must get him up to speed. He must be a very unspiritual person. To condemn the wicked “flying monkeys” et al, one must use pungent language. Time’s short! No place for [verbal] wimps! Besides, Jack the Ripper’s target was all of us wicked non-reactionaries, so anything truly goes.  That’s why Hilary thought his comments were altogether worthy for her venue. Very telling, isn’t it? All joking and tweaking aside, though, I’ve never seen a more striking or quintessential exhibition of the very worst aspects of the paranoid and hyper-judgmental reactionary mindset.

Speaking of ironies: everyone is up in arms about Donald Trump’s occasional vulgarities or swear words. I generally agree with their complaints. I don’t use this language at all on my site, don’t allow it in comments, and I think it’s stupid and unnecessary: especially in a presidential candidate. I read someone today (referring to Trump), saying that we live in a vulgar and increasingly crude age. But here we have this guy, who fancies himself as an example of a true-blue “traditionalist” [what reactionaries always call themselves] Catholic, an example to us peasants who don’t have the dimmest understanding of what a Catholic ought to be like, and how he ought to conduct himself as the salt of the earth and light of the world, and he talks like this???!!! A mere politician and billionaire real estate tycoon is expected to talk in PG terms, yet in the Catholic world and much higher spiritual realm: St. Augustine’s City of God, this is how we communicate with each other? Truly, it is a Strange New World. As Ebenezer Scrooge said, “I’ll retire to Bedlam.”

In other Hilary news, in a post dated 2-21-16, she expressed her high regard for the “papologists”: “I’ve been forgetting to include this guy in my daily prayers for the conversion of the professional papologists. There’s only so much willful stupidity one can take…” Well, yeah, I know. But hey, she’s praying for us “papologists.” Our friend, the inimitable “Jack” [the Ripper] chimed in here, too, in the combox [strong and offensive language warning again]:

Hilarious. They’ll “accompany”, “integrate into the life of the Church”, and “caress” (whatever the hell that entails) any unrepentant fag, dyke, transqueer, “divorced and remarried” (otherwise known as adulterer and whore), twisted, rebellious, dissident, heretical, schismatic, evil, child buggering freak they can find.

More quintessential, gold standard / blue ribbon reactionaryism for ya! Stop for a minute and try to imagine our Lord Jesus speaking in these terms. This guy sounds like those nuts that go to funerals and have the signs that say, “God hates ***s”. This is a real, live person in our own Catholic ranks [albeit in extreme, reactionary backwaters], and Hilary thinks his comments are great, and would never dream of deleting them!

The Masonic world conspiracy raises its ugly head again: soon to take over the Catholic Church (so we are told), in league with the dreaded “Bergoglianism” (Image: “The Freemasonry Barnstar”) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * *

A new round of discussions have occurred as a result of my post, Hilary White: Radical Catholic Reactionary Extraordinaire: in its combox and also on my Facebook page, where I cross-posted it. Amidst (or despite) the cacophony of various Hilary cheerleaders and detractors of yours truly, she and I managed to do at least a little back-and-forth. I don’t think we accomplished all that much, but I believe that the exchanges may at least make the disputes at hand (and the categories involved) more understandable to readers, if they can read both sides in confrontation with each other.

Her words will be in blue. I’ve tried to reproduce the chronological order as best I can, but it’s very confusing, with two major threads and sub-threads within both, and readers may consult the original sources at the links above. As always in my posted dialogues, I am most interested in preserving a socratic / “Kreeftian” back-and-forth format.

* * * * *

I didn’t actually make those cards. I pinched em from a friend who did’t want attribution. But they were hilarious, weren’t they.

They are within the reactionary paradigm / bubble (much humor is social context- or “insider”-dependent). For the rest of us they are merely misguided and silly.

Helen Westover: What did Hilary say that was factually incorrect, Dave?

That I’m not a Catholic (among a couple dozen other things).

Funny, I’ve never actually said anything about you in my whole life, that I can recall, Dave. But hey… that’s OK. I get that having a huge crush on someone sometimes plays tricks on the mind.

. . . . which is absolutely, perfectly irrelevant. I never said that you did.

“That I’m not a Catholic (among a couple dozen other things).” … Ummm… right there. In this thread.

