+
JMJ
Introduction
Who is worthy of being regarded as a hero - I think I captured that quite well in Part B of this series:
My thought is that a hero should be defined by their adherence to Truth and principles.
In my musings I wonder if there is a lifecycle to heroes /villains? Since everyone selects their heroes and these are roughly organized into clans are the differences irreconcilable?
Hero / Villain Life-cycle
I have observed a progression from Hero to Villain (see timeline) and I have a number of heroes that are still safely on the "Plateau of Heroism", but quite a few have been found wanting and either in decline or are now 'villains' as they no longer meet the heroic criteria or oppose those who I designate as 'heros'.
 |
| Hero to Villain Life-Cycle / Time Line |
Tradical's Heroes and Villains
Above is my current list of Hero's and Villains ( I may explain my classifications at a later date). Keep in mind that I'm not saying those whom I regard as heroes are perfect. Just that they meet the criteria. Likewise, those in the decline or emerging as villains I have concerns or they simply no longer meet the criteria.
Interestingly, in some cases a hero has a villain opposing them. Bishop Fellay has the villains Bishop Williamson et al opposing him. I once regarded Bishop Williamson as a hero, but I have benefited from his transition to villainy. It provided me the impetus to review his actions and writings, some of which I just passed over as part of his eccentricities. For example his interview on the Shoah (sp), provided an example of his imprudence; his flight to South America to provide confirmations, provided an example of his disobedience.
Even Michael Voris et al were once on the ascendance. However, since he never really did anything to demonstrate that he met the criteria he stayed in that spot for quite a while. Now, with his latest campaign against the SSPX, he is now firmly in the villains camp (ie the black speckles now out number the white ones by a fair margin) - mostly because of their ineptitude and irrational bias. Interestingly, as with Bishop Williamson, I now look at his pieces with a more critical eye.
For me that is an unexpected benefit of a villain, they help you to think critically. We should do that with both our villains and with our heroes, USING OBJECTIVE MEASURES. Otherwise we may be blind sided into accepting a villain as a hero.
Clan Reconciliation?
What are the clans that Michael Matt is speaking about? Is a reconciliation possible let alone probable?
The 'clans' are basic groupings of Catholics based on their use of the Tridentine Mass, adherence to Catholic Teaching and position on the authority of the Pope. For the sake of completeness I have included the Orthodox and Protestants.
So in the fight for the heart and soul of the Catholic Church, I think we can exclude the Non-Catholics. The Church is just in too much of a mess to think that they will help and not hinder in this internecine conflict.
Likewise, we can exclude the "Mainstream" Catholics that includes the Liberal, Modernist, Moderate and Conservative Catholics. They are either actively working to promote this crisis or simply grumble about important but still surface issues (communion in the hand, kneelers etc).
The Rogue Trads are a hodge-podge of beliefs that, IMHO, are not reconcilable. So we can count them out of the 'fight' so to speak. This of course includes the 'Resistors' that were a number of sub-cultures that previously existed within the SSPX but separated when it became obvious that the SSPX actually embraced Catholic Teachings.
This leaves us with the regular and irregular Traditionalists. In my opinion there is a chance to 'unite' these two clans but there is a challenge (or 'defi' as they say in french). The regularized are at the mercy of the hierarchy. A hierarchy that appears to be full of weak bishops and some actual villains. In practice this means that although they are virtually identical to their irregular confreres (most stem from the SSPX) they are vulnerable if they cross any of the plentiful red lines setup by the hierarchy.
Obviously, the SSPX does not suffer from this particular challenge. Theirs is the stigma of being irregular (see Tradicat: Is the SSPX in schism?).
The regularized stance is based upon their status within the Church, if they were seen to be drifting towards the SSPX stance (as happened ~2000) they would be smacked down ... again.
The only way to overcome this challenge is for the SSPX to be given a no-compromise regularization and all the former ecclesia-dei communities be attached to the SSPX in some manner. This structure was discussed in the early 2000s and would be the only way I can see the regularized but compromised clan being united with the irregularized but uncompromised clan.
Reference: Tridentine Mass Communities
Map of Followers
The map put together by Gabriel is really cool as it shows the alignment of the followers for the various groups (see Tradicat: What does the acronym CMTV stand for?).
Originally, I used this diagram to show that CMTV's followers are basically social conservatives with links to Catholicism. When I examined the left side of the diagram I found a blend of trads and had fun with a rhyming app to find all the different types of Trads.
The end message is that heroes and villains have followers that are 'aligned' based on a variety of criteria. Many of which are more emotional and culturally based than rational and principle based.
If we want to know who is truly worthy of our admiration, then we need have a good blend of both emotion and culture, and use Catholic Teaching as our guide. This means you need to know your faith and employ critical thinking skills to sift the Heroes out of the chaff of villains.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment