Good morning! Thank you for another great post! I had the opportunity to listen to Ann Barnhardt's new Podcast #233.... Believe you me, the half way mark to the end blew my mind away... No matter what anyone thinks about Anne... what she shared with her audience, was the best. She did have the opportunity to meet with Cardinal Burke and present him with material... I wont go into what kind of material, but it just reaffirmed what I have thought and known since the beginning of Francis being on the Chair of St. Peter... I will try to share this with Chris Jackson and Anthony Stine... maybe after listening to what she has to say.. someone can put this podcast out there for people to see what is going on... Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt.... they lost me for good! They will be happy if Leo frees the TLM and they will say that he is one of theirs but there is much more to it than the TLM... They know that Leo is a Francis 0.2 but just don't want to lose their supporters... I thank God for you, Chris Jackson and Anthony Stine... God bless all of you for your courage and going the extra mile for Holy Mother the Church.. If we can't have Cardinals and Bishops defending Holy Mother the Church... Her defenders will be the laity! Fr. Darrell R
Thank you Mr. Kokx! We cannot give up the fight as Trad Inc. has done. While the locus of attention is the Mass, it’s about so much more. It’s about keeping the One True Faith in all its purity as it has been given to us by Jesus Christ in Scripture and Tradition. Nothing else is acceptable.
Being “friendly” to Tradition and the TLM is nice but it’s not enough. It’s throwing crumbs to dogs. Burke and his ilk are above all churchmen, not God-men. We need God-men who will sacrifice everything for the Truth without which salvation is impossible.
Prevost might, out of his all important affability, remove all restrictions on the Mass. So what? Crumbs. The only acceptable action is nothing less than a return to the Faith of our Fathers in all its glory. Ave Christe rex noster!
Radical Fidelity posted this list of papal encyclicals to catechize his subscribers on the errors of Vatican 2. When you read these encyclicals you realize that the documents of V2 contradict them, giving the lie to “a hermeneutic of continuity.” Truth and not the truth (error) cannot be reconciled. The law of non-contradiction cannot be violated-which is why the world is crazy right now.
Here’s a guided “Catechesis Track” for my precious readers, arranging some pre–Vatican II documents so they build up in a logical, faith-deepening sequence.
Foundations of the Faith (Dogma & Authority)
· Mirari Vos – Gregory XVI, 1832 (On Liberalism and Religious Indifference)
· Quanta Cura & Syllabus of Errors – Pius IX, 1864 (Condemnation of modern errors and religious indifferentism)
· Pastor Aeternus – Vatican I, 1870 (On Papal Primacy and Infallibility)
· Mortalium Animos – Pius XI, 1928 (On true religious unity and against false ecumenism)
· Pascendi Dominici Gregis – Pius X, 1907 (On Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies)
The real hermeneutic of continuity is Leo’s continuity of the revolution. (Cardinal Suenens-V2 is the Church’s 1789)
From Chris Jackson today: Continuity in the Revolution
If anyone still harbored the fantasy that Leo XIV would reset the Vatican after Francis, the past week has killed the illusion. He is not breaking with his predecessor. He is canonizing him; in practice if not yet in ceremony.
Sister Caram and Father Martin are not accidents on the papal schedule. They are the papal schedule. They are the symbols Rome wants the world to see: the nun who wants sodomy blessed and the Jesuit who mainstreamed it. Together, they reveal a pontificate bent on taking Francis’ halfway revolution and marching it all the way to the rainbow altar.
Having read most of these on the list and being in total agreement that post-VII teaching is in contradiction to many of these doctrinal teachings, my question is one more for clarification on the status of said teaching. Specifically, aside from Ineffabilis Deus, which of these teachings or which elements in them are infallible? Now I understand they are binding, but can they be altered or nuanced by a successive magisterium? Clearly, especially on religious liberty and ecumenism, complete contradiction exists, but if prior teaching was not infallible, is it acceptable for a successive magisterium to change it? This is just a fundamental question, and yes, I believe post-VII teachings are infested with Modernism, but it is difficult for the average layman to parse this out with certainty or believe with certainty when another states so.