Obviously, I am part of the group of “Novusordists” that you deny are Catholic at all.

Well, not knowing you at all, or ever having read you, I’d say that your having so enthusiastically taken on the title, says more about your own problems with the Faith than anything else. You are the one who has adopted this term, publicly pretended not to know what it means, got into a nearly daily tizzy over it,

[later: related] I mean, simply, you’re the one calling yourself a “novusordoist” and then blaming me for the term you are so enthusiastically adopting. “You called me a…” No. I’ve never called you anything. You call yourself that. Deal.

As for “nearly daily tizzy”: this is just one of many topics I deal with as an apologist. I have over 50 web pages: each devoted to different aspects of the faith or ethics (like pro-life or the contraception issue), etc.

Thanks for clarifying. Language must be interpreted within context. First you said I claimed you were talking about me personally. I clarified that I was simply using myself as one in the class of what you call “novusordists.” Helen in this thread asked: What did Hilary say that was factually incorrect, Dave?”

So instead of going through the whole bit about how you redefine millions out of the proper term “Catholic” (I reply to dozens of comments every day), I expressed it simply and more easily by using myself as an example of the class you refer to, saying, “That I’m not a Catholic.” In other words, I’m one of the class of people whom you disparage. It’s false. You misinterpreted that as me claiming that you were talking about me personally. 

I explained / clarified that by saying, “Obviously, I am part of the group of [implied: what you call] “Novusordists” that you deny are Catholic at all.” Now you claim that I call myself a “novusordist.” I do not. Again, it was a rhetorical comment stated within your paradigm in the midst of a dispute. You came up with the stupid term. I dispute it. It’s contentious and quasi-schismatic, just as “Neo-Catholic” is.

The whole thing is symptomatic, I think, of the difficulty that reactionaries (being a species of fundamentalism) have with language in context and with categories; with an accompanying ubiquitous legalism. If I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it a thousand times.

spent who knows how many hours yelling at the Trads for identifying this distinction,

It’s a serious error, and so I treat it accordingly, but it’s not all that I do, by a long shot. Spending twenty minutes looking over my 1600 + paper and 49 books would prove that to you.

all the while not one of us has ever given you the slightest thought.

I couldn’t care less whether you do or not. As I said, I am refuting what I believe to be serious error. It’s all part of being an apologist.

You’ve made us a great deal more important to you than you are to any of us. Sorry, but it’s the case.

One has to note error by the names of the people sometimes. By the same token, we could argue that St. Augustine “made” the Donatists or Pelagians or Manichaeans “more important” by refuting their errors, or that St. Athanasius provided the same service to the Arians. I don’t see how it could be otherwise. I can hardly warn my readers about big errors in your writings without naming you.

Personal attacks and quite a lot of quoting kind of indicates to me that the problem isn’t with us or anything we may or may not be saying. It’s with you.

Huh? Again, the serious critic must cite the ones whom he is criticizing. It’s called “documentation.” The importance and necessity of it is hardly something that any serious thinker disputes. So why do you? You’re an intelligent person. Why would you argue for something so silly as to contend that my citing your words is proof positive that I have some serious “problem” of character or intellect? LOL

Also, never in my life denied that Novusordoists are Catholic. Quite the opposite, in fact. Or, perhaps more accurately, that there are a lot of Catholics out there who are stuck in a Church that has abandoned the ancient Faith and failed to tell anyone the full truths of the Faith. 

I’m glad to hear you say this now; however, if English is what it is, you in fact have denied it, as I showed in my paper. You have a tag called, “Novusordism isn’t Catholicism”. 

So either that was some sort of sarcastic non-literal comment (in which case I would argue that it is quite confusing to readers), or it is in direct contradiction to what you are saying now:

“Novusordism isn’t Catholicism”

vs.

“never in my life denied that Novusordoists are Catholic. Quite the opposite, in fact.”

You have another tag called, “Pssst… It’s a different religion.” And you wrote:

“The premise here is that the old religion is not the same as the new, and that as time has passed since the year of grace 1965, the rift between the two religions competing for space within the same Church has grown wider.”

The use of “neo-Catholic” is a third indication.

