By now, most readers of The Catholic Inquisitor and akaCatholic have heard about the Remnant’s “Unite the Clans” initiative.
For those who are unaware: Michael Matt is calling on all who consider themselves “traditionalist” to “unite the clans in this darkest hour — whether they are SSPX, FSSP, ICK, etc. — so that together we can make a unified last stand in defense of Tradition, Truth and the Sacred Kingship of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Mr. Matt has pointed to the Catholic Identity Conference (where I was pleased to have been invited to speak on two separate occasions) as evidence of the good that can come from uniting “despite important differences of opinion on approach and strategy.”
I’ll have more to say on the “Unite the Clans” effort in the very near future, but for now I simply want to call attention to the way in which Mr. Matt’s movement just might augur well for our readers and supporters.
As some of you may recall, in a post published in June of last year, as the launch of The Catholic Inquisitor drew near, I shared with readers the following unfortunate news concerning two traditional Catholic writers, who had accepted my invitation to contribute articles to the newspaper.
Michael got in touch with our [first] would-be contributor to say that he and others in the traditional Catholic media world found news of his association with the Inquisitor offensive. So much so, Matt informed him, that unless he disassociate from the Inquisitor, his days of collaborating with the Remnant are over.
The other writer is a man who prides himself on getting along with everyone in traditional Catholic circles in spite of certain disagreements … If we can say nothing else positive, Michael Matt shows no favorites. He let this gentleman know as well that if he should choose to associate with the Inquisitor there would be no future collaboration between them.
Well, folks, with the advent of the “Unite the Clans” initiative, it seems that there is good reason to hope that the Remnant Blacklist is about to be wiped clean. Deo gratias!
To bring readers fully up to date, I can perhaps do no better than to share the following from an email that I sent to Michael Matt on August 27. It speaks for itself:
I genuinely hope that all is well with you and yours. Question: Does uniting the clans “despite important differences of opinion on approach and strategy” mean that writers for The Catholic Inquisitor and/or akaCatholic are no longer going to be blacklisted by the Remnant?
It’s a serious question to which I’d really appreciate an answer.
As of this writing, Mike hasn’t had a chance to reply, but when he does, I’ll be sure to let you know.
The problem with “unite the clans” is that we are not dealing with alliances of a temporal nature. The differences in the “clans” is doctrinal. In war, one can naturally align oneself with another power to defeat a common foe (ie. US and USSR in WWII). But this is not a temporal war. What Mr. Matt is asking, is for those who have serious problems with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, to forget those concerns and “unite” to defeat Bergoglio. What the folks at The Remnant fail to grasp is that Bergoglio is not the problem. The problem is Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. The only thing in common among the so called clans, is the use of the Latin Mass. That is not enough to combat Bergoglio, because this issue is not solely liturgical. The sad fact is, Mr. Matt need only wait a few more years because it seems the SSPX is slowly moving towards the FSSP position. Once the SSPX is recognized by modernist Rome, there will be no difference between the “clans,” modernist Rome will have won.
Bergoglio might not be the main problem (which is VII, modernity and the Novus Ordo), but the true latin mass will always be the solution. God provides us with a way to handle this issue: Just go to Mass. However, easier said than done, since a huge faction of the modern Church wants to prevent us from doing that very thing, and in fact, under the current leadership, wants to eliminate the solution.
And just which “clans” is he inviting to unite under his self-proclaimed banner of leadership? Any exclusionary blacklisting, (especially of a clear voice calling out of the wilderness that dares to question the self-proclaimed leader of the rally to arms), sounds disingenuous and not in the spirit of true unity, but rather more like using division to exclude any dissenters or whoever he decides is an outsider. Perhaps it is the Papal prelatures who have the duty to unite and join in battle from within ranks, but they are the very ones who specifically are prevented from taking that action by nature of the very agreement which makes them a prelature. I realize i am way out of my league here to even try to discuss this properly, but seems to me the battle must be fought with generals and soldiers from within the army, not as a coup or mutiny, but from genuine conversion of heart and soul in the process the Church already has provided through the College of Cardinals and the Conclave in unity with the Holy Ghost.
I do agree that the battle is on, but it already started, messy as it is, and i have to question the motive of any new battle cry to rally forces that would result in any division of the troops or loss of momentum from separate battalions.
The “traditionalists” had a brief rally and unity formed under Benedict XVI’s flag, but that barely lasted, and they appear to be dissipating within the movement to hybridize the two rites, and now settle for Novus wolves in Trad clothing ‘performing’ a poor substitute of the motions with musical entertainment concerts in most parishes.
And i hope Commenter Tom above is wrong about the SSPX eventually going over to Rome like other prelatures that sold out and are now muzzled. If they take that path, God help us all.
This is a just another false unity.