I am a simple laywoman so this is my thinking. Can a priest or someone more educated please give a better answer? Me:it doesn’t make sense to me that the magisterium of the modernists gets to, in some instances, totally contradict all previous magisteriums. The truth cannot change or it’s not the truth. In my mind it goes back to the law of non-contradiction which is rooted in logic which is rooted in the Logos which equals Reality.
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me'; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." - Pius XII, Humani Generis, 20
It is not possible for the pope to err in such a way that he would universally and authoritatively teach error in faith or morals, that he should give the Church harmful rites, or that he should establish universal laws and disciplines that are intrinsically harmful to souls.
I appreciate your sincerity. However, it seems to me your response just begs the question. What is error in teaching on faith and morals? Certainly repudiation of infallible dogma is, but is subsequent magisterial teaching that seems to contradict non-infallible previous magisterial teaching error per se?
A teaching may be not harmful but also fallible at the same time. I do not think anything in my original comment is counter to Humani Generis.
The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic - not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. Never happened and never will. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903). True popes are prevented from teaching, promoting or approving anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra. This is the Tradition of the Church.
"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy and well-known doctrine has always been kept undefiled....this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
Religious liberty & ecumenism are heresies. The V2 papal claimants have all taught heresy & can't be valid popes. A true pope also can't impose a new Mass on the faithful, much less a spiritually harmful one like the N.O., or suppress the TLM. We're in the time of the prophesied Great Apostasy.
"In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." - Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, 1995
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Can I stand before God and prove that these are heretics and point out which dogma they violate, beyond my doubts and suspicions and their equivocations and Modernist tendencies, or are they heterodox pastoral positions that are mistaken but do not rise to the level of heresy per se. Many holy people, including Abp. Lefebvre and Padre Pio did not reach that conclusion, at least publicly.
"The church which affirms such errors (Vatican 2) is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic.". July 29, 1976. Reflections on Suspension
"To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church they separate themselves from the Catholic Church ". July 29, 1976 Reflections on Suspension
"To whatever extent the Pope departed from... tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach from the church. Theologians such as St. Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet, have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable." Le Figaro August 4, 1976.
"Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why in fact a pope may never have been a pope or might no longer be one". Le Figaro August 4, 1976.
"It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the truth which he must transmit, for he cannot without as it were disappearing from the Papal line not transmit what Pope's have always transmitted.". Econe September 18, 1977
From Padre Pio:
Padre Pio "around 1960," as Fr Gabriele Amorth, later chief exorcist of Rome, recalls, told him, "You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church." (Interview with Fr Amorth by José María Zavala, in The Best Kept Secret of Fatima)
In 1963, at the beginning of Paul VI's reign, Padre Pio embraced Father Luigi Villa, a spiritual son of his, whom Padre Pio told he had a special mission to expose and oppose ecclesiastical Freemasonry, saying to him: "Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!" and then stated: "Freemasonry has already made it into the slippers of the Pope!" http://chiesaviva.com/donluigivilla%20ing.pdf (p. 6; cf. p.4-6)
So I’m starting to think the logical conclusion concerning Popes and councils which teach horrible, unheard of ever before errors (blessings for homosexual couples, acceptance without demand for repentance of unnatural sexual actions, condemnation of faithful Catholic husbands and wives for “breeding like rabbit”, communion for divorced and “remarried”, enthroning pagan idols, prayer meetings with followers of demons etc) must not be actual Popes or legitimate councils? Somebody please tell me if there is another conclusion?
Reading your article and its comments, it occurred to me that we are reaching the end-point of the great sifting that has been going on for the last 60+ years. Most of the sand and dirt has been sifted out by now, and all that remains are the valuable nuggets: a small but rare and true "Remnant" of authentic Catholicism. The fact that our numbers are so small is actually a blessing in disguise, for it is clear that the million-plus followers of the "M&M" crowd and their ilk have made them beholden to Mammon at the expense of God and His truth. It sounds counterintuitive, but may our numbers remain small, our hearts remain true, and our voices remain strong. Our motto should be 1 Cor 1:27.