Now, the word “religion” according to general and scholarly use, refers to Christianity or Catholicism as one type of Christianity. That’s what “religion” normally refers to. But I suppose you could be using the word in an entirely different, arbitrary way. Anything is possible these days.

People go along their whole lives with the best will in the world, quite rightly trusting the local parish or the local bishop or even the pope, not to lie to them or omit important truths. But some of us have just looked a little too hard and too long at the contradictions to just continue blindly accepting what we are told. Again, I don’t know you from a hole in the ground, but I have always assumed you are a Catholic, that you want to be a Catholic, and the best one you can be. Novusordoism is just a nickname, shorthand for the neo-Modernism infiltration that burst onto the scene after Vatican II and has so got a stranglehold on the Church’s institutions that it has forced many of us to go looking for the truths of the faith in the old books.

The result is that many of us have been able to identify a difference, and start to make a taxonomic distinction between what was being taught for all those centuries, and what is being passed off today as Catholicism, but resembles it only superficially. But if you want to continue to pretend that you’re persecuted, by all means. If I ever gave you a moment’s thought – mainly when you were standing on your virtual soapbox yelling insults at me, it would only be to think that you are one of those millions of Catholics who have been successfully duped by bad men for evil reasons, and if I had or have any wish for you it is that you learn the painful but true things I’ve learned and come out of the matrix.

What is this “matrix” I need to come out of? I’m quite content as an orthodox Catholic, thank you. If I have to start talking like you: the radical Catholic reactionary mindset, which is similar in many ways to modernism and Protestantism both, I’d rather go back to my former evangelical Protestantism, thank you. Better to bash the pope and papacy as a real Protestant (as I used to be, and do) than to bash him and lie about him as a Catholic . . .

Next time you feel the urge to insult me in public (and believe me, it really doesn’t matter that much to me – I’ve been in this business for a very long time) perhaps for your own good, to fulfill the requirements of justice, you could just send me an email and ask what I mean.

Public posts are fair game for public criticism. This is not a “personal” issue and never was, but the competition of ideas. I quoted from your public posts. One of them happened to mention my name, and that’s how I first became aware of it. I didn’t force you at gunpoint to mention my name alongside that of Jimmy Akin and Mark Shea (somehow, though never “having read” my stuff). You voluntarily did that. And so I made a reply and started doing more research about your views, and discovered that you were far more radical than I had previously understood.

The only reason I’m bothering to respond is that I really do have nothing against you whatever. I assume, judging from the title of the blog that your interest is in correcting the misapprehensions of Protestant fundamentalists. There aren’t a lot of these in Italy, but I assume there are still some in the US who need this very much. Sounds like perfectly useful work. I have never really detected any serious malice from you any of the times you’ve attacked me online, and you’ve certainly generously quoted me and accurately, so in your case, I suppose it bothers me even less, which is why I made light of it on my blog and decided to have a bit of fun (which you joined in on, I add). I’ve been attacked many times over the years, and I usually just ignore it because there really never does seem to be much point in responding to that kind of … well.. call it what it has been: hatred. From you I detect no such thing.

But seriously, you’re starting to sound a little unhinged about the whole “she says I’m not a Catholic” thing. Why take something so very personally, why adopt the term “novusordoist” for yourself and then blame me for it? Aren’t you a Catholic? I thought you were.

Thank you for making clear that there is no malice whatever from me. Nor do I think that about you, especially after this quite charitable remark. So that is out of the way . . . The “novusordoist” / supposedly taking things personally bit was explained [above].

[replying to someone else] They’re [Hilary’s statements that I objected to] falsehoods. That’s why I object to ’em. I’m not very fond of lies. They come from the devil, after all.

Demonstrate that they are in error, by all means,

I’m not gonna sit and debate the entire radical Catholic reactionary “platform.” But (for whomever is interested), I have dealt with it repeatedly, in two books [one / two]. I defended Pope Francis in another book. And I have defended him further by collecting many articles: currently numbering 184 (including several of my own, that were written after my book).

Pewsitter: a sort of radical Catholic reactionary Drudge Report, that provides lots of “hot” links, mocked this reply as follows (thanks much for the additional traffic, guys!):

“Patheo’s Armstrong warns: Terrible Catholic reactionary Hilary White’s no match for my big hat, my beard, my one book and lengthy compilation of articles defending Francis!”