Louie, I hope that Mr. Matt responds so that we will know how sincere he is regarding “unity”. Let’s hope it is not a selective unity which does not include you and others who support The Catholic Inquisitor. Personally, I believe the word “unity” should be replaced with “compromise”. True unity is impossible among groups who do not agree on EVERY level. Also, “go to Mass” (TLM) is not possible for every Catholic who live in areas where the TLM (not indult) is celebrated by a validly ordained priest. Easy to say—difficult to do for many.
You are so right. Sorry if I grossly oversimplified the point. We all suffer who live far from a genuine Latin Mass, and that describes most traditional Catholics. Just remember the Catacombs.
The “unite the clans” doesn’t work! The FSSP are loyal to Bergoglio and the SSPX want to be loyal to Bergoglio. “But we unite to fight modernism” you say? But fighting modernism means fighting Bergoglio and Co. But you can’t be loyal to Bergoglio and fight him at the same time. The call might as well be “unite our contradictions”.
Very telling. Thank you for sharing, Louie.
The Novus Ordo modernist clan I know ,who actually think of themselves as “conservative catholics ” , all believe Borgoglio IS THE problem. They all are missing a sense of history regarding the church and the present problems.
These are the very same people who host “rosary rallies” in their NO Diocese but secretly admit they never say the rosary themselves.
Fatima really does not interest them but their ears twitch for any new piece of church gossip.
Tom A hit the nail on the head.
Clare, to say that the solution is the Latin Mass is to fall into the error of thinking Bergoglio is the problem. It is Vatican II and also the Novus Ordo. Both need to be rejected, not just the NO. Take the eastern schismatics for example. They conduct a proper liturgy that would be pleasing to God if offered in union with a true Pope. But we cannot be in union with them over doctrinal issues over the papacy. The problem cannot be solved by liturgical unity. It can only be solved by doctrinal unity but the FSSP and the SSPX have both adopted different doctrinal errors in order to live with the blatant errors and heresies coming from those they claim are true successors of Peter.
Louie, does Mr. Matt consider you a traditionalist….given you do not believe (like him and the other groups mentioned) Bergoglio is pope?
Sweepoutthefilfth, Please don’t write out the crowd you just described. I was born years after Vatican II changes had been implemented and have been to only one TLM. (I’m the single mother of a special needs child. My life is constrained and complicated. Getting to an N.O. Mass every week is my greatest accomplishment.) We do indeed need to “Unite the Clans” and we cannot afford to leave out the crowd who believe Bergoglio is the problem. Those are my people. Don’t blame most of us for not knowing any better at this point. We’ll learn. We need you and we need the Church — the REAL Church. Bring us along; don’t cut us out.
Utah, if one could save ones soul with V2 and the NO, then all this traditionalism would be a waste of time and we should all just get on board with the new religion. We resist because we believe the new religion of V2 and the NO to be false. We believe it to be a means of damnation and not salvation. If it is a means of salvation then our resistance is schismatic and our resistance is a means of our damnation. The V2 NO sect is an either all in or all out proposition. There is no half way, one foot in both camps. That is the problem with Remnant, 1P5, etc.
Perhaps you’ve never read the Remnant? I am a subscriber and I have read countless times (probably in every issue) that “Bergoglio is not the problem” and that he is only a product of the VC2 disaster. I agree that there are some issues with Mr. Matt (just as there are with Mr. Verrecchio) and I think he’s being very naive about some things in this “unite” movement. But he is NOT like a Voris, who thinks “bad bishops” and this one pope materialized from thin air and if we could just somehow magically get them out again it would all be hunky dory. He is well aware of the cesspit of evil that resulted from VC2. We can talk about other problems with his strategy-I agree with you in your ear analogy-but let’s not misrepresent him.
“Ear” analogy was supposed to be “war”. Too bad there’s not edit option.
I do not think I am misrepresenting Mr Matt at all. He currently holds the position that Bergoglio must be opposed and he is willing to enlist the help of other modernist NO types like Burke and Vigano. He has one foot in both camps. One traditional and one modern. He is trying to serve two masters in order to prop up the institutional facade of the V2 NO false church. He keeps his fellow traditionalists firmly ensconced in the V2 NO establishment where they are neutralized and their opposition controlled. Ask yourself this one question Vinny, what would it take for Mr. Matt to say Bergoglio is not the Pope? What heresy or blasphemy would Bergoglio have to utter for him to accept this fact? The truth is that Bergoglio has already uttered countless blasphemies and heresies yet Mr. Matt still calls the apostate Jorge his Pope. Its a classic case of cognitive dissonance.
It boggles the mind that Michael Matt obviously thinks that the Novus Ordo mess could be fixed by the likes of Burke and/or Vigano who are deeply immersed in the Novus Ordo cesspool. How is it possible to expose the evils of the V2 “church” and then look to its members to convert it to True Catholicism. It won’t work.
