"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 about the the current state of the Papacy since the death of Pope Benedict XVI; nay, since the invalid resignation of Benedict back in 2013. Vigano was absolutely right for wanting to have an “intervention” because the only way we can get back to the standard of unity is to call out the white elephant in the room (Jorge Mario Bergoglio) and that the elephant parading around in white is an anti pope and not the standard of unity at all. Matt spent a near 9 minutes defending himself and even had the audacity to say it was the devil attacking the conference, when on the contrary, God himself wanted to interrupt through a shepherd willing to speak the truth without compromise. I’m with Ann Barnhardt, Doc Mazza and Father Kramer that Bergoglio is an anti pope because Pope Benedict never validly resigned the munus (Canon 332) and through fear and substantial error (Canon 188) decided to remain pope in part (it’s like being partially pregnant; that’s impossible), and thus a conclave can’t be called while the See is occupied (again, all per Canon Law). Even if Bergoglio were saintly and Catholic, the conclave wouldn’t have been valid."
"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

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, ultimately fulfilling the mission of Church and God’s Holly Will. Amen.

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 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

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 numbers of us. When are the R&R trads going to understand that we who question that validity are not necessarily sedes? We view Benedict xvi as having been the pope and believe that since his death, we are in a period of interregnum. If you knew your history, you would know this is not without precedent. The logic of your "recognize and resist" stand puts you in the position of disobeying what you believe to be a legitimate pope. How do you justify that? That is the belief that will ultimately destroy the church. Sedes, on the other hand, are faithful to the pre-Vatican ll faith with its obedience to the teachings preserved by its faithful popes. That should give all of us something to ponder deeply.

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 would have been worth it if Vigano had been speaking in union with everyone else there??? 3) As far as I'm aware, there was no bomb. Hasn't Vigano previously suggested that Francis isn't the Pope? 4) I'm curious as to what they replaced it with. Something less disturbing of the 'unity', so as not to upset attendees too much?

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".

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 over Archbishops of the Church (no less!) to speak on such matters and to be gatekeepers for these Churchmen....?

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 certain sinister tides within the Church today. Was this recorded speech a form of 'sabotage' which Mr. Matt suggests? I have no idea. I only know that we cannot act like Bergoglio and company and expect to save the Church if we fall into disarray amongst ourselves. I beg Archbishop Vigano and Michael Matt to publicly clear the air on this together so we can fight the true adversaries of the Faith with all of our united and catholic (universal) might.

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 underhandedness.

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 of Canon Law which institutionalized the Conciliar Revolution: these are all unequivocal indicators that these men are part of the problem not the solution. Matt and The Remnant and all of his ilk are sell-outs.

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"?