[with picture of a hat]

but I’m not calling you a liar or mendacious, why lob that accusation at me? Why, in fact, the assumption of bad will?

I don’t assume bad will. Again, it is a language-in-context thing (now the third time you and I have gone through that). One can tell a lie without being either a “liar” by character or insincere. One meaning of “lie” is simply “falsehood.” Look it up in a dictionary if you don’t believe me. I implied that in the comment itself, by basically using the two words synonymously. CONTEXT.

I used “lies” in my last two sentences because it was an indirect reference to the biblical “He is the father of lies.” None of that implies deliberate deceit; and I want to make it clear that this is not my charge against you at all.

When it’s a lie that’s not intended, in English we call that an “error” or a “mistake.” I think you will find Thomas agreeing that in order to be a lie, the intention to deceive has to be present. When you call someone a liar on the internet, what are are saying is that the person has a wicked intention. This is what we call “calumny” and it is generally frowned upon in Catholic moral theology.

I’ve been through this a number of times. As a professional writer and one very concerned with definitions as a crucial component of the nature of my own work (apologetics), I am as concerned with accurate terminology as you are, I can assure you.

You must have me confused with the Republican candidates. I haven’t used the word “liar” at all. I haven’t “evolved” from alleged instances of calling you a “liar” or alleging deliberate deceit to being nice because you have behaved nicely in our exchanges.

One can certainly use the word “error” or “mistake” or “falsehood” or “untruth”: sure. I used “falsehood” myself in the context of using “lie.” But one can also use the word “lie” in its second dictionary sense. You appear to doubt that, so now I have to take the trouble to document it.

Dictionary.com (Random House Dictionary): The third meaning of the noun is listed as “an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.”

Merriam-Webster Online: definition 1b: “an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker”

I either intended this meaning or I did not. It’s a legitimate dictionary use. I would argue (as I have already) that my meaning was made clear in context; moreover, I have now clarified twice exactly what I meant. I’m not lying to you about it (neither in the primary nor secondary sense)! :-)

Likewise, Roget’s Thesaurus lists a number of “non-deceptive” synonyms, such as untruth, disinformation, falsehood, fiction, inaccuracy, myth, tale, fable, falsity, misstatement, and tall story.

I suppose you could start arguing against standard dictionaries, but I don’t see how that is a very fruitful or constructive path to go down.

Steve Jalsevac: Just to let you know, Hilary was, for the several years that she was with us, one of the finest LifeSite writers and she was highly regarded by many subscribers and others, including many Catholic clergy, who appreciated her frank, personal style and her excellent command of the English language. We are delighted to still have her large number of reports in our public archives for reference. There is not one of them that I would remove. I would not classify any of those reports as “reactionary”. They were just honest and usually well researched. Every LifeSite reporter has their particular character and way of writing and particular take on developments. Hilary’s reports often had a unique British-like bluntness and humorous twists that many appreciated.

She has many fine qualities, I’m sure. But her current views of the pope and of those who go to the Pauline Mass do not reflect the facts and due reverence for the Holy Father. They are not the views that mainstream traditionalists hold, and so for that reason I place them in the category of “radical Catholic reactionary.”

Sorry; for the life of me, I don’t know how else to classify characterizations such as “Novusordism isn’t Catholicism” or “Pssst… It’s a different religion” (both tags) or outrageously describing Pope Francis views as: “There is no such thing as immutable truth because there is no such thing as immutable reality. God has no immutable nature, nor does man. . . .  All this more or less means, according to the Bergoglian logic, that a truly faithful Catholic is one who abandons Church teaching when he is told to. . . .”

Hilary seems nice; even charming, and is a stylish writer. I have nothing against her personally, as she charitably acknowledged today.

But I have to disagree with these ideas because I believe them to be extremely harmful to the Body of Christ and the Catholic Church and Catholics. If you don’t like “reactionary” then I could call it rigorism, which is an historical term, used for schismatic sects like the Donatists and Novatians, etc.