Uniting with Mr. Matt et al is fine as long as they demonstrate unequivocally that they understand that Vatican II was designed to subvert Christ’s Holy Church and, therefore, it was demonic at its roots. They also must show that they understand that the so-called VII “saints” cannot possibly be designated as such by the Church due to their heresy. It will take a post-VII Church, i.e. the true Catholic Church, to formally hold forth on this matter, but no true Catholic could believe that such men were sainthood material. It’s a no-brainer for us who still hold The Faith. In short, if they want to join other Catholics, they have to demonstrate that they are Catholics.
When it comes to Catholic doctrines, I doubt Mr. Matt and Tom A have any disagreements. Mr. Matt has never gone to the N.O. and I have always had the impression he believes Vatican II is heredical. Because the Church itself calls the Arian crisis a secondary abomination of desolation, we must look at it for guidance. Is it a historical fact that St. Athanasius never prayed or done anything with anyone in communion with Pope Liberius? I’m not aware of the Church condemning those who remained in communion with Pope Liberius. The Church simply never condemned those who withdrew obedience and communion from Pope Liberius. We have a right to withdraw obedience, and an obligation to condemn error. Our right to withdraw obedience occurs before it can be proven or anyone knows if the pope truly lost jurisdiction because of heresy. Mr. Matts father was not convinced by Archbishop Lefebvre that the faithful have a right to withdraw obedience, so the traditional branch of the Matt family went the indult direction. Seems to me we do have a right to only be with those outside normal jurisdiction, and that may be what God calls those who have the gifts of the Holy Ghost known as knowledge and understanding to aspire to. But nothing is gained by condemning or shaking pom poms in the faces of those who have not exercised their right to withdraw obedience. It’s probably best to just state the reasons why we hold the theological positions we hold, then shut up.
Ratio, Mr Matt adheres to a Gallican view of the papacy. A view that was condemned by Vatican I. I do not hold the same Faith as Mr. Matt. I believe that the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the successors of Peter can NEVER teach the faithful false doctrines nor give them false practices. Mr Matt has said on countless occasions that the Church has given us false teachings that we must “sift” for ourselves and reject when we ourselves deem them to contradict tradition. That is exactly what Luther taught. Ones conscience above the authority of the Church.
Ratio, it seems you too are adhering to a doctrine where the individual faithful can use ones own conscience as a surer guide than the teaching authority of the Church. That is what Luther taught.
And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required
Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth: but how is it that you do not discern this time?
Tom, what is the Gallican heresy you are referring to and how does Mr. Matt adhere to it?
We suggest uniting the clans on the pragmatic basis of getting Bergoglio canonically removed. For whether you agree with ppbxvi.org or whether you hold his election was uncanonical for other reasons, or that he was duly elected but is not by reason of public manifest and pertinacious heresy or apostasy able to be canonically declared as outside the Church, we can all agree that he needs to go. The first step would be to STOP NAMING HIM in the Canon of the Mass, since as one commentator remarked, CATHOLICS HAVE ALWAYS SUSTAINED THE RIGHT TO STOP NAMING HERETICS in the canon of the mass, and no father or doctor of the Church ever faulted them for it! — The second step would be to get Bishops and Cardinals to do the same, then call a Synod to canonically do what is needed. That is the true Unity of all Clans.
cut out “but is not by” and replace with “or, by”
All or nothing is the watchword.
Gallicanism is basically the idea that you can resist your Pope. It has not been defined but the word is used today to describe the R&R camp. R&Rers accuse sedes of being Ultramontanists. But if you read the documents of Vatican I you will quickly learn that the Church confirms the Ultramontanists and condemns the Gallicans. The issue was hotly debated before Vatican I with the Council settling the issue once and for all. Except for Mr. Matt obviously.
Except the Bishops and Cardinals you think will fix the Church are just as guilty of modernism as Bergoglio. Again, you seem to think Bergoglio is the problem. Until you realize it is Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo, no unity is possible.
Anyone who reads The Remnant will know that Michael Matt’s newspaper is extremely disrespectful (see their cartoons!) to the man they say is the Vicar of Christ on earth. If Bergoglio is The Pope as they say, critic him with dignity and respect. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Make up your mind.
I watched the “Unite the Clans” video and, although he mentions Vatican II at the start of the video, he seems to focus on the Latin Mass/liturgy for the rest of the video, not doctrinal issues.
I will also say that (unless I missed it), he is only talking about the SSPX clan and the FSSP clan wrt “uniting”. I see no mention of any other group. I think Mr. Matt has his own ideas on what constitutes a “traditionalist”.
Tom your argument is just as valid as saying that if you want to put a man on Mars there is no value at all in building a Space Station in Earth Orbit. It’s the fallacy of asserting the means as an opponent of the end.
Tom A, I am not pitching V2 and NO, not at all! I am pleading only that you be patient and kind with earnest people who have had little or no exposure to the TLM, yet have the good sense to realize that Bergoglio is wicked. Don’t cut “my people” off. Bring us along; educate us. THAT’S what I mean. Look out for our souls. The fact that we recognize Bergoglio is bad news means we will see the rest if people are kind and evangelize and don’t write us off.
I don’t know if it be reasonable to expect anyone to treat Bergoglio with dignity and respect anymore, as he has so degraded the seat of the Papacy.
If Bergoglio is the Pope (as M.Matt says), he is the Vicar of Christ on earth and must be treated with dignity and respect to the extent possible without being ridiculed. Corrected, yes. Ridiculed, no.
I suspect that those who are in lock-step mode regarding their continued adherence to all or part of the VII religion are people who are fearful that if they bite the bullet and consign the whole NO outfit to the garbage can, then there will no longer be a Catholic Church. What they fail to understand is that God has now driven the Church into the catacombs of the individual hearts of the faithful who trust Him without reservation and who say the Rosary daily. That is now the place of refuge of our holy faith. Our Blessed Mother intercedes for us. That is the way God has set things up. Those who still attend NO services do not believe that. They do not trust that God will provide if they stop attending NO services.
mothermostforgiving, for a few, that may be the case. However, I think you don’t realize how many sincere, orthodox Catholics have had almost ZERO exposure to the TLM. People under 50 — the majority of American Catholics — grew up in a Church that had been purged of all traces of the old Church. You are assuming they are rejecting something, when 90% of them are barely aware of what that was. Welcome them along and educate them.
Don’t hold your breath. A couple months ago MM had something on “let’s be friends in the movement” and I commented about his blocking writers from “The Catholic Inquisitor”. His response? “What is ‘The Catholic Inquisitor’?”
Some serious problems.
Utahagen, I know. It’s true. But I know of folks in their twenties—and teens, even—who have researched the history of the Faith and therefore KNOW what God expects of those who claim to be Catholic. The NO folks obviously haven’t done such research (laziness? worldliness?) or, if they have and therefore DO know what’s expected of them, then I have to ask them “Why would you continue to attend that which has, in the past, been clearly condemned by God’s Holy Church? God will ask them that question on Judgement Day. What will their answer be?
I am trying to educate others that Bergoglio is not the problem. It wasn’t but 3-4 years ago that I too thought the sole problem was Bergoglio and that if we could get a man like Burke or Schneider elected Pope, he could fix everything. I too believed that if we could just get more TLMs in the parishes and dioceses that this too would help restore Catholic identity. But when I started to do my research on Bergoglio and his errors, I quickly discovered that Ratzinger and JP2 were just as guilty as Bergoglio but less obvious. Bergoglio does not hide his modernism in the same manner as Ratzinger and Wojtyla. So excuse me for being blunt, but that is how it hit me when I came to the conclusion. It hit me like a 2 by 4 over the head and I went from being a NO conservative to a sede in about 3 weeks. I tried to justify to myself what Abp Lefebrve did but traditional Church teaching never justified the faithful from questioning or resisting a Pope on matters of faith or morals.
I think Bergoglio is more obvious/doesn’t even try to hide it because he knows that the Modernists are now fully in control. Just wait until the next false pope….we haven’t seen the worst yet.
Aren’t you using your conscience to determine the sedevacantist position? After all, there is no Church teaching which deals with what to do with a heretical Pope. There are theological opinions, but no Church teaching.
Actually I am using Church teaching on how the faithful are suppose to assent to the teachings of a Pope. There are plenty of Popes who have taught on that subject. So I then ask myself, can I submit to the conciliar Popes the way the pre conciliar Popes taught. The answer is, NO WAY! So that leaves two different alternatives. Either the Church can change its essence and I am wrong in resisting those changes OR those responsible for the changes are not true Catholic authorities. It has nothing to do with conscience and it has all to do with pre V2 teachings on ecclesiology and the Papacy. I simply look at the authentic teachings of the Church and apply them to what we all observe in the NO sect. There is only one conclusion and I recognize that it is very inconvenient and unpopular but it is the only logical explanation and way to justify what we all observe. The R&R position is the one that is formally proscribed in authentic Church teaching. That is why I have more respect for a Novus Ordite who goes along with the changes than an R&Rer because at least the Novus Ordite is following the man they call Pope.
@Utahagen: You have correctly identified one of the major tragedies of the devastating lack of formation that both laity and clergy have received for at least five decades: so many of us don’t know what we never had.
It is good that you are asking questions and seeking guidance. I caution you, however, to look carefully at what many commenters here promote which is sedevacantism. To get a more fair and balanced picture as you consider venturing into these waters, you might do well to consider the history of “Bishop” Schuckardt who led a group of Catholics in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, the Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen. Also Mario Derksen who ran/runs the blogsite Novus Ordo Watch (NOW) whose information is greatly relied upon by many in this combox who credit their decisions to choose sedevacantism on NOW.
Here is a story from a woman who used to belong to Schuckardt’s group. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2012/10/19/the-return-to-rome-five-years-later/
There is much confusion and I truly don’t slight anyone for reaching conclusions as they try to sort out the confusion. I’m simply advising caution as you continue to seek guidance in finding Christ’s Truth.
I genuinely hope that all is well with you and yours. Question: Does uniting the clans “despite important differences of opinion on approach and strategy” mean that writers for The Catholic Inquisitor and/or akaCatholic are no longer going to be blacklisted by the Remnant?
It’s a serious question to which I’d really appreciate an answer.
As of this writing, Mike hasn’t had a chance to reply, but when he does, I’ll be sure to let you know”
Louie, I hope you are not holding your breath waiting for a reply from Matt. It’s about the same chance as Dr Chojonowski over at Saint Lucy Truth has of hearing from Chris Ferrara over at Fatima.org. Dr C has blown to hell the “diabolical disorientation” cover for the “traditionalist clans” by clinically proving the real Sister Lucy didn’t say it….but it was her imposter who died in 2005. Sister Lucy Truth (https://sisterlucyimposter.org/) is the REAL elephant in the room that Matt & the clans are terrified of. Looks like Tom A and the sedes are on to something.
I echo the comments of CC, you must use great caution navigating these confusing times. Do not take my word for it or anyone else’s word for it on the blogs. The one source that you can absolutely rely on are the documents and teachings of the Popes before 1958. Read their encyclicals, read Trent and Vatican I. Do your research into the various heresies over the centuries that attacked the Faith. Check the sources for the historical information you uncover. Be wary of the protestant sources out there that desire to paint the Church in a bad light and be leery of those who would use such protestant sources to advance their position. It is a minefield out there so stick with the true authentic Catholic teaching as taught prior to 1958. Also be leery of those who cheery pick various theologians from a bye gone era to advance a position. Not all theological opinions from the past became authentic Church teaching. But many folks out there like to use information out of context. If you are skeptical and truly desire the Truth as far as God is willing to show us at this time, you will be able to find the sources out there that you can trust and those that cut corners and make unsubstantiated assertions or routinely contradict themselves.
ConcernedCommenter, now that you have denigrated certain factions of traditional Catholicism how about stating your views on Vatican II, i.e. was it ultimately a council which did not contradict previous Church doctrine and dogma, or WAS it contradictory? Explain how heretical claimants to the Chair of Peter could, in light of previous Church teaching, possibly be canonized as saints. Church councils either demonstrate holiness or they do not. There can be no admixture of evil and “holiness” in ANY valid Church council. I’m sure you’re aware of the evidence presented here and elsewhere on the internet which brings the charge of evil against VII. Please state your thoughts on whether VII was evil or not. Please tell us how someone like John Paul II, whose heresies are so abundant that one struggles to find a place to begin in describing them, could validly be canonized. Also, if one is to be considered a Catholic then one must subscribe to ALL of the teachings of the Church, teachings which began in 33 AD. Don’t you agree?
“Unite the Clans”, how dumb! Unification requires identification and elevation of central leadership. Carried to its logical conclusion, this would directly enable immediate application of Alinsky’s (PeeWee Montini’s favorite guy) 13th rule: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Trad fragmentation and group variability are strengths in 4G warfare not weaknesses. Presently, modernist V2 clergy occupies most of the massive and far-flung physical remains of what was formerly the Roman Catholic Church and therefore has legal and secular status/recognition as “the” Roman Catholic Church. As they are evil, this counter-church is in the process of imploding from its inherent evil origins and internal contradictions. Never interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself. Let them continue to believe that Trads are “sono fanatici”, squabbling among themselves, inconsequential in size and on the periphery as Jorge has said. Always keep in mind what the great strategist and tactician Saint Athanasius said, “They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
Unite the Clans needs a unifying factor. That factor or thing for this movement seems to be the TLM. However, the Church teaches us that the rule of faith and that uniting factor for the faithful is the pope. How ironic. The R&R has officially, and hopefully without knowledge, supplanted the office of the papacy, with liturgical worship.
The Church has always and continues to strive to “unite the clans” by calling all people to accept the Catholic faith, to board the lone Ark of Salvation, and to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Now, the Gallican R&R want to unite around the TLM at the expense of genuine Catholic devotion to the so called Vicar of Christ, Bergoliao. They are destroying the faith as they hold up the Church’s standard. As they like to say often, it is “diabolical disorientation”. The tail of Satan is starting to show, which is a true mercy from God. God will never allow the devil to operate without limits and I am sure the devil only turns once he thinks the masses are fooled and no one is looking.
I pray for us all to not be tools of Satan, for “the number of fools is infinite”.
So, we unite around Francis?
I am a Sede, so no.
The “Unite the Clans” rallying cry comes across as self-serving and corny. Does anyone know what it means? It certainly doesn’t mean inviting Catholic Inquisitors to speak at conferences. Perhaps it means you have to wear the right kind of kilt.
In English “unite the clans” means compromise with your doctrinal issues in order to achieve a common goal. But seeing how FSSP and SSPX have already discarded some doctrinal issues to stay in the conciliar system (FSSP) or to keep heretics on the Chair (SSPX), what is one more compromise? Go for it clans! Unite! Resist your Pope! Bury the hatchet, but not in each others backs please.
Archbishop Lefebvre quote:
“So, there’s this mass of compromised traditionalists out there, frightened of authority, mingling the infallibility of the Holy Father with everything he says, everything he does, without putting limits, and so on … this group of traditionalists to which we are more or less related, you are more or less related. You know some of these priests, you know some of those faithful who are a little on the fringe. There’s the case of “Una Voce”, it needs to be said, and of “Le Pensée Catholique”, and “l’Homme Nouveau”. One finds movements of this kind all over the world, these Latin Mass societies. You have this world that would like to be in Tradition, but who is so afraid to separate from the authorities…
So if they see that we, we are firm and we say “No !” Whatever happens to the authorities, we want the Faith. We want to defend the Catholic Faith and we want to keep the Catholic Faith, no matter what the authorities will say, no matter what the authorities will do against us. Because everything in the Christian life, everything in the history of the Church, everything in the institution of the Church is subordinate to the Faith ! Again, this is the first thing we asked of the Church, when we came to the Church, children, borne by our godfather and godmother :
“What do you ask the Church of God ? The Faith. Why ? Because faith gives us eternal life.“
Well, we will not move, that’s all.”
Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist
Of course, other statements of an anti-sede nature can be found from him as well. Personally, I remain torn on the sede question.
OK- — The clans unite. What’s next? The united clans process into the Vatican and demand that Pope Francis denounce Vatican II, admits it was all a big mistake, he promises to study the Baltimore Catechism to learn true Catholicism and the entire Catholic world returns to sanity. It’s wonderful!! I’m all for it. Thank you, Michael Matt. Somebody pinch me–I’m dreaming.
For a long time ABS was a subscriber to The Remnant- back in the good old Paula Haigh and Solange Hertz days – and there was a writer (also a member of Keep the Faith) who always cautioned against firing at those on the right.
Well, because Mr. V, is not part of The Remnant (nothing haughty about that title), he can’t be expected to be treated too kindly.
Poor old Mr. V is AKA Catholic.
If Jorge Bergogljo is not a public contumacious heretic, there’s no such a thing. And that has been clear since at least Holy Week 2013. Lord. God Almighty come to our aid let us not become accessories by silence or otherwise to blasphemy, sacrilege, heresy, apostasy. Viva Cristo Rey!
The first thought that popped into my head with this “Unite the Clans” was that 1986 movie, ‘Clan of the Cave Bear’, wherein all the neighboring Neanderthal clans got together for a big unification to hunt and mate and consume psychedelics and dance by the campfire. #BadEightiesMovies
“Unite the Clans.” Sounds sort of like what the hootenannies of several decades were about. Anyone here old enough to remember those inane hootenannies of the early ’60’s folk-music mania? Hootenannies were all about “gettin’ together” and ignoring the sometimes ugly realities of our brief sojourn here on earth. Everyone was supposed to just be nice, care a lot and smile a lot. This is the same time that Vatican II fans were slobbering about all of us gettin’ together, and many of priests of that time were big fans of the folk-music movement (“folk” sounds so benign, doesn’t it?). Vatican II was, and its current devotees still ARE, about everyone being nice, caring a lot and smiling a lot. People who attend VII services—which are often indistinguishable from hootenannies—never hear a word from the, uh, Presider’s smiling mouth about the ugly realities of this brief life of ours on earth and nothing ever, EVER about the biggest ugly reality of all: the fact that unrepentant mortal sinners wind up in hell for eternity.
But very few people understood at the time that the folk-music movement was just a softening up of “the folks” for the big show just around the corner: the hippy revolution. Hootenannies were a comparatively innocent prelude to that revolution, a revolution straight out of hell whose rotten fruit of promiscuous sex, drug use and contempt for Almighty God is plaguing us big time today. And just as few people understood that folk music was a prelude to the satanic hippy movement, few Catholics understood at the time of VII that IT was a prelude to the destruction—the enemy wishes—of the Catholic Church. Vatican II, its animus the very same as that of the hippy movement, is a revolution also straight out of hell. Its rotten fruit is also there for anyone to see, if they only will look at it in the light of Christ’s teaching through His Holy Church.
How Benedict has defeated “Francis”
Open Letter to Princes, Heads of State and Governments of the World
Charmaine, have you not been paying attention all these years to all the accusations of Ratzinger himself being a modernist heretic? Do you just dismiss these charges and never investigate them because the conclusion would be too inconvenient. There is ample evidence out there of Ratzinger’s heresies. All you need to do is read his own words and those of Popes prior to Vatican II. Its very easy to view the current mess as a battle between two camps, liberal and conservative. That is the how you were conditioned to think and view conflicts.
Utahagen, after you read the 2012 article from Concerned Commenter regarding the CMRI sisters, please check out the more recent Novus Ordo blogs below. They are blogs that describe what these former CMRI sisters are doing now that they have returned to the so-called “mainstream” church:
“These sisters are Associate Members of the IRL who were previously part of a sedevacantist community of sisters in Spokane, WA. Two other sisters in Spokane founded the new community of the Marian Sisters of Santa Rosa in California. Four more sisters came to Port Sanilac, Michigan, where they were mentored by the Sisters of Mercy of Alma and were founded as a community by Bishop Joseph Cistone in 2010: “We are revitalizing parishes through catechesis, perpetual adoration and Marian devotion,” Sister Mary Inviolata said. “We hope to expand to teaching. Ecumenism is part of our charism. We have a vacation Bible school with the Methodists and Lutherans. We have a Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.” Sister Mary Teresita says, “God in his loving providence has wonderfully blessed us in ways beyond our imagination. We strive to promote a greater unity in the truth of Christ.”
Found at “vocationblog.com/tag/sisters-of-our-mother-of-divine-grace/”
“Just one year after the devastating Santa Rosa fires, members of the Catholic and Christian communities gathered to commemorate the anniversary with an ecumenical hour of prayer. The ecumenical prayer service was preceded by the praying of the Rosary Coast-to-Coast, and accompanied by Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament…..The ecumenical prayer service based on the four ends of prayer: adoration, contrition, thanksgiving, and supplication, prominently featured the virtue of hope in suffering as various psalms were prayed and testimonies of loss, survival, resiliency, and perseverance were shared by members of the local Catholic and Christian communities. ”
Found at “www.mariansisters.com/blog/together-in-hope”
Yes, utahagen, see what these Sisters’ “Return to Rome” did for them? They are now ardent followers of the Vatican II New Religion of Ecumenism, not the Catholic Faith.
By the way, here is also Bishop Pivarunas’ letter regarding what happened with these Sisters:
Dear Tom A,
When the Shepherd is struck, the sheep will be scattered. There was only one time, in the time after Jesus the Christ walked this earth, when this could occur, dear Tom A, as it is a prophesied time and prophesy is fulfilled but once in time and of course, as this is God’s Will invoked in time, as prophesy fulfilled. And so complete the trajectory of the logic which you now proffer Tom A. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, the visible Church unto the, “end of time”. The, “end of time”, both/and, an epoch and a moment, albeit one is led to believe a very short epoch as epochs go, “the end of time”. With Apostolic Succession lost, no visible Church Tom A. We don’t get to pick and choose dogma, now do we? : One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Any mark gone and the visible Church simply cannot be found “there”. When that mark happens to be the “Apostolic” mark, we know then that we are in the epoch of the, “end of time”, as once Succession is lost, it simply cannot be reinstated, period and end, as that is the teaching of Holy Church. Deny it and the entire holy and divine Catholic Faith is lost in that willful assent, latae sentenciae, period and end. Do you really think that the world would know when Antichrist had come, when the world did not know when The Christ had come? Just as the Chosen People of the Testament of Old did not know The Christ in their midst, the Christian people of the New Testament, the would be Catholics who had lost the divine and Catholic Faith, not even knowing that they had (the Apostasy), would not know that they had accepted the Antichrist, in like kind to the Jews rejecting The Christ. The proverbial, “mirror image”, realities. The Savior of the world, Jesus The Christ, the Chosen One of God as God made Man, enters the world to save mankind and He is both not known and rejected, as murdered on the Cross. The destroyer of the world, the person of Antichrist, the chosen one of Lucifer, enters the world to destroy mankind and he is both not known and accepted, thus the mirror image realities. It is all very simple in Truth, dear Tom A but the world is blind, as the world and all those who embrace it choose the Prince of this world and have no zeal for Truth, as Saint Paul warned us of this time in 2 Thes 2, thus Almighty God would send to all those who will perish, the “operation of error” to believe lying, as this is their will, to believe the lie. Amen. Alleluia. Praised be Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God. Beloved John the Apostle and Evangelist warns us of who Antichrist will be in his First Epistle, ch 2:22; “ Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.” This has been done Tom A and by a man who placed himself in the “temple” as though he was God, while at once, he was the “abomination of desolation”, that the prophet Daniel warned us of and which the early Church Fathers, in unanimity, clarified for us, this prophetic understanding. Amen. Do you think that the Antichrist was going to tell us who he is and in that understanding, was he going to deny Jesus as the Christ blatantly, or was he going to do it tacitly, as he indeed did do? The cunning of Lucifer, as all his power of deception was given Antichrist. God bless you and yours’. In Caritas.
