Skip to main content

FATIMAISTAS AT WAR! Steve Skojec Of 1P5 Versus Remnant's Chris Ferrara...Prayer Of Division Is Working!

Divide and conquer.

Now there is a war between the Camp of Steve and the Remnant Camp.

It started when Steve stole the Fatima thunder when he made Pope Benedict come out of retirement
Communiqué: on various articles regarding the “Third Secret of Fatima”
Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete. In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”. [00855-EN.01] [Original text: Italian - working translation] 
How did Steve make Pope Benedict come out of retirement to issue a public statement?

Well because Steve lied. Steve published a lie about the Third Secret of Fatima that declared that the Third Secret contains words of a Bad Mass & Bad Council - meaning the new Mass & Vatican II.
Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future. Father Dollinger gave me permission to publish these facts on this High Feast of the Holy Ghost and he gave me his blessing. Here
How to refute this statement or lie?

Easy, just ask one question.

What Mass did Sr. Lucy attend?

1. Good Mass
2. Bad Mass

Well 1P5 made the headlines and the folks at the Remnant decided to invite Steve to speak at the Catholic Identity Conference, 2016.

Then something happened.

Steve's rant:
I have just endured the worst week of my life. While the personal nature of what is happening still demands that I remain non-specific about the problem, it is fair to say that my wife and I have experienced more turmoil, upheaval, division, betrayal, and hurt than we would have previously thought possible. The subsequent emotional roller coaster lurching through each day’s required activities, threatening to derail…everything. But as with all such trials, there’s nothing for it but to keep going. Even if every time I think I’ve got a handle on it, another “aftershock” arrives, threatening to shatter the fragile serenity I’ve begun piecing together. 1P5
So Steve got dis-invited from the Catholic Identity Conference, 2016. Steve was a no show at the Catholic Identity Conference, 2016.

Now the Remnant writes a letter to the Pope and Steve and his spiritual director - an Opus Dei priest decided to attack the letter as being a bit to harsh.

Here are the war of words between the two opposing Camps:

It's unfortunate that trads can always be counted on to warm up the circular firing squad. I primarily blame the leadership vacuum in the Church - if laymen didn't need to set themselves up as critics to distinguish what is true from what is false in Church affairs, they wouldn't begin arrogating to themselves the judgment to decide who is sufficiently Catholic and who is not. Or at least, I suspect the temptation would be greatly lessened.
Again, this is a theme I'll be returning to again here soon: traditional Catholics have a unique opportunity to be heard at this moment. It's time for us to drop the snark and the sharp elbows and actually gather people in from this storm.

  • Steve: Can you elaborate here?
    What exactly do you mean?
    Are you saying the "Accusation" is a shot fired at the firing squad? Are you saying the posters here are cannibals? Or something different?
    Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake, but obviously you have a strongly held opinion here, but I just don't know exactly what you mean.

    • "Trads" -- if we can define such a broad-based group in a single label -- are often (more like always) on the offensive, are engaged in near-perpetual criticism, and are all-too-frequently thin-skinned.
      That means that while they can dish it out, they're often indignant about taking it. Good intentions? Certainly. And yet...
      A priest I used to know once said, after returning from a retreat with traditional priests, "I saw a great deal of reverence, and very little humility."
      The problem no doubt comes with:
      a) a decades-long bunker mentality
      b) the need to constantly debate from a disadvantaged position (thus, leaving no quarter for common ground - it's "I'm right, you're wrong" - often with a good bit of snark thrown in.)
      c) the bitterness that comes from seeing the truth constantly suppressed, oppressed, or treated as though it just doesn't matter.
      I'm sure others could supply more.
      The combativeness that the trad community is known for -- especially online -- is one that has become a sort of brand; a PR nightmare. Trads actually do have the right answers, but many people don't want to get anywhere near them in order to learn them. And even in the case of the newer generation of trads, who tend to be a bit less hostile, there's a perception gap that is hard for people to overcome.
      I was just reading about a priest who offers the TLM in his parish but has recently been castigated by some TLM-attendees for things not being to their standards. They didn't approach him first with their concerns, they sent an angry email around.
      Collectively, trads are a mixed group. But the stigma -- rightly earned -- is that we're about as much fun as lemon juice at a papercut party.
      I've written this carefully and tactfully, and I fully expect the annoyed responses to begin in earnest. We fight amongst ourselves, we make the perfect the enemy of the good, and we are our own worst enemies.

      • Gotcha.
        Good stuff to ponder deeply. Gotta take that to heart.
        One comment I have is that {I'm a convert with a short time span on the "inside" of the Church} I've seen this critique {of Traditionalists} frequently used to simply suppress the message they try to affirm more than the actual faults they exhibit.
        I'm not saying YOU are doing this {you aren't} but in the culture of the Church today, the Traditionalist message is frequently swept aside due to their quirks and sins and in so doing, the "comfort" heresies common to modern Catholics are thus protected.
        Kind of like the constant call of "RACISM!!" any time a white guy critiques anything in the culture of the inner city.
        For myself, I don't mind combative people and i like to hear what they have to say.
        Sometimes, combative jerks are right and expose where I am flatout wrong.

I don't disagree. I just think - as I said in another comment a minute ago - that we need to elevate our game. We have the best product on the market, so why are we so bad at selling it?
Yeah, people get all huffy when I compare what we're doing to business, but on a human level -- psychology, anthropology -- that's where the best thinking is on the art of persuasion. Do that well, have it amplified by grace, and what can't we accomplish?
While I respect the work -- and the sheer time grinding it out -- of pubs like The Remnant, I've long found the excessive snark and polemics there unappealing. There are probably any number of reasons why 1P5 has, in just two years, become one of the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online (in terms of audience size), but I suspect our attempt to find balance in our approach and not treat those who don't yet see the point we're making as the enemy are a part of that.

    • Now that's a just bit much in the self-congratulation department, Steve. Quite snarky, in fact. Even a bit polemical.
      The Remnant has been advancing the cause of Tradition for half a century, "excessive snark and polemics" included. Let's see how 1P5 is doing in 2066.
      And it's easy to become popular quickly when you give it away. Let us know when you have 20,000 paid subscribers, and growing.
      This kind of preening is really unbecoming, Steve.

        • Thanks for proving my point.

          • Oh, I see. You get to belittle the Remnant for its excessive snark and polemics and boast of your own popularity because 1P5 is just so much more respectable, you see, and when I defend the newspaper I write for against your snide put-down this proves your point?
            The only one who convened the circular firing squad here is you. We never said an unkind word about 1P5, and I have linked to it many times in articles for the Remnant.
            That proves MY point.

            • Chris, have you ever met someone who wasn't an enemy in your eyes?
              You're here on a post in which I promoted your work at The Remnant.
              You're here on a comment in which I said, "I respect the work -- and the sheer time grinding it out -- of pubs like The Remnant".
              But yes, I have a caveat. I don't care for the snark. Never have. The tone in your response to me is needlessly combative. Are you so thin-skinned that despite the fact that I'm a natural ally you want to set the bridge on fire because you don't like my criticism of your tone?
              Guess what: it's not news. Lots of people are turned off by traditional Catholicism because of the polemics of trad writers, which is in strong evidence here in this comment thread.
              Trust me, I get plenty of pushback for what I write, too, but I don't think anyone would disagree that you're a more polemical writer than I am. (Do you object to this characterization?)
              We are faced with an opportune moment where average Catholics who have never had an interest in tradition might want to listen to us. Are we going to beat them over the head with it? Are we going to dismiss them as "neo-caths"? Or are we going to welcome them into what they've been missing? Why not save our fire principally for those who are really doing evil to the Church. Am I one of those people now, because I dared voice my criticism?
              I don't mean in any way to diminish the work you and the Matts have put in over the years. You've committed your lives to this cause. But there is a whole new generation of Catholics interested in tradition and not in the bitterness of a decades-old war. Yeah, they get angry too. I certainly do. But sometimes it's just too much.
              I intentionally went into this business attempting to reach those people, and it's worked rather better than I could have hoped. I'm glad you have 20K subscribers. I'm sure if you gave me a few years, let alone a half century, I could, too. I don't plan on doing this for that long. I hope to be made redundant far sooner than that. And honestly, I don't think spending this much time scrutinizing the evils trying to destroy the Church is good for anyone. It changes you. It often brings out the worst in me.
              You know as well as I do, though, that building the kind of web audience we have isn't easy. Neither is building a loyal base of donors that keep this going. If you want to believe it's just dumb luck that we've been so successful, that's your prerogative. But I know how much hard work has gone into it. I know the editorial choices I've made, and the level of control I've exerted over tone. Control that means the failures we've had are all on me, but that I get credit for the many of the successes, too.
              I'm proud of what we've accomplished because I believe that what we're doing matters. Is it preening to observe a demonstrable fact? We're within a month or so of becoming the second most-read traditional Catholic website online (after Fr. Z) that I'm aware of. Is it really so impolitic to see that as validation of the choices we've made?

              • "You've committed your lives to this cause. But there is a whole new generation of Catholics interested in tradition and not in the bitterness of a decades-old war."
                Well there you go again, pretending to praise The Remnant while you hit it below the belt one more time. The Remnant is not about "the bitterness of a decades-old war." It is a trend-setting publication with numerous young subscribers and an annual chapter in the Chartres pilgrimage that for decades has been overwhelmingly youthful.
                You haven't promoted the Remnant in this piece. Rather, you linked to our Statement, posted numerous negative comments about it, agreed with those comments, and added your own nasty barbs along with a boast about 1P5's approach being much superior.
                If that's "promotion," Steve, words have lost their meaning. I call it derogation---unprovoked and unnecessary derogation of a newspaper that should be your ally in the cause.
                The Remnant, on the other hand, has promoted your blog enthusiastically, never said an unkind word about you or your writing, and has even invited you to Remnant-related events.
                So you don't like snark. Well, I don't like snobbery, but I have never complained about your snobbery, so evident in these posts of yours which view The Remnant as infra dig, an old rag for bitter people waging a decades-old war---blah, blah, blah with nose upturned.
                At any rate, the Statement is not snarky. That's just your snobby put-down of the piece. The 28,000 readers so far (we expect at least 50,000), and the multiple volunteer translators into French, Spanish and Hungarian (with more languages to come) think a bit more of it than that.
                Thanks for nothing, Steve.

                • I know you love to argue, but I'm not interested. I think my criticisms are fair, and they're certainly not severe. I'm not sure why you're so sensitive to them. I did promote your liber by posting it here (something I'm beginning to regret).
                  I'm not into boot licking. I can respect what you're doing without agreeing with all of it. Clearly, if I thought it couldn't be improved on, I wouldn't have started my own.
                  This exemplifies the circular firing squad: you can't take measured criticism, so you respend with attacks. And what substantive things do we disagree on? Beats me. I'm talking about approach.
                  Again, I'm not looking for a fight with people I otherwise agree wit. If you want to be enemies, that's on you, but it only substantiates my argument that trads are our own worst enemies.

                  • I don't think anybody outdoes you in the "love to argue" department. And putting down The Remnant as bitter, snarky and excessively polemical while boasting of your superior approach is not "measured criticism." It's self-promotion at the expense of another publication that always treated you with respect and promoted you enthusiastically.