Setting the record straight with Avoiding Babylon
Avoiding Babylon’s latest video mentions The WM Review, and ideas we share with others – and some of its points need to be set straight.
Avoiding Babylon’s latest video mentions The WM Review, and ideas we share with others – and some of its points need to be set straight.
Sorry about the thumbnail: while we have many positive things to say about Avoiding Babylon, we are unable to praise their aesthetic taste!
(WM Round-Up) – The popular YouTube channel Avoiding Babylon has published a video with Matt Gaspers responding to an article by .
In the course of this video, The WM Review was named and associated with certain positions and ideas which we not only do not hold, but have even written against over the years.
As Avoiding Babylon has an audience of over 50,000 subscribers, it is necessary to respond, and to set the record straight. Needless to say – as one hopes should be clear after years of running this site – this response does not constitute The WM Review “coming for” Avoiding Babylon, as the tagline for the video (“They comin for Avoiding Babylon”) might suggest.
The previous video with Christian Wagner
Jackson’s article – the subject of this present video – was itself a response to a previous Avoiding Babylon livestream with Christian Wagner.
In brief, this video considered whether Catholics should stop discussing the errors and scandals coming from the Vatican, perhaps as a means of building a broader coalition, appealing to the young, and securing the availability of the traditional Latin Mass.
Abbate – with whom we have always had a pleasant relationship on Twitter, and who recently had a cordial interview with Novus Ordo Watch and Catholic Family Podcast – stated his belief that Catholic media outlets need to move away from “doing the bash-the-pope thing” if they wish to survive.
While we have always believed in building a broad coalition, we strongly believe that the price of silence is too high, and counter-productive in the long term, largely for the same reasons outlined by Jackson in his article.
While some understandably grow fatigued with the daily horror show of the Vatican, and wish either to withdraw from it, or even to encourage others to do so, there is a continuing need for it to be documented for the sake of posterity, and to help those who are only now waking up make sense of it all.
The WM Review does not typically get involved with contemporary events. For a brief period after the conclave, when too many voices had fallen silent, we felt it necessary to step up to this kind of reporting. Since then, thankfully, many have once again found their voices, and we can once again limit our current events reporting to only the most egregious events, or those events which provide a springboard for discussing theological points of interest to us and our readers.
We are very grateful to outfits like
, , and LifeSiteNews who continue to provide this necessary service to the Church on a regular basis.The video in question
Here are a few passing comments about this present video, before we proceed to the main points to be addressed.
We are glad to see Abbate continuing to recognise the importance of Vatican II:
“I’m still not 100% sure which side of that debate I fall on. I see both sides of the argument. OK you still have to attack the source of it at Vatican II, because that clearly was a revolutionary event.”
He did, however, also give what we consider to be undue consideration to a political strategy of so-called “Latin Mass-ism”:
“And then I see the other side of it where it’s like, ‘Chill out, let’s get our Latin Mass, let’s reposition, let’s come up with a game plan and a long-term strategy.’”
We have written about this strategy elsewhere, for example:
Where is ‘Trad Inc.’ in the face of the most ‘hyperpapalist’ statement ever made?
Vatican documents: TLM was tolerated to neutralise resistance to new religion
We were also glad to see the panel reject Dr Gavin Ashenden’s risible idea that Leo XIV is “speaking in code” – as opposed to being what
was pilloried for calling him back in May 2025: Francis 2.0.It is good that more are realising the continuity between Leo and Francis – although given the time it has taken some to arrive at what was obvious from the day of the election, it does not seem quite cricket for them to be laughing at others and suggesting people should have realised “by now.” They themselves should have realised in May.
Card. Prevost elected by conclave as Leo XIV—Is he Catholic?