Thanks Steve and Dave both. I think our interactions here and on FB have considerably raised the tone of the discussion. We’ve moved on to “I disagree” which beats the heck out of “she’s an evil liar!” I’d call that progress.

I didn’t move from one position to the other because I never held that you were an “evil liar” in the first place! I think you believe things that are tragically wrong and false (second dictionary meaning of “lie”).

I’ve been called a number of untrue things here from your supporters and comrades, and was mocked at Pewsitter, etc., but you don’t see my readers personally attacking you here, nor on my Facebook page. Perhaps a few zingers here and there . . . And you don’t see it because I have a very strict policy on my pages against personal attacks.

“Romulus”: I don’t think you know what “reactionary” means. And what is a “rigorist”, if you please? Was St. Benedict a rigorist? He had rather firm views, you know. So did Jerome. So did Francis (the original one). So did Catherine of Siena. Was there something not quite right about their practice of the Faith?

All those saints are great. What I’m talking about was very well expressed by Blessed Cardinal Newman (drawn from one of my three quotations books from his works). This is rigorism:

[Y]ou are making a Church within a Church, as the Novatians of old did within the Catholic pale, . . . you are doing your best to make a party in the Catholic Church, and in St Paul’s words are ’dividing Christ’ by exalting your opinions into dogmas, and shocking to say, by declaring to me, as you do, that those Catholics who do not accept them are of a different religion from yours. I protest then again, not against your tenets, but against what I must call your schismatical spirit. (Letters and Diaries, v. 23; To William G. Ward, 9 May 1867)

It is no trouble to believe, when the Church has spoken; the real trouble is when a number of little Popes start up, laymen often, and preach against Bishops and Priests, and make their own opinions the faith, and frighten simple-minded devout people and drive back inquirers. (Letters and Diaries,v. 23; To Edward B. Pusey, 21 July 1867)

Now, today, Hilary denied more than once (in reply to me) that she thinks folks who attend the Novus Ordo Mass are not Catholics. But I noted her language where she said straight out that they were not (no reply as of yet). In an article today (2-15-16) on her blog she again reiterates the same thing that I have criticized:

This isn’t the first time the structures of the Church have been taken over by an heretical sect . . .

[she cites St. Basil, but he doesn’t say that the entire Church, including the pope, had been subverted into heretical garbage. The Donatists and Novatians and Montanists and others said stuff like that, though]

This more or less sums up what worries me most about the Novusordoist sect. It offers an easygoing, friendly and socially acceptable impiety that everyone can love. It’s religious Soma.

I suppose, looking back through the long history of the heresies, that’s more or less what they all do. Every heresy ever offered in exchange for the Faith has done the same sort of thing . . .

She can’t have it both ways. She wants to say she’s not denying that we non-reactionaries and non-rigorists are Catholics, yet she uses this terminology. If our beliefs amount to being “an heretical sect” and is compared to “very heresy ever offered in exchange for the Faith” it ain’t Catholic! It’s heretical; it’s another “religion.” She has stated all these things in plain English, and we aren’t stupid. We know what words mean. I’m not pulling them out of a hat. How I wish she hadn’t written these things!

Again, in an article dated 10-24-15 for The Remnant, Hilary wrote: “I have said it for many years now: Novusordoism. Is. Not. Catholicism. Trads know this.” [my italics emphasis]

More of Hilary White’s radical opinions come from a Remnant column of 10-12-15, complete with Freemason conspiracy theories (my bolding):

I have believed for a long time that however it was done – the details are at this stage not so important – Vatican II was used by the enemies of Christ to inject an entirely new, false religion into the existing structures of the Church. They injected this poison, this antireligion, that then began to spread like a virus, infecting the entire body one cell at a time. It rewrote the spiritual DNA of religious orders and academia first, then spread to the diocesan structures, the national bishops organisations and international charitable agencies. And finally, in March 2013, the enemy took the citadel.

Now we know quite concretely what the next phase will be and we’ve got a pretty good idea of the timeline. Danneels and his friends, including Bergoglio, believe that the war was over that night and it is clear they are moving forward with the plan for the final liquidation of the Catholic Church’s doctrinal foundations – starting with sexual morality – to transform her into a vehicle for secular humanist, Freemasonic ideologies, like a colossal spiritual syringe full of “merciful” poison to be administered to the whole world.

In the last weeks and months, the only really new information are the details of what exactly it will look like, coming mainly from interviews with Pope Bergoglio’s closest collaborators. What will happen next month at the Synod and after is nothing more than the formal installation and recognition of the new religion, and the final expulsion of the old religion of Christ. We will be introduced to the religion of Kasperism, of Bergoglianism, of Neomodernism, in short. Or as it was described elsewhere, the “abomination of desolation in the sanctuary.” What we Old Narnians must do after that, what it will be possible for us to do, remains to be seen.

Lastly, Hilary made very clear what contempt she has for the Second Vatican Council (whose authority Cardinal Ratzinger in the 1985 Ratzinger Report equated with that of Trent) in another article for The Remnant (7-31-10; cross-posted at Rorate Caeli on 8-29-10):

Benedict is of that generation that put all their eggs into the Vatican II basket and is determined to “make the council work”. This despite that 45 years after its close, they are still arguing over what its purpose was. Like nailing Jell-O to the wall. Younger Catholics, those of us that are left in the pews, simply cannot understand this obsession of the last generation with that monumental failure. But for the Ratzinger generation, “The Council” defined Catholicism, and it seems they cannot be convinced to give it a dignified burial.

I quite like “radical” and I would say that if you give it the original definition it fits quite well. Catholic radicals have made quite a mark on our history, starting with St. John the Baptist and going through to wild-eyed characters like St. Maximilian Kolbe, though I balk at being placed in such august company in any way other than to enjoy the descriptor in a superficial way.

I suggest, Dave, that at least some of your difficulty with the things I and my fellow radicals say is not so much disagreement with substance as misunderstanding of terminology. I would encourage you to continue refining your personal definition “radical Catholic reactionary,” since this would force you to do more reading. While serviceable in the context of your blog, and of course your own mind, the adoption of the term “reactionary” is more in the way of an epithet than a descriptor.

As we learned from Aristotle, a small error at the beginning will inevitably lead to larger and more consequential errors further on, and he insisted that the only way to approach a question or phenomenon is to start with accurate definitions. So, though inaccurate as far as they go because of a poor choice of words (do look up “reactionary” as soon as you can) I actually rather applaud your effort to create a definition that can be used more generally. I would suggest you keep at it.

Yes, I like “radical” too, and it can have a quite positive meaning. As a Protestant evangelical missionary out to change the world in the mid-80s, I liked to refer to myself as a “radical Christian.” This is one reason I included it in my coined term, “radical Catholic reactionary.” The “reactionary” part is what most object to. No one likes that term. So you are “radical” and “committed” in your view as well. I just think it is in error and a gravely mistaken viewpoint (to use gentler words).

I have indeed thought quite a bit about the word and have debated the utility and accuracy of it with traditionalist friends and reactionaries who consider me their “enemy” and equivalent in character to Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler.

I already linked to my lengthy definition from one of my books, in my first paper. Furthermore, in October 2013 I wrote my post, Rationales for My Self-Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionaries”.

It was all discussed at extreme length at the time with traditionalist friends (some liked it, some didn’t) and with fellow apologists like Karl Keating and others. My term was a deliberate attempt to replace the term “radtrad” and I have written at length about that as well, including serious research about where it came from and my explanation for why I stopped using it.

I also have written several times about my objections to the silly term, “Neo-Catholic” [one / two / three].

I even have the paper, Am I a Catholic Traditionalist? (YOU Decide!).

In many ways, I am. I have attended Latin Mass for 25 years (Novus Ordo; my parish also offers the EF). I receive communion kneeling at an altar rail on the tongue. I critique the over-use of eucharistic ministers and try to always personally receive from a priest. I defend ad orientem, I am an enthusiastic advocate of wider availability of the Tridentine Mass, I defend all Catholic doctrines, no matter how controversial, such as the prohibition of contraception and masturbation and premarital sex, the unnatural nature of sodomy, Mary Mediatrix, and her perpetual virginity in partu.

I have the most extensive critique pages online from a Catholic, perspective, of Luther, Calvin, Lutheranism, and Calvinism. I’ve edited an abridgment of the Summa and did a trilogy of patristic quotations [one / two / three]; also a trilogy of Cardinal Newman quotations  [one / two / three]. I collected the thoughts of the great mystics and contemplatives. I’ve written books critiquing Luther and Calvin, Calvinism, and anti-Catholicism and modernism. I’ve written two in opposition to sola Scriptura.

The list goes on and on. But where we differ is in identifying the causes and solutions to the crisis of modernism. We are polar opposites regarding what I believe are the four distinctives of reactionaryism: Vatican II, the Pauline Mass, ecumenism, and Pope Francis.

Yet we have a lot in common, I enjoy talking to you, and I can even say that I like you as a person. Believe me, if we apologists made every issue “personal” we would be the most miserable of all people. I’m strictly concerned with dealing with the theological and philosophical issues; not in judging people’s hearts.

You and I can at the very least demonstrate that it is possible for people to talk cordially to each other, despite huge disagreements.

As for the word, reactionary, here is the definition from The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition (Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company):

An extremely conservative person or position that not only resists change but seeks to return to the “good old days” of an earlier social order.

Sounds exactly relevant to me. I’ve simply applied it to religious issues, which have to do with the “social order” as well. “Change” in the context of our discussion would be Newmanian “development” rather than “evolution of dogmas” (which is a heresy).

Döllinger resisted the developmental change of [de fide, ex cathedra] papal infallibility in 1870 (Vatican I) and so was excommunicated.

Y’all resist the consistent developments of Vatican II and so are on the verge of schism and in danger of crossing that line, should you continue down this path. There are always people who don’t “get” what the latest ecumenical council has revealed about the continuously developing Mind of Holy Mother Church

Sad case of a pathetic Novusordist Neo-Catholic undergoing re-education therapy under the loving attention of super-Catholic Popess Hilary White [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license]

* * * * *

I’ve been warning my readers to avoid the columns of Hilary White for some time now. Not a few folks scoffed and were skeptical of that. Why would I urge this? It’s because radical Catholic reactionaryism [see the definition] is a poison, a cancer. We are what we eat. The more we get exposed to error, the more we can potentially get sucked into it. Hence, St. Paul repeatedly warned his readers to avoid contentious and divisive people.

Hilary knows who most vigorously oppose her errors, and who has been out there defending Pope Francis from the never-ending calumnies, myths, and whoppers of the currently fashionable hysteria and histrionics. I’ve written a book about Pope Francis, have compiled a lengthy collection of articles in his defense, and have opposed radical Catholic reactionaries for 19 years online, with a large web page devoted to them and not just one, but two books on the topic.

Thus, when she got into a mocking mood, she managed to write the following post (2-12-16):

Score cards! Git yer score cards here!

These are going out to Mark Shea, Dave Armstrong and Jimmy Akin…

Thanks for all the help, boys. You’re really making this pontificate hilarious and fun, and we appreciate all your hard work.

You’re welcome, Hilary. Accompanying this substantive piece of journalism is two mock Bingo sheets [one / two]. These supposedly represent pat sayings and pithy proverbs that “neo-Catholics” like myself and Jimmy Akin (Scott Eric Alt should have also received honorable mention) say about Pope Francis and his detractors; such as: “Vatican II says” and “Why are you so angry all the time?” and “You’re a sedevacantist!” and “Hafta meet people where they’re at”.

So how do we know that Hilary White is a radical Catholic reactionary? It’s not that hard to do. She has begun a website of her own called, What’s Up With Francis-Church? I kid you not. Traveling over to her About us page, featured at the top of the sidebar, we find the following fascinating tidbits:

In 2008, I moved to Italy and began reporting on Vatican and European politics. Over the next seven years I reported and learned, and then one day, the thing we had thought could not happen happened. As I have written elsewhere, while we were distracted, Sauron had got hold of the Ring.

When Bergoglio came out onto the loggia that night, even though we in the piazza had barely been able to catch the name, I knew: that part of the fight was over, and a new one had begun.

Did you see that? For those of you who aren’t Lord of the Rings fans, Sauron is the bad guy and Satan-like figure. It’s a new variation on the old anti-Catholic “antichrist pope” theme, I reckon . . . Does that qualify for being a radical Catholic reactionary (complete with the obligatory use of the pre-papal name)?

Hilary has a tagline called “Novusordism isn’t Catholicism”. No one could make this stuff up! In her post on 2-10-16, she wrote:

The premise here is that the old religion is not the same as the new, and that as time has passed since the year of grace 1965, the rift between the two religions competing for space within the same Church has grown wider.

What we used to call “Catholicism” must now be distinguished from the interloper by calling it “traditional” Catholicism, or “Traditionalism.”

Hence, “Neo-Catholicism”! Get it? If you are naive and dumb enough to think (perish the thought!) that the Catholic faith, post-Vatican II, is actually Catholicism, you’re not a Catholic; you’re actually and in fact a neo-Catholic: some new absurd hybrid heretofore unknown. If you happen to attend the Novus Ordo (“New” or “Pauline”) Mass, you’re out of the Catholic fold and part of a goofy religion called “Novusordism”. Hilary places this post under the category of “Pssst… It’s a different religion.” I bet you didn’t know that you weren’t a Catholic, huh? Learn sumpin’ very day . . .

Now we’re not only not Catholic, but also not Christians at all, since the “religion” in question is Christianity. Nothing “radical” here, right? Meanwhile, I still refer to Hilary and her ilk as “Catholic” within the overall title of radical Catholic reactionary. We can readily see what is radical and reactionary. This garbage is some of the clearest manifestation of this sick viewpoint that I have ever seen. It’s so clear that one wonders whether it is a deliberate self-parody and mere farce.

On November 23, 2015 Hilary blessed us with the following advice for the lonely Catholic hearts club:

I regret that things have come to such a pass in the Church that Catholicism, openly practiced in groups, is no longer tolerated. For a long time we could get away with maintaining the idea in our heads that the structural Church was a “big tent” in which the “chosen path” of one person was just as “valid” as any other. Under JPII we could even convince ourselves, (as long as we didn’t look too closely – and remembering that this was well before the innernet) that the ancient Faith was being restored and we just had to wait.

It’s pretty clear now that those days are behind us. We can play Catholic in the structural Church as individuals, but more and more I expect we will be like Christians in Saudi Arabia who have to be extremely careful to keep our Rosaries to ourselves.

The above is quite sufficient to reveal the tragic, pitiful mindset of Hilary White. Presumably, she grew too radical and bizarre for Lifesite News, which indicates that her last column there was on 7 May 2015. Hilary’s blog above — in the “About the Author” blurbs under her posts — states that she “covered Vatican and European news related to ‘life and family issues’ from a Catholic perspective until May 2015.” 

But The Remnant: the king of all radical Catholic reactionary websites (up there in the rarefied, hallowed, sublime atmosphere with Rorate Caeli and Catholic Family News), has, alas, not yet tired of Hilary White. She’s been writing there since March 2013 and now has a long string of columns. In her gem of 1-22-16, entitled “The Blackwhite of Pope Francis” she stated:

But Francis does not think like a Catholic. He is the very model of a modern Jesuit, and these are the chaps who pride themselves on having “moved beyond” the ancient strictures of rationality, common sense, etc. . . . 

Francis does not think of doctrine as we do, as an accurate description of objective reality. To him and his fellow Jesuits and academics, doctrine is only a set of subjective and more or less arbitrary ideas and rules one carries around in one’s head and fits to the current situation. These ideas, according to the men of his school, are dependent upon their applicability for their validity. They can be good only if they serve a particular purpose. . . .

Doctrine can be changed – indeed, must be changed – because times and people change. God changes too because He comes up with new ideas which the faithful are obliged to discern, . . . There is no such thing as immutable truth because there is no such thing as immutable reality. God has no immutable nature, nor does man. . . . 

All this more or less means, according to the Bergoglian logic, that a truly faithful Catholic is one who abandons Church teaching when he is told to. . . .

Many Catholics who are alarmed at this pope are also deeply confused by him. Indeed, it is difficult not to be confused by a man who appears to have no concept of a logical contradiction and cheerfully and apparently unconsciously contradicts Scripture, Catholic doctrine, ordinary natural facts and frequently himself with untroubled abandon. 

A word to the wise is sufficient . . .