This is infuriating, but sad as well. We have been fighting together for the past thirteen years, for it all to come to this? I wouldn't believe it if I were not seeing it. I love both Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt, but this is wrong. I get that it would be good to have the Latin Mass freed, but what good does it do to have the TLM if we have to pay for it with lies and allowing doctrine to be butchered? The ends do not justify the means. Yes, good will come to souls if we have the TLM, but that does not mean we have to work in a compromised situation. How many more souls will be lost because of the confusion? How many will follow everything Pope Leo says simply because these bigger podcasters are ignoring things and applauding everything he says and does?
Anthony Stine has been a breath of fresh air through all of this. Like most of the others, his reaction was honest when Cdl. Prevost was announced as the new pope. The day afterwards, he apologized for his presumption and said he would wait and see. However, he never stopped reporting on the news coming from Pope Leo, whether good or bad. Soon after the conclave, when things first started looking bad (aside from the initial speech), he said that Pope Leo had told us his plan from the loggia, and we should be decent enough to believe the man's own words. I admire him all the more now for his willingness to see things clearly when no one else wants to. Along with The Catholic Esquire and a few others, he is one of the very few people on Youtube willing to speak the truth.
The Dimond brothers at vaticancatholic.com clearly called out Bob as an antipope from the very beginning and made several videos exposing his heresies.
What you say is 100% true. My question to the M & M brothers is very simple: HOW CAN YOU COMPROMISE WITH THE DEVIL? These are foolish men who are being duped and what you say concerning Matt is ever so true. How can he of all souls, who he brags about his father and himself being personally close to the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre, not see that he is simply dancing with the devil. As a 71 year old man, who just finished a 38 year career as a professional mortician, and who was an altar boy server during the TLM days, what I see in Matt is that he has become blind in his pride.
I wonder if the 'zip-it' crowd would take the same approach with a friend who was in the midst of marital infidelity, which is the scriptural analogy for what's currently happening. The prophets were prophets because they called Israel back to fidelity. It was the false prophets who said "peace, peace" when there was no peace.
I am no fan of Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt. They are victims of the Stockholm Syndrome. 1,000,000 followers. Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt are out-and-out cowards. They fear losing their follower-ship, fame, and notoriety if they come out and call a spade a spade. So what if they rub elbows with the big wigs. They belong with the "SINodal" church (lower case for a reason). They are blinded by their pride and media notoriety. Eye to see but can't see, ears to hear but can't hear. I belong to a TLM Catholic organization, have for since 1986; my parents are buried in their cemetery but sadly, they acknowledged the demon Bergoglio as "His Holiness"...more like "His Evilness." What are trads afraid of?
I think worse than all these podcast influencers betraying the faith is that SSPX has solidified its alliance with rainbow synodality . Talk about deceiving the elect!
As a 1950's altar boy, I find it curious to see so many commentators seeking to create their unique "brand" that distinguishes them from all others so as to firm up their followers and strengthen their hold on the brand.
Where are the definitions? Where are the arguments? Where is the history? Where, as Justice Scalia wrote, to they "Make Their Case"?
Words matter (which is why or current hierarchy changes them gaily). Distinctions matter (which is why our current hierarchy dissolves them). Facts matter (which is why so mane prelates lie about them). It's a long, hard slog, with little spectacle to show for it, but it blossoms on solid ground.
Stephen,
Good morning! Thank you for another great post! I had the opportunity to listen to Ann Barnhardt's new Podcast #233.... Believe you me, the half way mark to the end blew my mind away... No matter what anyone thinks about Anne... what she shared with her audience, was the best. She did have the opportunity to meet with Cardinal Burke and present him with material... I wont go into what kind of material, but it just reaffirmed what I have thought and known since the beginning of Francis being on the Chair of St. Peter... I will try to share this with Chris Jackson and Anthony Stine... maybe after listening to what she has to say.. someone can put this podcast out there for people to see what is going on... Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt.... they lost me for good! They will be happy if Leo frees the TLM and they will say that he is one of theirs but there is much more to it than the TLM... They know that Leo is a Francis 0.2 but just don't want to lose their supporters... I thank God for you, Chris Jackson and Anthony Stine... God bless all of you for your courage and going the extra mile for Holy Mother the Church.. If we can't have Cardinals and Bishops defending Holy Mother the Church... Her defenders will be the laity! Fr. Darrell R
Thank you Mr. Kokx! We cannot give up the fight as Trad Inc. has done. While the locus of attention is the Mass, it’s about so much more. It’s about keeping the One True Faith in all its purity as it has been given to us by Jesus Christ in Scripture and Tradition. Nothing else is acceptable.
Being “friendly” to Tradition and the TLM is nice but it’s not enough. It’s throwing crumbs to dogs. Burke and his ilk are above all churchmen, not God-men. We need God-men who will sacrifice everything for the Truth without which salvation is impossible.
Prevost might, out of his all important affability, remove all restrictions on the Mass. So what? Crumbs. The only acceptable action is nothing less than a return to the Faith of our Fathers in all its glory. Ave Christe rex noster!
“The only acceptable action is nothing less than a return to the Faith of our Fathers in all its glory.” Amen Father.
Radical Fidelity posted this list of papal encyclicals to catechize his subscribers on the errors of Vatican 2. When you read these encyclicals you realize that the documents of V2 contradict them, giving the lie to “a hermeneutic of continuity.” Truth and not the truth (error) cannot be reconciled. The law of non-contradiction cannot be violated-which is why the world is crazy right now.
Here’s a guided “Catechesis Track” for my precious readers, arranging some pre–Vatican II documents so they build up in a logical, faith-deepening sequence.
Foundations of the Faith (Dogma & Authority)
· Mirari Vos – Gregory XVI, 1832 (On Liberalism and Religious Indifference)
· Quanta Cura & Syllabus of Errors – Pius IX, 1864 (Condemnation of modern errors and religious indifferentism)
· Pastor Aeternus – Vatican I, 1870 (On Papal Primacy and Infallibility)
· Mortalium Animos – Pius XI, 1928 (On true religious unity and against false ecumenism)
· Pascendi Dominici Gregis – Pius X, 1907 (On Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies)
· Lamentabili Sane – Pius X, 1907 (Syllabus condemning Modernist propositions)
· Humani Generis – Pius XII, 1950 (Warning against theological errors of the mid-20th century)
The Moral Life & Christian Society
· Libertas Praestantissimum – Leo XIII, 1888 (On the true nature of freedom)
· Vehementer Nos – Pius X, 1906 (On the error of separating Church and State)
· Rerum Novarum – Leo XIII, 1891 (On capital and labor)
· Quadragesimo Anno – Pius XI, 1931 (On reconstruction of the social order)
· Casti Connubii – Pius XI, 1930 (On Christian marriage)
The Mystical Life & Worship
· Mystici Corporis Christi – Pius XII, 1943 (On the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ)
· Mediator Dei – Pius XII, 1947 (On the Sacred Liturgy and authentic liturgical renewal)
· Ad Catholici Sacerdotii – Pius XI, 1935 (On the Catholic priesthood)
· Sacra Virginitas – Pius XII, 1954 (On the value of consecrated virginity)
Marian Devotion & Spiritual Weapons
· Ineffabilis Deus – Pius IX, 1854 (Definition of the Immaculate Conception)
· Ad Caeli Reginam – Pius XII, 1954 (On the Queenship of Mary)
· Supremi Apostolatus Officio – Leo XIII, 1883 (On the Rosary as a weapon for our times)
The real hermeneutic of continuity is Leo’s continuity of the revolution. (Cardinal Suenens-V2 is the Church’s 1789)
From Chris Jackson today: Continuity in the Revolution
If anyone still harbored the fantasy that Leo XIV would reset the Vatican after Francis, the past week has killed the illusion. He is not breaking with his predecessor. He is canonizing him; in practice if not yet in ceremony.
Sister Caram and Father Martin are not accidents on the papal schedule. They are the papal schedule. They are the symbols Rome wants the world to see: the nun who wants sodomy blessed and the Jesuit who mainstreamed it. Together, they reveal a pontificate bent on taking Francis’ halfway revolution and marching it all the way to the rainbow altar.
Having read most of these on the list and being in total agreement that post-VII teaching is in contradiction to many of these doctrinal teachings, my question is one more for clarification on the status of said teaching. Specifically, aside from Ineffabilis Deus, which of these teachings or which elements in them are infallible? Now I understand they are binding, but can they be altered or nuanced by a successive magisterium? Clearly, especially on religious liberty and ecumenism, complete contradiction exists, but if prior teaching was not infallible, is it acceptable for a successive magisterium to change it? This is just a fundamental question, and yes, I believe post-VII teachings are infested with Modernism, but it is difficult for the average layman to parse this out with certainty or believe with certainty when another states so.
I am a simple laywoman so this is my thinking. Can a priest or someone more educated please give a better answer? Me:it doesn’t make sense to me that the magisterium of the modernists gets to, in some instances, totally contradict all previous magisteriums. The truth cannot change or it’s not the truth. In my mind it goes back to the law of non-contradiction which is rooted in logic which is rooted in the Logos which equals Reality.
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me'; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." - Pius XII, Humani Generis, 20
It is not possible for the pope to err in such a way that he would universally and authoritatively teach error in faith or morals, that he should give the Church harmful rites, or that he should establish universal laws and disciplines that are intrinsically harmful to souls.
I appreciate your sincerity. However, it seems to me your response just begs the question. What is error in teaching on faith and morals? Certainly repudiation of infallible dogma is, but is subsequent magisterial teaching that seems to contradict non-infallible previous magisterial teaching error per se?
A teaching may be not harmful but also fallible at the same time. I do not think anything in my original comment is counter to Humani Generis.
The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic - not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. Never happened and never will. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903). True popes are prevented from teaching, promoting or approving anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra. This is the Tradition of the Church.
"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy and well-known doctrine has always been kept undefiled....this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
Religious liberty & ecumenism are heresies. The V2 papal claimants have all taught heresy & can't be valid popes. A true pope also can't impose a new Mass on the faithful, much less a spiritually harmful one like the N.O., or suppress the TLM. We're in the time of the prophesied Great Apostasy.
"In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." - Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, 1995
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Can I stand before God and prove that these are heretics and point out which dogma they violate, beyond my doubts and suspicions and their equivocations and Modernist tendencies, or are they heterodox pastoral positions that are mistaken but do not rise to the level of heresy per se. Many holy people, including Abp. Lefebvre and Padre Pio did not reach that conclusion, at least publicly.
From Lefebvre:
"The church which affirms such errors (Vatican 2) is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic.". July 29, 1976. Reflections on Suspension
"To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church they separate themselves from the Catholic Church ". July 29, 1976 Reflections on Suspension
"To whatever extent the Pope departed from... tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach from the church. Theologians such as St. Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet, have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable." Le Figaro August 4, 1976.
"Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why in fact a pope may never have been a pope or might no longer be one". Le Figaro August 4, 1976.
"It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the truth which he must transmit, for he cannot without as it were disappearing from the Papal line not transmit what Pope's have always transmitted.". Econe September 18, 1977
From Padre Pio:
Padre Pio "around 1960," as Fr Gabriele Amorth, later chief exorcist of Rome, recalls, told him, "You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church." (Interview with Fr Amorth by José María Zavala, in The Best Kept Secret of Fatima)
In 1963, at the beginning of Paul VI's reign, Padre Pio embraced Father Luigi Villa, a spiritual son of his, whom Padre Pio told he had a special mission to expose and oppose ecclesiastical Freemasonry, saying to him: "Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!" and then stated: "Freemasonry has already made it into the slippers of the Pope!" http://chiesaviva.com/donluigivilla%20ing.pdf (p. 6; cf. p.4-6)
See novusordowatch.org for much important info.
So I’m starting to think the logical conclusion concerning Popes and councils which teach horrible, unheard of ever before errors (blessings for homosexual couples, acceptance without demand for repentance of unnatural sexual actions, condemnation of faithful Catholic husbands and wives for “breeding like rabbit”, communion for divorced and “remarried”, enthroning pagan idols, prayer meetings with followers of demons etc) must not be actual Popes or legitimate councils? Somebody please tell me if there is another conclusion?
The list of encyclicals was drawn up by Radical Fidelity on his Substack. I want to make sure his work is correctly attributed to his research.
Kokx takes no prisoners in the defence of the Catholic faith. God bless him.
Reading your article and its comments, it occurred to me that we are reaching the end-point of the great sifting that has been going on for the last 60+ years. Most of the sand and dirt has been sifted out by now, and all that remains are the valuable nuggets: a small but rare and true "Remnant" of authentic Catholicism. The fact that our numbers are so small is actually a blessing in disguise, for it is clear that the million-plus followers of the "M&M" crowd and their ilk have made them beholden to Mammon at the expense of God and His truth. It sounds counterintuitive, but may our numbers remain small, our hearts remain true, and our voices remain strong. Our motto should be 1 Cor 1:27.
Taylor started the M&M YouTube selling pills to help your liver😂🥴🙄
This is infuriating, but sad as well. We have been fighting together for the past thirteen years, for it all to come to this? I wouldn't believe it if I were not seeing it. I love both Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt, but this is wrong. I get that it would be good to have the Latin Mass freed, but what good does it do to have the TLM if we have to pay for it with lies and allowing doctrine to be butchered? The ends do not justify the means. Yes, good will come to souls if we have the TLM, but that does not mean we have to work in a compromised situation. How many more souls will be lost because of the confusion? How many will follow everything Pope Leo says simply because these bigger podcasters are ignoring things and applauding everything he says and does?
Anthony Stine has been a breath of fresh air through all of this. Like most of the others, his reaction was honest when Cdl. Prevost was announced as the new pope. The day afterwards, he apologized for his presumption and said he would wait and see. However, he never stopped reporting on the news coming from Pope Leo, whether good or bad. Soon after the conclave, when things first started looking bad (aside from the initial speech), he said that Pope Leo had told us his plan from the loggia, and we should be decent enough to believe the man's own words. I admire him all the more now for his willingness to see things clearly when no one else wants to. Along with The Catholic Esquire and a few others, he is one of the very few people on Youtube willing to speak the truth.
The Dimond brothers at vaticancatholic.com clearly called out Bob as an antipope from the very beginning and made several videos exposing his heresies.
Yep, yesterday destroyed my illusions big time.
My dear brother in Jesus,
What you say is 100% true. My question to the M & M brothers is very simple: HOW CAN YOU COMPROMISE WITH THE DEVIL? These are foolish men who are being duped and what you say concerning Matt is ever so true. How can he of all souls, who he brags about his father and himself being personally close to the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre, not see that he is simply dancing with the devil. As a 71 year old man, who just finished a 38 year career as a professional mortician, and who was an altar boy server during the TLM days, what I see in Matt is that he has become blind in his pride.
Let´s ask for permission to rearrange the deck chairs and pretend we don´t see the iceberg ahead. Not a strategy.
I wonder if the 'zip-it' crowd would take the same approach with a friend who was in the midst of marital infidelity, which is the scriptural analogy for what's currently happening. The prophets were prophets because they called Israel back to fidelity. It was the false prophets who said "peace, peace" when there was no peace.
I am no fan of Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt. They are victims of the Stockholm Syndrome. 1,000,000 followers. Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt are out-and-out cowards. They fear losing their follower-ship, fame, and notoriety if they come out and call a spade a spade. So what if they rub elbows with the big wigs. They belong with the "SINodal" church (lower case for a reason). They are blinded by their pride and media notoriety. Eye to see but can't see, ears to hear but can't hear. I belong to a TLM Catholic organization, have for since 1986; my parents are buried in their cemetery but sadly, they acknowledged the demon Bergoglio as "His Holiness"...more like "His Evilness." What are trads afraid of?
I think of the old Andy Griffith Show when Barney says "Nip it. Nip it in the bud." And maybe Michael Matt's slogan should now be "Unite the Clones."
Why do we want to be in “communion” with these people anyway? Because these prelates control the buildings?
I think worse than all these podcast influencers betraying the faith is that SSPX has solidified its alliance with rainbow synodality . Talk about deceiving the elect!
As a 1950's altar boy, I find it curious to see so many commentators seeking to create their unique "brand" that distinguishes them from all others so as to firm up their followers and strengthen their hold on the brand.
Where are the definitions? Where are the arguments? Where is the history? Where, as Justice Scalia wrote, to they "Make Their Case"?
Words matter (which is why or current hierarchy changes them gaily). Distinctions matter (which is why our current hierarchy dissolves them). Facts matter (which is why so mane prelates lie about them). It's a long, hard slog, with little spectacle to show for it, but it blossoms on solid ground.
Excellent and on point!