What Leo XIV’s ‘complete commitment’ to Vatican II REALLY means
Abbate says that the only way he can make sense of the current catastrophe in the Church is through an analogy with St Peter’s denial of Christ:
“I think Leo is more the embodiment of the Council, which is this timid Catholicism, unsure of itself, afraid to preach the truth boldly. And it’s embodied in Leo the same way Peter denies Christ. Not that he ever says he’s not the Messiah. He just denies knowing him. And it and there’s elements of seeing that in the in the hierarchy since the Council, where they’re almost ashamed to… you know, and I’ve gotten heat from people for saying this before, but it’s the only way I can make sense of it.
“I think something… because we all can see like the Catholicism that was taught before the Council is very different than the Catholicism that is taught now. Something revolutionary happened at that Council and and in the the following decades, right? Like the we’re all seeing it.”
However, Abbate should consider the fact that it is a dogma that St Peter received the primacy – that which constitutes him as the Pope – after the Resurrection. We could rephrase as saying that it is a dogma that St Peter was not the Pope at the time of his threefold denial of Christ, which greatly reduces (to put it gently) the explanatory power of this analogy.
Matthew McCusker has explained this briefly elsewhere:
The use of the term ‘Trad Inc.’
Abbate continues:
“And I think I under under Francis I took the position where it was like all right, I’m going to give leeway to people who fall on different sides of of the argument here on where they end up. Like, okay, maybe Francis is an antipope. Maybe Benedict didn’t resign. Maybe, you know… I allowed for people to ponder that and come to a different conclusion than myself. And what I’m seeing under Leo is… which is kind of funny because there’s a whole group of new guys who are calling calling some guys Trad Inc.”
It was then alleged, as a criticism, that these “new guys” refuse to name who they mean by “Trad Inc.” – but this is a redundant criticism, and for several reasons.
First, because holding back from “naming and shaming” those whom one recognises as trying to do their best for Christ and his Church, albeit in a flawed, counter-productive or perhaps even disgraceful way, is a reasonable mode of proceeding. The video itself stated that attacking people publicly is “in very bad taste” – so why, then, are those who use the term “Trad Inc.” being encouraged to do that which is acknowledged as being in bad taste?
But that certain new tendencies have emerged was recognised by Rob Blyton in the video, who noted that the abandonment of the prior approach towards Francis resulted in Peter Kwasniewski being invited onto Matt Fradd’s very widely viewed show, Pints with Aquinas. The suggestion, elsewhere in the video, that a “Sede Inc.” exists alongside “Trad Inc.” is not very serious: the alleged “Sede Inc.” – which perhaps includes non-“sedes” such as
? – is arguing for points that are not popular: rather, such points draw the disdain of those with whom we should have common cause; they are made for the sake of truth, rather than as means to achieve an end (such as, for example, the liberty of the Roman liturgy in the Conciliar/Synodal Church); and they certainly do not result in invitations to big platforms like Fradd’s.On the contrary, the intention behind this “crusade” is to raise awareness of new tendencies emerging in the Catholic media space – as a means of arresting them, for the good of the Church – and not as a means of tearing people down. In the video, Abbate himself recognises what could be, if these new tendencies were arrested, saying that “if Marshal and Michael Matt were continuing the same thing as they did under Francis, I do think it would be very powerful.”
We agree.
Further, Chris Jackson stated specifically that the term is not about personalities:
“Trad Inc.” is just a name for what happens when Catholic truth becomes a brand and a business model. It’s not about personalities, it’s about the structure: an entire media class that once stood against the revolution but now makes its peace with it, because the alternative is to go broke or be blacklisted.”
“If you’re publishing books, speaking at conferences, appearing on Catholic media outlets, and moderating your tone to protect all that, then yes, you’re part of Trad Inc., even if you don’t want to be. The term exists because there’s now a visible pattern: strong opposition under Francis, immediate docility under Leo. Silence purchased in the currency of Summorum hope and donor stability.
“If that shoe doesn’t fit you, don’t wear it. But if it does, don’t blame the mirror.”
So much for the purpose behind this “crusade.”
Second, because there is no need to “name and shame” those who are described as “Trad Inc.”, as it is clear enough who does and does not conform to this term – and any potential “grey cases” are not important. Avoiding Babylon, an independent channel which has given a platform to those of a variety of different perspectives, run by two men who have shown themselves able to talk rationally about ideas with which they do not agree, is not the sort of outfit which is in view – even if it shares some of the views that “Trad Inc.” might endorse. Whether this will still be the case for Avoiding Babylon as time goes on is entirely in the hands of the hosts themselves.
Third, because in fact the so-called “new guys” – some of whom have been around much longer than Avoiding Babylon! – do indeed offer names. For example, Stephen Kokx has indeed mentioned Kennedy Hall, Eric Sammons, 1 Peter 5, Taylor Marshall, Michael Matt, and Cardinal Burke, to name a few. Kokx also named Peter Kwasniewski in the chat of the video in question. We too have presented examples of those whom we have critiqued under this moniker, albeit without trying to brand them with some kind of indelible scarlet letter.
So much for that. There is much in the video that could be discussed further, but let us now address certain claims raised in relation to The WM Review and those with whom we share our ideas – namely, those who are broadly and rather unhelpfully called “sedevacantists.”
Setting the record straight
There is a common assumption, present in this video and elsewhere, that one can talk of “Sedevacantism” as a movement, or as something consisting of a set of tenets and positions. We have explicitly rejected this idea on several occasions. We will address some of the specific claims made, before addressing the overarching assumption.
‘Criticism of “Trad Inc.” is an attempt to normalise “1958 Sedevacantism.”’
It was alleged that the “new crusade against Trad Inc.” is an attempt to legitimise “1958 Sedevacantism” – and this motive was imputed, as a certainty, to The WM Review. Every aspect of this is false.
Let us start with the term itself.
We reject the use of the term “1958 Sedevacantism.” It seems to have come into more frequent use following Benedict XVI’s resignation, as a means for “Benedict is Pope” persons to distinguish themselves from those who believe that the vacancy started at an earlier date. This term has nothing to do with us, and we are not in the habit of adopting terms invented for us by our opponents, any more than we are in the habit of conforming to their expectations on how we present ourselves and our arguments.
Further, we have stated, on multiple occasions on X and this website, that we posit an extended vacancy of the Holy See from the year 1965, not 1958. For example, in the following:
Private Revelations, Theology and the Crisis – What should be their relationship?
Septuagesima, Babylonian Captivity, and the end of the crisis
What Leo XIV’s ‘complete commitment’ to Vatican II REALLY means
2 weeks or 60 years: Which fits Franzelin’s account of sede vacante?
We have not taken, and at this present do not take, any position on the period 1958-1965, seeing arguments for various conclusions. In this, we follow the view and some of the argumentation of the late Bishop Guérard des Lauriers and his followers.
We also have reservations about even the term “sedevacantism” itself, which we address in the conclusion to this article.
Let us now turn to the imputation of motive in writing against the so-called “Trad Inc.”
Everyone acknowledges that there has been a change in approach, following the conclave, and it is this change which is primarily in view when “Trad Inc.” is mentioned. Those who have taken the new approach have told those who have not to “zip it,” or accused them of being “ideological extremists.”
In other words, this so-called “new crusade” has been prompted by those who wish to preserve the “old direction” taken by Catholics since Vatican II – summarised by Stephen Kokx as follows:
Denounce/reject Vatican II completely with the goal of having it declared null and void.
Support courageous Traditional clergy while helping “conservatives” understand/reject the errors of Vatican II.
Expose/rebuke Prevost’s errors as Traditionalists had been doing with his predecessors.
Support the Latin Mass (no “Extraordinary Form” or “reverent” Novus Ordo liturgies).
The topic of sedevacantism is a much-needed discussion and sedevacantists are to be welcomed, not excluded.
