"Very interesting how in Michael Matt’s defense video of why he censored (yes, censor is the word, whether he likes it or not) Vigano’s video was how the whole point of the “identity”conference was to “unify” but Canon Law says that the standard of schism itself is the PAPACY; well, then the only logical refutation to Mr. Matt is that unity starts with the Papacy. An open and honest discussion …More
"In conclusion, Matt’s opinion of what unity is, is just that, an opinion. But Canon Law says that the standard of unity/schism is the papacy and so, we don’t follow opinions and suggestions, we follow demands and laws the way the Church lays them out. I grimaced as Michael Matt called out “Team Vigano” people trying to stir up trouble and so, to make such an insult to those in the Church who indeed applaud Vigano for speaking up on our behalf, is anything BUT unifying. We all need to have open and honest discussions about the current state of the Church and not let the charity in our hearts grow cold like Our Lord predicted." - "J" on 4 October 2023
Boanerges Boanerges
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Wow, so much confusion here...and yet our Faith is so simple: the mission of the Church and Her supreme law is SALVATION OF SOULS. Therefore, legitimizing Bergoglio’s diabolical seduction means helping him to destroy souls. On the other hand, calling him out for what he really is - a heretic and a false prophet - means opening the eyes of millions of confused souls and helping them to be saved, …More
After speaking with a very well-known Traditional Catholic apologist, who is very vocal about publicly opposing and resisting the errors of Pope Francis both in speech and in the written word, I have an update on my previously stated position below.
This excellent apologist explained that there is absolutely no established mechanism in the Church for formally investigating and declaring that Pope …More
This excellent apologist explained that there is absolutely no established mechanism in the Church for formally investigating and declaring that Pope Francis has either lost the Office through obdurate heresy or never possessed the Office because of a problematic election.
He said we are in a situation where it is essentially impossible to prove this in a formal manner and that to insist he is "not Pope" as a matter of policy in the public forum is actually purposeless and dangerous for those in the Hierarchy who do so and for the Catholic faithful.
For those in the Hierarchy who do so publicly, it is purposeless and dangerous because they will simply be taken out and silenced by the Church and no longer able to use their positions of influence to denounce and resist the errors now being spread within the Church and by the Pope himself; and for the Catholic Faithful it is dangerous because it will throw the sheep into confusion and they may abandon the Barque of Peter because of "Peter".
HOWEVER: He explained that even though it cannot be proven and that there is no formal mechanism in the Church to definitively judge a sitting Pope, that this will not and should not stop us from ceaselessly condemning his errors publicly and resisting him in every manner necessary and possible.
Nor should it stop members of the Hierarchy from doing the same and speaking among themselves on how to proceed for the good of the Church.
He said for this reason it was best that Archbishop Vigano's video not be used at the conference (valid and helpful though his considerations may be -- and they can always/still be viewed independently by all of us for the help they offer) simply because it would have compromised the standing and the platforms of those Bishops who were present at the Conference, and who are not backing down from publicly fighting the battle within their dioceses and in the wider Church.
It would also have compromised the standing of the apologists and speakers who are doing the same in the Catholic media and Catholic circles of influence.
This apologist said it's a matter of prudence and fighting a more effective, strategic battle, since there is no formal, definitive mechanism within the Church that can be used to prove that Pope Francis has either lost the office or never possessed it; and thus it would be purposeless and self-defeating for Catholics to attempt to do so without that possibility.
Archbishop Vigano's Video: "Vitium Consensus" - Catolich Identity Conference 2023
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Let me ask you one question: have any of these bishops rejected the position of Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio that the Church has no mission to the Jews? The men that Matt is promoting are participants in the heresy of Modernism. It's time to attack the crisis in the Church at its source: the heresy named and defined by Pope Pius X. This promotion of the search for heroes and the consequent hero …More
Cassandra Laments
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Simon North I absolutely agree with you, and that's exactly what I said in my post.
Yet, we are up against the hard facts: i.e. there is no formal mechanism in the Church to depose a Pope or to declare that he is not Pope. That's the reality we are dealing with.
YES....let us denounce the errors of all the post-Vatican II Popes, as has done the apologist (for decades) with whom I consulted: …More
Yet, we are up against the hard facts: i.e. there is no formal mechanism in the Church to depose a Pope or to declare that he is not Pope. That's the reality we are dealing with.
YES....let us denounce the errors of all the post-Vatican II Popes, as has done the apologist (for decades) with whom I consulted: hundreds of articles, books, public appearances, etc.
But, to declare he is "not Pope" is without any definitively provable basis (for even heresy can be purely "material" and not obdurate), without any authority or mechanism in the Church -- so it's purposeless for us as lay Catholics to do so.
It might make us feel better, but it still achieves absolutely nothing and can even be decidedly self-defeating if it's not done in a strategic manner.
Can you explain what conceivable practical outcome it would produce for us or for lone Bishops to make such declarations?
Nothing....he would still remain in Office, and nothing would change. We are still left with the only weapons we have: opposition to his errors, public renunciation of same and resistance to his unjust mandates.
To declare he is not Pope is not something we even have the authority to do. Neither do Bishops of the Church have that authority as individual Bishops.
The only conjecture as to how it could be done in past centuries consists of some kind of "imperfect Council" that would be held to make a juridical review and formal determination. Yet, even that is merely speculation and conjecture among theologians and Saints and has never been formally set forth by the Church.
So why shoot ourselves in the foot to no purpose? Let's keep at the resistance and denunciation of the errors over and over and over again. THAT is useful to the Catholic Faithful.
And the more Bishops who "convert", "crystalize" and join us in fighting Modernism -- even after having been its unwitting servants since Vatican II -- the better.
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Simon North I am puzzled why you would say that (?) since these Bishops are now publicly resisting Pope Francis, calling out the errors of the Church and -- it would seem -- these Bishops are now "converted" and can be allies in the cause. I remember Strickland resisting publicly during the Synod on the Family and his very edifying public statements then.
Let's face it, virtually all of us have …More
Let's face it, virtually all of us have had a "conversion" experience in our lifetime when we were suddenly awakened to the more radical call of our Catholic Faith. It would appear that is happening with these Bishops. They're only human like we are. Some are now crystalizing against Modernism.
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
DefendTruth
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Maximilian Schmitt
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
If Mr.Matt wants to toss the video because it doesn't follow the conference "theme" of unity, that's his prerogative. However, he has completely misunderstood what he admits he hasn't watched or read in full. Vigano does NOT venture into sedevacantism here. He has said nothing against any of the popes after Pius xii; he is merely questioning the validity of Bergoglio's "papacy" as are countless …More
Don Cesare Toscano shares this
- Report
Remove share
Don Cesare Toscano
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
spinmeister
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Cassandra Laments
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I've just re-listened to this, having listened late last night. 1) You can't have unity at a conference whilst ignoring the fact that some possible speakers won't agree with each other. So you don't let anyone speak who may upset people. Otherwise there will be no unity. 2) If it was too much hassle to set up for a video at short notice, why did Matt bother say he'd read it? Presumably the hassle …More
How can you possibly have a conference about Catholic Unity whilst completely ignoring everything which is wrong with it and the fact that there is disunity everywhere. How do you tackle the disunity whilst demanding at great length that everyone concentrates on some ephemeral 'conference' unity.
If I'd paid good money to hear Vigano (or anyone else), I'd be fuming that I had to go and search the internet to do so. This is coming from someone who is no particular fan of Vigano. The correct procedure would have been simply to have said "I'm very sorry, your Grace, but we are unable to change the programme at such short notice, but we can still go ahead with the interview, as planned, but you must now agree to only discuss matters allowed at this conference".
Don Cesare Toscano
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Sally Dorman shares this
- Report
Remove share
De Profundis
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
![](https://seedus6826.gloriatv.net/storage1/fzfzi4ln3im52qabm5vyl6nhdmyflc2ubeilv17.webp?crop=874.459.0.69&scale=on&secure=MDJ8wsEKieRKUumTIYcR2g&expires=1719708562)
Don Cesare Toscano
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The whole problem is this theme of "unity" and attempting to protect one narrative over another. Isn't that the whole bogus notion of the Modernist Church -- everyone has to be "unified", regardless of facts that ought to be put on the table -- FINALLY -- by members of the Church Hierarchy rather than mere conjecture by laymen like Michael Matt who have neither the grace of state, nor authority …More
Michael Matt is a traditional Catholic. He speaks on what the Church has always taught; what the Apostles have taught, and what 'Christ' Himself has taught, which is articulated with clarity in The Apostles Creed "Credo" I believe..... It is on that basis & fidelity to that belief, that we will all be judged.
