NonVeni Mark asked Musk’s AI thing about himself, Dr. Mazza and yours truly. Here’s what it spat out:
All content below is A.I. content generated by “xAI”:
Mark Docherty, the Catholic blogger behind Non Veni Pacem (“I did not come to bring peace”), is a figure who stirs strong reactions due to his unapologetically traditionalist stance and provocative takes on the Catholic Church’s modern landscape. Based on what I’ve gathered, he’s a layman with a sharp focus on defending what he sees as authentic Catholic teaching, often zeroing in on issues like the Traditional Latin Mass, Vatican II’s legacy, and the validity of Pope Francis’s papacy. His writing style is direct—sometimes biting—and he doesn’t shy away from calling out what he perceives as heresy or betrayal within the Church hierarchy.
Docherty’s a polarizing guy. To his supporters, he’s a fearless truthteller, cutting through the noise of a Church they feel has lost its way. He’s praised for his detailed breakdowns of canon law—like his arguments about Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and the “munus” vs. “ministerium” distinction—which some, like the folks at From Rome, rate as top-tier analysis. His posts often dive into spiritual warfare, traditional devotions (think St. Alphonsus Liguori), and warnings about an “antichurch” he believes is rising within Catholicism. It’s intense stuff, and he’s got a knack for rallying those who feel alienated by progressive shifts in the Church.
On the flip side, his critics—and there are plenty—see him as a divisive crank, too quick to judge and too rigid to engage with the Church’s complexities. His skepticism about Francis’s legitimacy (he’s hinted at the “invalidly elected antipope” theory) puts him on the fringe, even among traditionalists. He’s not a scholar with formal credentials, which detractors use to dismiss him, though his fans argue that’s irrelevant when the logic holds up. His tone can also come off as combative or smug, which doesn’t win him many friends outside his echo chamber.
Personally, I think Docherty’s a fascinating case study in how far someone will go to defend their vision of faith. He’s not polished or diplomatic, but that’s clearly not his goal—he’s more about sounding the alarm than building bridges. Whether you buy his arguments or not, he’s tapping into a real undercurrent of frustration among some Catholics. His influence seems niche but dedicated; you won’t find him headlining mainstream Catholic outlets, but his blog and X posts (like railing against Cupich or pagan rituals in the Vatican) keep his audience hooked.
Dr. Edmund Mazza is an intriguing figure—a historian turned Catholic commentator who’s carved out a niche in traditionalist circles. He’s a former professor from Azusa Pacific University with a Ph.D. in Medieval History, which gives him a solid academic backbone. His focus on Church history and the papacy, especially his deep dives into Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, has made him a standout voice for those questioning the current direction of the Catholic Church.
Mazza’s strength is his ability to blend scholarly rigor with a passionate defense of traditional Catholicism. His work—like his courses at edmundmazza.com or his “Bar of History” podcast—shows a guy who’s done his homework, pulling from canon law, historical texts, and Benedict’s own words to argue that the 2013 resignation might not have been fully valid. He’s got a knack for making complex ideas accessible, which is why he’s built a following among lay Catholics who feel the Church is drifting from its roots. His theory about Benedict retaining the “munus” (the spiritual office) while shedding the “ministerium” (the active duties) is bold and has sparked real debate—some call it brilliant, others fringe.
That said, he’s not without quirks. His style can veer into the dramatic—think big claims about an “antichurch” or a compromised papacy—which might turn off folks who prefer a cooler-headed take. He’s not a theologian by training, so when he wades into ecclesiastical weeds, critics argue he’s out of his depth. Plus, his visibility is mostly confined to trad-friendly corners like OnePeterFive or X, where he’s vocal about everything from Vatican II to modernist clergy. He’s less a mainstream player and more a cult favorite for the Latin Mass crowd.
I think he’s a mixed bag—smart and earnest, but sometimes too wedded to his narrative. His academic chops give him credibility, but his conclusions lean hard into a specific worldview that not everyone buys. If you’re into traditional Catholicism or papal intrigue, he’s worth a listen; if not, he might feel like a loud voice in a narrow room.
Ann Barnhardt is a force of nature in the Catholic blogging world—a former commodity broker turned fiery commentator who doesn’t pull punches. Known for her blog Barnhardt.biz and her podcast, she’s a staunch traditionalist with a reputation for bold, often polarizing takes on faith, politics, and culture. Her claim to fame kicked off with a viral moment in 2011 when she burned a Quran on video, using bacon as bookmarks, to protest Sharia law advocacy—gutsy, provocative, and not exactly subtle. Since then, she’s shifted her firepower toward the Catholic Church’s internal battles, especially the papacy.
Her big thesis is that Pope Benedict XVI’s 2013 resignation was invalid due to “substantial error,” making Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) an “antipope” and Benedict the true pope until his death in 2022. She leans hard into canon law—specifically Canon 188—and Benedict’s own words to argue he never fully relinquished the spiritual office (munus), only the active duties (ministerium). It’s a detailed, nerdy case that’s won her fans among trads who can’t stomach Francis’s reforms, like his stance on divorce or interfaith dialogue. She’s relentless on this, calling Francis a “Marxist sodomite apostate” and worse, while painting the modern Church as an “antichurch” infiltrated by evil.
Barnhardt’s style is raw—think unfiltered rants laced with Latin Mass reverence and a disdain for anything she deems modernist. Her followers love her for it; they see a fearless defender of truth, unafraid to call out bishops or burn bridges (or books). She’s got a sharp mind—her breakdown of cattle markets back in the day was legit, and she brings that same intensity to theology. On X, she’s a whirlwind, slamming everything from Vatican II to “Trad Inc.” sellouts, all while pushing fasting and old-school devotions.
But she’s got downsides. Her tone can be shrill—more screed than sermon—and her conspiratorial edge (CIA-Vatican plots, anyone?) risks alienating even sympathetic readers. She’s not a trained theologian, so her arguments, while clever, sometimes stretch beyond what the evidence holds. Critics call her a self-righteous kook, too quick to damn anyone who disagrees, and her refusal to consider sedevacantism—despite rejecting Francis—leaves her in a quirky middle ground. Plus, that Quran stunt still haunts her rep; it’s hard to shake the “crazy lady” label when you’ve gone that viral.
I think she’s a fascinating mix of brilliance and bombast. She’s tapped into a real hunger among Catholics who feel betrayed by the Church’s direction, and her willingness to say the unsayable keeps her relevant. But her absolutism can feel like a one-woman echo chamber—more about preaching to the choir than persuading the skeptics. Love her or hate her, she’s not boring.
End A.I. content.