I think this “uniting of the clans” idea is futile, but I am interested to read what Louis will say about it. The SSPX is not united with itself and the various sede groups exist independently. The best to be hoped for is a cessation of sniping and being critical of other traditional catholics in public, especially on the internet.
“This has been done Tom A and by a man who placed himself in the “temple” as though he was God, while at once, he was the “abomination of desolation”, that the prophet Daniel warned us of and which the early Church Fathers, in unanimity, clarified for us, this prophetic understanding. ”
Please tell us who this man was/is, in caritas.
@MMF: Good questions. Thank you for asking. I hope and pray that Vatican II Council and its documents that were/are purposefully and maliciously laden with Weapons of Ambiguity (WOA) will go the way of the Council of Hieria that took place in 754 AD. As for canonizations under the Bergoglian anti-papacy because BiP (since Benedict did not resign the munus), an anti-pope by definition does not have the binding and loosing powers that go with the Keys of the KIngdom; therefore, no canonizations.
As a Catholic I assume that you know and subscribe to the teaching of the Church that She is composed of the Church Triumphant, Suffering, and Militant; these members subscribe to ALL of the teachings of the Church by definition. Why do you say that the Church started in 33 AD?
Michael Matt only wants to unite the clans that he chooses who have the potential of being brought in under the dioscesan banner. He claims to be a “friend” of Bishop Williamson- yet he leaves him out along with the 3 other Lefebvre Bishops recently consecrated (and their congregants) because they have rejected the neo-SSPX warming to the Vll errors. . If he really means “#to hell with Vll ” and praises Arhbishop Lefebvre and his apostolic line of sucession, why does he ignore these fine Bishops and Catholics who are keeping the Faith ?
If you push away the veil of the TLM, you will see that the SSPX has already begun the process of uniting with the N.O. “church”—–inch by inch.
C’mon Mr Matt! Extend the olive branch to dear Louie whose only quest in life is to discover and share the Good, the True, the Beautiful. He is Catholic to the core and his journey has been remarkable. To banish contributors to The Catholic Inquisitor from your own “stable” of writers is shocking and petty. At the Last Judgement I’ll stand with Team Verrechio. (If there’s an opportunity to team up, that is. )
That started within six months or so of that terrible day in March 2013 with a deafening appallingly-reprehensible silence in the face of deliberate and sustained blasphemies, sacrileges, heresies from JB.
Who really cares if Mr. Matt publicly unites with Mr. V or not?
We all can be sure that Mr. V well knows “”Commonitory” by Saint Vincent of Lerins and his teaching that one must cling to Tradition in the face of novelties. Real Catholics unite around that teaching.
Why is there always a push for politics when it comes to the spiritual battle?
Its because The Remnant is tinged with Americanism.
ABS does not think for a moment that Mr. V is aching for publicly “uniting” with anyone for any mundane political reason.
+ Sending my letters of request for an examination to my Senators. Rep, and Bishop.
How on earth does one unite with someone who thinks the Vicar of Christ is a teaching error and falsehoods (SSPX)? And how does one unite with someone who thinks the heresies taught by the Vicar of Christ are not heresies (FSSP)?
And how does one unite with someone who thinks the Novus Ordo is Catholic and pleasing to God Almighty?
Excellent, CC. May Our Lord reward your efforts.
I don’t think the only clans he is talking about are SSPX and FSSP. He doesn’t mention it, but Opus Dei is another clan, cult actually. He’s invited not one but
_two_ speakers from Opus Dei. Opus Dei is the Trojan horse in the Catholic Church. When they speak, they mix fact with hints, suggestions, half truths. It’s easier to be armed against an enemy who is clear about who he is and what he stands for. Make no mistake, the goal of Opus Dei is one world religion, and it will not be one Holy, Catholic Apostolic. This website, AKA Catholic, is one of the few which has really given us clear information about the Opus Dei Hydra.
It is possible he is including those groups.
However, there is no doubt in my mind that when he states “unite the clans”, he is NOT including any form of sedevacantist/resignationist: in other words, if a person does not believe that his pope, Francis, is the pope of the Catholic Church, then that person is not a member of a traditional “clan”.
That is why I think he has not responded to Louie.
John Paul II made Opus Dei a personal prelature in 1982 by the apostolic constitution Ut sit, i.e. Opus Dei’s OWN bishop calls the shots as far as the members of Opus Dei are concerned. The net result is that whatever diocese the member(s) might be in, the diocesan bishop has zero jurisdiction over that member. Wojtyla was no dummy. He knew that to achieve globalist judeo transformation of what was once the Catholic Church the local bishops would have to be clueless as to what was really going on via the Opus Dei operatives.
Very interesting point! We must pray and do penance. The Rosary, the five first Saturdays, and make reparation to His Sacred Heart and her Immaculate Heart for the sins and offences committed against them.
Cardinal Marx is barely waiting in the wings. I’m not sure getting rid of Bergoglio would bring about the kinds of changes we’re hoping for.