This is nothing more or less than the historical position of those who kept the faith following Vatican II. As such, there is nothing “new” here. What is new, is the changed approach, which Kokx also summarised in the same video. We could recast it, in the same form as above, as follows:
Clarify/correct Vatican II, which was a failure, rather than a revolution
Lionise “conservatives” who are not traditionalists
“Zip it” about Leo XIV’s errors and scandals, in a “policy of appeasement”
Prefer the “Extraordinary Form” and seek its normalisation, co-existing with a “reverent Novus Ordo”
Sedevacantists are not welcome and should be shunned.
As for us, while we firmly hold that the extended vacancy is a certain theological conclusion, and can be known as such, we have long recognised the legitimacy of a practical response to the revolution of Vatican II which seeks to fulfil clesr duties whilst prescinding from the question of the papacy. We distinguish this practical response from the more theoretical attempts to codify a form of this response in the system commonly dubbed “Recognise and Resist.”
This practical position has sometimes been called the “classical” position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and traditionalists in general; the former clearly articulated in the crisis points of the 1970s. We have also described it as the initial position – logically prior to all other systems or theories – which we do think leads to and is explained by the conclusion of an extended vacancy.
We have also long stressed the importance of “sedeplenists” returning and adhering to this practical position, if they are currently unable to join us in our conclusions about the vacancy of the Holy See.
True & false obedience: Have sedevacantists misunderstood this basic distinction?
‘Anathematise those who teach new doctrines’ – St Robert Bellarmine
Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration: Tension and the only possible resolution
Rex Mottram theology: Andrew Likoudis, anti-intellectualism and Pope Susan
Worth a gamble? A reply to Kennedy Hall’s “Sedevacantist Wager”
Such a position – while precarious, in that there is a perpetual temptation towards the “Recognise and Resist” system – results in Catholics avoiding most of the evils of the current catastrophe, and provides grounds for discussion and collaboration, and perhaps even eventual consensus. It is certain that it has historically allowed Catholics of a wide range of views to live and work together peacefully for extended periods of time.1
In so far as there is a “new crusade against Trad Inc.”, it is a continuation of this old crusade, aimed precisely at building an initial practical consensus amongst so-called “traditionalists” – and this for a variety of reasons, rather than a direct attempt to “legitimise” our specific conclusions on the extended vacancy of the Holy See.
Finally, our views – however they are to be labelled – do not need to be “legitimised.” They are already legitimate.
‘“Sedevacantism” might be a good theory, but no solutions are offered.’
The conclusion of an extended vacancy is a diagnosis, not a solution.
One does not reject a diagnosis of a terminal disease, or of a chronic condition like haemophilia or blepharitis, on the basis of their being no cure. Such would be immensely silly. In such cases, however, there are often treatments which make living with the conditions significantly easier – although denying the diagnosis will normally mean that the person fails to seek such treatments.
Not that we believe our situation to be terminal, nor even actually chronic – except in the sense that the situation is ongoing and without solution that can be worked by man.
However, it is also untrue to say that there are no ways in which the situation could end: we wrote about this very topic prior to the 2025 conclave, explaining one possible “exit route” which we believe would satisfy all parties involved.
Neither solving the current situation, nor providing a roadmap to a solution, are our responsibility. Our responsibility is to know, love and serve God in this world, so that we can be happy with him forever in the next. Part of this is maintaining and developing the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity in our souls, and ensuring that our dependants have everything they need for the same. As such, we do not see a supposed “lack of a solution” as a legitimate criticism – for us, or for those of other opinions.
And with this, we arrive at a very common problem with discussions about this matter, which is that those who criticise us for having no solution do not have a solution themselves, or at least their solution is susceptible to precisely the same criticisms as our own. It is, however, very difficult to convey the gravity of this to those who make such arguments: we strongly urge Abbate to consider how different our positions really are in this respect.
This brings us to the next point raised:
‘There is no proof, and the conclusion involves a ‘gnostic’ secret knowledge.’