The Church is not a democracy where one can pick or choose on what to believe in. The …More
The Church is not a democracy where one can pick or choose on what to believe in. The Apostles have spoken, The Church has spoken, 'Christ Himself' has spoken. Thus unity comes from holding fast to the Faith Of Our Fathers.
Michael Matt is one of the best commentators in Catholic circles, and I salute him in his attempt to hold fast to what 'Christ' has taught. - "To love one another as I have loved you". - "Keep up the good fight Michael!".
Rafał_Ovile
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
You'll know the truth, and truth will set you free.
Maximilian Schmitt
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Hound of Heaven
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
While I applaud the Conference's initiative and focus, it does strike me as discordant that all of the speakers were expected to speak from a given songbook as directed by choirmaster Matt. Archbishop Vigano has not gained his notoriety (I do not think that is an unfair word) by saying what some people (i.e. the Vatican) have wanted him to say. He is a maverick, not against the Gospel, but against …More
Sandy Barrett
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Maximilian Schmitt
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
And yet hypocrite-Matt continues to Censor Archbishop Viganò as The Remnant Newspaper and Remnant-tv.com have failed to share neither Viganò's Video "Vitium Consensus" nor Viganò's Text: Vitium Consensus. Congratulations Michael Matt, your choice revealed / reveals to the world that 'Trad Inc' is an Enemy of Truth and 'Unite the Clans' is a laughable sham! Thanks for opening our eyes to your …More
joseph333333
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Maximilian Schmitt
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
One more comment from True Mass
GTVisrockin
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Maximilian Schmitt
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Michael Matt has sided with +Strickland, +Burke and +Mueller - under the rubric of "unity." Unity with what and whom? These men neither represent nor advocate for the Ancient Faith. They have participated in the Modernist Revolution for decades. By their continued acceptance of the New Mass and all of it's desacralizing liturgical accoutrements; with their applauding and utilization of the 1983 Code …More
All Strickland, Burke and Mueller want is a return to the status quo ante Bergoglio. Is that what you're advocating, Mr. Matt? Is this the substance of "uniting the clans"?
Jeffrey Ade
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Cassandra Laments
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Strong and Steadfast
You forgot Thomas who refused to believe and have faith and also James and John and their mother who were squabbling for first place. ALL the Apostles ran away abnd deserted Christ into the bargain, but John returned to the Cross. I honestly believe that this was part of God's plan, to demonstrate the reality of His forgiveness. "And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: …More
You forgot Thomas who refused to believe and have faith and also James and John and their mother who were squabbling for first place. ALL the Apostles ran away abnd deserted Christ into the bargain, but John returned to the Cross. I honestly believe that this was part of God's plan, to demonstrate the reality of His forgiveness. "And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool."
I wonder if the fact that John wasn't martyred reflects the fact that those who repent and return to the Cross will not die the second death, but be saved (as, obviously they all were!). Just musing here.
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Strong an @Strong and Steadfast & @Credo: The only point I'm trying to make here is that all of these bishops that are now being promoted as either new found friends of authentic Catholic orthodoxy or being promoted as such: ALL of them have participated throughout their priestly lives in the heresy of Modernism that was institutionalized in the Church at the Second Vatican Council and with it's …More
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Strong and Steadfast: I, too, await the intervention of heaven. The dilemmas seem insurmountable. Just as with Arianism, the (Catholic} world awakened and found itself Modernist. Our Lord then gave the Church St. Athanasius and others who would have no truck or compromise with Arianism. We must apply that same moral and historical principle to our own day. Any compromise with Modernism - or the …More
Boanerges Boanerges
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Jeffrey Ade
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment