Background
In my last blog I detailed the changing landscape under Pope Leo XIV. I wrote about how the current silence of these influencers, such as Dr. Taylor Marshall, who during the Francis pontificate had become clearly instrumental in highlighting to their audience the clear and present dangers/problems of the same Pope.
The unity desired by Pope Leo in his opening address seems to be more elusive. Catholics are consistently at odds with each other today. If it wasn’t enough for the skirmishes that Traditional Catholics were having with the typical Novus Ordo ‘Catholic Answers’ parroted ‘Popesplainers’ out there, Rad Trads or Mad Trads as they are called are hurling bricks at Trad Inc. If that wasn’t enough, we have the ever-vigilant Sedevacantists, who pip in from time to time assuring us that we all have it wrong and we have lost the plot a long time back, mostly around 1958. Add to this, we now have Conclavists, Sedeprivationists, and Neo Sedevacantists (believing that Pope Benedict XVI was the last true Pope). Such is the bizarre state of Catholicism that we find ourselves in today.
I also note the lack of Catholic charity towards other Catholics, regardless of their views. And this is a tight rope to walk. There are times even I have given in to the tendency to speak my mind in a rather colorful manner in my general comments on X or Substack. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea maxima Culpa.
However that being said, it is also important to highlight problems and bring to the fore issues which need to be spoken about. And therefore, there must exist a balance between Catholic charity and reason, towards a unity in faith. Hopefully in this post, I will try to achieve this seemingly unsurmountable task. The other problem is also that we are now criticizing, or attempt to correct those who we agreed with until recently; these are people who have formed a paradigm-like niche in our minds – there is therefore a tendency to cognitive dissonance on our part, in order to dismiss such unpleasant internal disagreements. There is also a tendency by those at the receiving end of such criticism to come off being all the more defensive when faced with such public critiques of their views/actions. Neither attitude is helpful, and if this below critique is illumined by the above stated emotional traps, I pray there will be genuine unity.
I already paid a brief homage to Dr. Marshall in my last post. In this post, it is time to have a look at Michael Matt’s views. Matt is someone that needs no introduction; For brevity’s sake, he is the editor of ‘the Remnant’ publication, which has a family legacy, heritage, and pedigree, steeped in Traditional Catholicism. For me to insinuate that Matt needs correction would be akin to a newbie garage mechanic correcting the Ford Motor company. But I do this in the interest of Catholicism – something I am sure Matt will hopefully understand with due respect to the fact there is the rather bleak possibility of the garage mechanic having a point that the Ford Motor company may have missed. Also, this isn’t as much of a correction, as it is perhaps a dissection of Matt’s views in the light of the current conflict between Trad Inc. vs Mad Trads. (I now officially consider myself to be a Mad Trad; I would encourage readers to take this moniker with a pinch of salt as it is meant in a lighter vein. If you do think of a better name that is indicative of our views, you are entitled to your opinion).
Michael Matt’s views
In a recently aired YouTube video (dated 29th August, 2025) by Dr. Taylor Marshall that featured Michael Matt, the latter made a few observations and statements which highlight the problem associated with Trad Inc.
There are many things I agree with Matt, especially in context with all that has happened since Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia in ‘uniting the clans’, and the Covid-19 lockdowns which Matt cites as an example of making other Catholics aware of the globalist agenda apart from the complicity of the Vatican in the issue. I was similarly inspired to write to a Bishop after Fiducia Supplicans & I wrote about how I was made aware of the TLM thanks to Traditionis Custodes; so yes, Francis created a Streisand effect among many Catholics, and for this I agree with Matt. However, there are also things that I do not agree with.
Traditional resistance a ‘movement’?
t approximately 28 minutes and 27 seconds into the video Matt calls the Traditional resistance a ‘Movement’, to which I object.
A ‘movement’ is usually taken to mean a cult, fringe political or religious pocket of belief, or conspiracy theories, that are not aligned with the central beliefs of a group, such as the Pentecostal ‘Movement’ or the BLM ‘Movement’ (as examples). However, to quote Bishop Tissier of the SSPX,
“We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome!”
Therefore, it is the Novus Ordo/Synodal version that is a deviant ‘movement’, being kickstarted in the 60s. I am sure Matt would agree with this. So let’s call it for what it is. The demand from Traditional Catholics is something which is our birth right as the author of Radical Fidelity beautifully stated recently with respect to the TLM:
“We are not begging to be heard. We are demanding our birthright as Catholics. The free and unfettered practice of the Catholic Faith as it was handed down to us intact, unaltered, and universally celebrated up until 1962.”
Cementing the future
At approximately 30 minutes and 32 seconds into the video Matt, in context with the angst directed towards Pope Leo by Mad Trads, makes a tongue-in-cheek remark:
“What world are you living in that you think that the current college of cardinals is going to produce an Anti-Vatican II (pope)?” (paraphrased).
And Matt’s solution to this problem, is what? Maintain a silence on the actions already being taken by Leo to solidify the visions of his predecessor until such time that we have a Pius X providentially reborn? Chris Jackson writing on Substack made a poignant summary recently:
“Leo is…cement. His entire strategy is to let Bergoglian errors harden quietly until they are indistinguishable from Catholicism.”
And,
“To tell Catholics to ‘wait and see’ is to tell them to sit quietly while the cement dries around them”.
He followed this up with,
“…if Catholic commentators remain silent…then in twenty years everyone under forty will have known nothing but Bergoglian Catholicism as “the faith.”
In all sincerity, Matt needs to weigh in the above very real & dangerous scenario indicated by Jackson. It is true that Traditional Catholics are out of time and have been out manoeuvred.
Earlier on in the same video Matt made the statement that it is the job of Divine Providence to set things right in the Church (again, paraphrased from recall). If Matt truly believed this, he would have shut down the Remnant years ago. The fact remains that it is thanks to people like him that people are now wiser and more informed – instead he chooses a seemingly misplaced humility to justify his silence.
Being the first to cast a stone?
Why is there this emphasis on the first or last person? Is there some competition that I missed? The point really is for Trads to continue where we left off with Francis in our criticisms and expectations from the Vatican. Unless Matt has someone specific in mind when he said this (that I may be unaware of and would be happy to be educated about), this caricature seems like a poorly conceived strawman.
Strategic sense?
Matt follows this up with,
“It doesn’t make any strategic sense at this point to denounce Leo” at approximately 32:55 minutes/seconds into the video (emphasis mine).
He also added at approximately 33:23,
“Just wait and see, the coalition is so strong now throughout the whole church, against synodality, against climate change, against the direction in which the spirit of Vatican II has disastrously taken the church…”
Huh?
Which coalition is this?
The only ‘coalitions’ that I am aware of are the ones that are not in agreement with Trad Inc., consisting of independent & stray voices such as Jackson, Fr. Nix, Kox, Westen, Vigano, Yore, Esquire, and a few others who still seem to care about speaking out against the continued evolving Vatican II & it’s sequel (Synod on Synodality). The other ‘coalitions’ are the left leaning, liberal, modernist, cabals in the USCCB, AUSCP, the Saint Gallen group (that installed the Bergoglian Turtle on the fence post), and the lavender mafia in the Vatican. Again, I wouldn’t mind an education on what Matt is honestly referring to here.
At approximately 33:56, Matt follows this up with,
“If there is any goodwill in pope Leo…and if he sees that we are willing to meet him a little bit on something like the Latin mass…” (paraphrased)
Here is where the rubber meets the road in understanding Matt.
In summary, Matt is hoping for concessions. This is what it boils down to. Matt’s idea of strategy is therefore based on ‘Give and take’; If Leo could just give us ‘a little bit’ of the Latin Mass, if Leo could take down Rupnik’s art work, if Leo could correct a few errors of the previous pontificate (however vague those corrections may be, albeit without an outright condemnation of the previous pontiff for those errors), and so on – you get the idea. I had previously made the point earlier in one of my previous blogs that this “I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine” compromised, concessionary approach is not going to get us anywhere.
Matt in this video, earlier talked about his rich experience in covering various pontificates in his ‘been-there, seen-that stint’, implying having the experience and know-how to get results. We laud his experience indeed. But what has this ‘experience’ and ‘strategy’ resulted in so far apart from the hierarchy keeping us on our knees in deference to their growing hatred for all things Traditional? We have only been given Popes in the same Vatican II mould – albeit with differing modernist temperaments & ethos. Nothing else. Agreed that perhaps the smaller voices decrying Leo may not get us anywhere either, but the point is that at least the smaller voices are consistent. If Matt’s ‘strategy’ had been even half as so effective, we should have got a Cardinal Sarah or Erdő as Pope in the last conclave, at the very least; we should have had Traditionis Custodes revoked, and we should have had a full stop by the Vatican on having anything to do with the LGBT and the push for Synodality. Instead, we see a continuation right from where Francis left us on these matters in Leo. This projected ‘strategy’ is so awe inspiring, that the results are around the corner implies Matt.
With all due respect to Matt, I wish I could believe the ‘strategy’ delivered in his sales pitch, I really do. The Remnant’s Underground YouTube videos are something I frequently tune into, and Matt never fails to inspire – except in this case. I wonder if Matt actually believes that this ‘strategy’ that he refers to, this wait and see approach, is prudent. He may honestly think it is. However, his own words, to quote,
“What world are you living in that you think that the current college of cardinals is going to produce an Anti-Vatican II (pope)?”,
indicate otherwise. He is thus clear that the Vatican will never produce a Pope that will speak out against Vatican II. Yet he peddles a ‘strategy’ involving a great degree of ‘secrecy’, and a gathering of renegade Bishops, that we should all look forward to somewhere over the rainbow.
Give us Trads a break Matt. I would rather believe a Mike Lewis or Austen Ivereigh, who are at least clear that Leo is Francis in spirit – or something to that effect, rather than influencers who are desperate for crumbs off the Vatican II table. You and Dr. Marshall are better than this and you know better. We understand your need to wait and watch – however don’t conceal it in disingenuous statements & words such as ‘strategy’ that imply you know what you are doing, when it is being made evident that you don’t. This is meant with the sincerest regards & wishes towards you and Dr. Marshall. I, among many others, look forward to your resumption in kicking the backside of the Vatican II/Synodal revolution. Until then,
Ave Maria
A Concerned Catholic.