Abbate suggested:
“There’s a bit of gnosticism in it. It just is. It’s like, ‘Oh, I know this secret thing happened, and that the Pope was a Freemason, and that invalidated the papacy.’”
There is no aspect of our conclusion – that the post-conciliar popes have not been true popes – that is secret or that depends on secret knowledge.
Although the theological principles were commonly held before the Council, it is true that the conclusion is a minority opinion today; but Abbate should consider the numbers involved in some of the other minority opinions that he advocates on Avoiding Babylon. The principle that leads Abbate to his conclusions about Vatican II, the traditional Mass, and various other positions, is the very same principle that leads us to our conclusion.
Every single aspect of this conclusion is based on the visible and public facts of what Abbate called the “revolution” of Vatican II, understood in the light of Catholic doctrine. The facts of the case are brought home to us in personal experiences at our former parishes, and are confirmed by our knowledge of what else is going on in the world. The doctrine is in those authoritative theological texts, which are now so providentially easy to access; nonetheless, even a child’s catechism provides sufficient depth to draw the necessary conclusion (as we have demonstrated previously).
None of this involves secret freemasons, secret flaws in elections, or anything like it. We have also critiqued those who make arguments based on the analogous case of private revelations, insisting on the objective grounds of facts and theology.
We must also note that there is no more proof for Abbate’s other positions (on the liturgy, doctrinal aberrations, etc.) than there is for ours. In many cases, it is the very same factual data and proof used in each argument.
Once again, it would be irrelevant to say that most people have not drawn our conclusion from this same set of data, and we strongly urge Abbate to consider the implications of such an objection to other points about which he is certainly correct.
Finally, if we are speaking of gnosticism and secret knowledge: How exactly should we describe the supposed need – not advocated directly by Avoiding Babylon in this video – to rethink settled Catholic doctrine on the Church, the papacy and the magisterium? If anything is elitist or even gnostic, it is this.
‘“Sedevacantists” hold that there are no legitimate bishops anywhere in the world’
It is false to say that “‘sedevacantists’ hold that there are no legitimate bishops anywhere in the world.” Some say it, but many “sedevacantists” do not. We have denied it on multiple occasions, writing against such an idea, and drawing criticism from all sides as a result.
For example:
Eight critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s position on the Pope Question (n. 6)
How is the pope the source of jurisdiction? Mgr Fenton explains (Editors’ Notes Continued)
The Apostolicity of the Church – Who are the Successors of the Apostles?
‘The Cassiciacum Thesis’ – an explanation for the current crisis in the Church? (fn. 9)
The duty for laymen to study and spread the faith—Pope Leo XIII (Editor’s Notes Continued)
… and in many other places.
Similarly, we note that we owe some of our own thinking here to John Lane, who has argued them himself:
The same argument is made in the following video:
We would ask those who disagree with us to do us the courtesy of representing our positions accurately.
‘The invalidity of Novus Ordo sacraments means that the Church has defected’
It is unfortunate that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is deceased; otherwise we would advise those making this argument to inform him of the matter, and see how he responds.
In any case, this claim was asserted without argument and proof, and as such falls with a simple denial. We deny it.
However, this brings us to a more general point.
‘The invalidity of the Novus Ordo sacraments is an intrinsic part of “sedevacantism”’
We have stated on many occasions that questions about the Novus Ordo sacraments are not an intrinsic part of “sedevacantism.”
Such questions are secondary; related, to be sure, but these matters do not come together to form a political platform called “sedevacantism”, to which all “sedevacantists” subscribe. Even arguments for the vacancy based on “papal heresy” are downstream from the more fundamental conclusion, namely the illegitimacy of the recent claimants and their lack of authority.
Far from the invalidity of the new rites being intrinsic to “sedevacantism,” there are “sedevacantists” who believe that these new rites are valid. We ourselves, and many others, hold them to be doubtful, which is different to invalid in several important respects.
More importantly, there are “sedeplenists” – notably Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself – who have argued that these these rites are doubtful or even invalid. In fact, many “sedevacantists” learnt these arguments from Lefebvre himself, and adopted them prior to concluding that the Holy See is currently vacant.
Those who insist that we consider these rites valid, and insist that we act upon such an opinion, contrary to the dictate of conscience, are the ones who are departing from the historic practical consensus.
We have indeed made the question of these sacraments an important part of our work at The WM Review, as it is of personal interest, both on the practical and theoretical level.
Nonetheless, the distinction of all these questions to that of the extended vacancy is a point which we have expressed on many occasions, including in the following articles:
Former ‘dogmatic anti-sede’ author attributes change to WM Review
Fr Isaac Mary Relyea doubles down on WM Review, Novus Ordo Watch – endorses Father Coleridge Reader
In the final article mentioned, we summarise the point as follows:
“In fact, it is our contention that (a) an extended vacancy does not logically necessitate the disappearance of the hierarchy, and (b) that while the status of the Novus Ordo sacramental rites is indeed connected to the Pope Question, many of those who do recognise the legitimacy of the postconciliar claimants nonetheless doubt or reject the ‘reformed’ rites.
“As such, it is improper to present ‘sedevacantism’ as if it entails these further positions, or the necessity of avoiding Masses in which the celebrant names a false pope. Each subsequent conclusion stands or falls on the separate argumentation presented.”
Once again, we ask those who disagree with us – “us” being both The WM Review in particular and our “fellow sedevacantists” in general – to represent our positions accurately.
Conclusion: The term ‘sedevacantism’
Much of the confusion arises around this topic through an approach which sees a label like the word “sedevacantism,” and lazily assumes that it refers to a monolithic platform, position or movement, with a set of tenets which flow from the initial conclusion and are held by all.
This is one reason why we are ambivalent about the use of the term – and why it has appeared in scare-quotes throughout this piece. In July, we wrote the following:
“The term ‘sedevacantism’ is, in general, ill-defined and misunderstood. It often provokes what might be called “sede derangement syndrome”, leading to all manner of extraneous and secondary ideas (as well as a contagious moral turpitude) being attributed to those who are deemed to be “sedevacantists. […]
“As a result, other issues such as the validity of Novus Ordo sacramental rites, attending Masses in which the priest names the false pope, and the current location of the Apostolic hierarchy, are all secondary matters, which stand or fall on their own arguments.
“As such, ‘sedevacantism’ should be understood exclusively as the proposition that the apparent Roman Pontiff lacks legitimacy, and that we are in a long interregnum.”
In August, we wrote the following:
[W]e at The WM Review are ambivalent about the use of the moniker “sedevacantist.”
Our conclusion of an extended vacancy of the Holy See, dating from around 1965, arises from the application of Catholic theology and doctrine to our current situation. We hold this conclusion to be certain.
However, the term “sedevacantist” is ill-defined and misunderstood. […]
People also treat the term “sedevacantism” as if it refers not to a conclusion, but to a sect with a series of tenets – each of which are commonly held to be wrong, extreme, and bad.
Even if the term was allegedly invented by Fr Joaquín Sáenz Arriaga, one of the first priests to publicly reject Paul VI’s claim, it might justly be described as a “term of the enemy,” similar to such other loaded terms as “Rad Trad,” “Latin Massist,” or “Lefebvrite.”
Adopting such terms does not seem enitrely prudent, if one knows this will invite ones arguments, conclusions and ones very self to be pathologised by those who do not know what they are talking about.
Nor are we alone in such a rejection of the term. The veteran Fr Noël Barabara wrote in 1983:
“Some have cleverly invented the term ‘sedevacantist’ and apply it to us in a derogatory sense; but we are no more ‘sedevacantists’ than we are ‘traditionalists’. We are Catholics, and it is precisely for that reason that we must insist so strongly on the urgent need to submit to the magisterium of the popes and of the councils.2
Another veteran priest, Abbé Guépin, also wrote:
“Stop calling us sedevacantists’ in the manner of journalists who used the qualifier ‘integristes.’ We are simply faithful Catholics, consistent in the present combat, and refusing all compromise with the Modernists – especially with their chief, JP2.”
As stated, we are ambivalent to the use of the term; we do not join Guépin in his rejection of it. It cannot really be avoided, and so we prefer to insist on our interlocutors clearly defining what they mean, and to understand it ourselves according to the more minimalist definition provided by John S. Daly in 2002:
“Sedevacantism is the belief that the Holy See is vacant. If you believe that the Catholic Church today has no pope – no true, valid and legitimate successor of St Peter – you are a sedevacantist; otherwise, you’re not.
“I stress that sedevacantism is not a movement. There are sedevacantists who go only to the Mass of sedevacantist priests; there are others who go elsewhere, and others again who don’t go to Mass at all. Likewise, of course, there are persons who go to the Mass of sedevacantist priests without being themselves sedevacantists.
“So sedevacantism is not about who you associate with, just as it is not about whether you think that women should wear pants or your view on “chemtrails” or Archbishop Thuc’s “dental state” – it is about whether or not you recognise John-Paul II as visible head of Christ’s Church.
And since it is a belief, not a movement, sedevacantism does not as such have any goals or exercise any proper activity. If you have come here today in the hope of hearing us talk about the most effective way of restoring Catholic order, or increasing the number of traditional Catholics, or getting more subscribers to traditional reviews, you’re going to be disappointed. The scope of the two talks you are going to hear is not about whether sedevacantism is useful. It is limited to whether sedevacantism is true.
This text is found in the following conference:
With all this in view, we wish Anthony Abbate and Rob Blyton the best with Avoiding Babylon. In our view, the best future for Catholics in this extended vacancy will be found in keeping lines of communication open, and dealing with each other with decency and respect.
Polemics and controversy are necessary, and they will always be fierce. But it is necessary to represent each other’s positions accurately, to keep one’s ego from becoming personally invested in one’s positions, and to avoid falling into a trap of thinking that those who disagree with us lose the right to fair treatment. As we have written previously:
“[D]epending on our level of good will, there need not be any losers in any such debate. St John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, said the following:
“‘Let us not then everywhere seek victory, nor everywhere shun defeat. There is an occasion when victory brings hurt, but defeat profit. [...] For often to be defeated is better, and this is the best mode of victory. For whether one overreaches, or smites, or envies, he that is defeated, and enters not into the conflict, this is he who has the victory.’”
“When we are debating for the sake of truth – rather than for Chrysostom’s sake of ‘conflict’ (or ego, or as members of a party, sect, or “team”) we cannot lose any debate. If we are overcome by the truth and by true arguments, we are not the defeated, but joint victors – and we gain a truth which we did not previously possess.
“The truth cannot hurt us, and so we cannot be afraid of the truth. We should pray that we are not deceived by false arguments – but we should also pray that if we are wrong, the good Lord might grant us the victory of being defeated by his truth.”
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
This is currently our definitive case for the vacancy of the Holy See:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
By contrast, some of the conflicts of the 1980s arose specifically from a departure from this practical response, and attempts to impose disputed theological conclusions (e.g., about the validity of the new sacramental rites, or Novus Ordo annulments) on others without the requisite ecclesiastical authority.
This line of conduct causes such strife whenever and wherever it appears; nor are “sedevacantists” immune from causing it (cf. the “una cum” controversy, a similar attempt to impose theological ideas without due authority).
Fr Noel Barbara, Fortes in Fide, Vol 2. No. 1.
Former Bergoglio critics who now call Prevost critics “pope bashers” haven’t merely changed their minds, they’ve received new programming.
Very thorough review of the issues that separate us from the R&R camp, and done in a very respectful way.