“...we should only panic if the pope solemnly proclaims heresy ex cathedra, abolishes the Latin Mass universally…”
We should more than panic right now, with 95% of our young people raised in the Novus Ordo ceasing their practice of the Catholic faith when they reach adulthood. Doctrines of course are important, but they exist for the welfare of the sheep. When the sheep, especially the young sheep, are being left to the wolves, it most certainly is time to "panic". And even if we may have only weak concern for the young sheep going astray, we should have more than enough concern for our own well-being, in light of what Christ said about what is deserved by those who are a party to scandalizing the little ones.
The “impossible crisis” has already arrived. The “sky is falling”, now. What less can you call it when the souls of such a vast percentage of our children are being devoured?
Attending a glorious High Mass this past weekend, I wondered how my children would have turned out had they had that Mass growing up. But they did not. They had the homosexual priest, the narcissistic priest, and priests who did not believe in the Real Presence. We did move away but too late. My grown children are 50/50 in the practice of the Novus Ordo faith which was all we had access to when they were growing up. I grieve for what has been and still is being taken away from us, the faithful.
Spot on, DJG. The grim figures on Catholic education in England and Australia showed that 90% of pupils lapse during their schooldays or soon after.
Yes, it is great to blame someone else, especially the teachers. I went to a Christmas concert at a primary (elementary) school on the other side of town in 2001. I have known the devoted headteacher (principal) for decades. The angelic 5 year olds sang "Away in a manger" and there was not a dry eye in the hall.
You just know you are due for a kick in the teeth. The headteacher stood up and pleaded with the parents to take their children to Mass, at least for Christmas. Are any of those 5 year olds still practising in 2025?
I think Dr. K’s behavior reflects several trends. First, it demonstrates the default Catholic response of blind deference to clerical authority. Second, it shows that people like Dr. K at his theological comrades are sick and tired of fighting. For the past 12 years, they have expended a lot of emotional, mental and spiritual energy fighting Francis. Basically, they’ve shot their bolt.
Third, in fighting Leo with the same urgency with which they fought Francis, Dr. K and his comrades would be admitting to themselves the Wobegon nature of Catholic ecclesiology. Just about everything they have believed about Church structure and authority will have been shown to be nonsense. They can’t afford to fight Leo with the same spirit or energy because it would destroy their ecclesiastical illusions. Better to live with those illusions and ignore the heresy that a corrupt clerical class creates than to confront the truth.
"They can’t afford to fight Leo with the same spirit or energy because it would destroy their ecclesiastical illusions." They also cannot financially afford to do so, which indicates that the things of this world may be more important to them than the unpleasant and unpopular truth.
Yes, the best journalistic and theological advice ever. The problem is trying to get the key financial information. Who is paying these people, how much are they getting from each source?
One small aspect of the problem was well illustrated by the unholy row earlier in 2025 over Sebastian Morello's "Mysticism, Magic and Monasteries"....which is published by Peter K's Os Justi press. The ferocious and hilariously bad tempered arguments might been about the exact meaning of "magic" and whether weird occult ideas were being smuggled into the Church. But inevitably money is involved in the production and sales of a new title.
Another much more worrying aspect of that row was the fondness of both Morello and Professor K for the writings of Valentin Tomberg. Tomberg's huge tome "Meditations on the Tarot" preaches reincarnation, hermeticism, the Luminous Holy Trinity (I'm not making this up), astral bodies and much more. How many more "trad" Catholics are being corrupted by this and other esoteric writings?
“The smoke of Satan has entered the Church” Pope Pius VI. Where they try say it’s a symbolic meaning of something else. Especially the satanic Mass said in Chicago with young “Agnes” offered up by a sexual ritual, late ‘50s, just in time to sabotage the Council. So when people get upset about Vat II not being valid, it’s more due to the highjacking that went on. Something originally to be benign changed the Church to where we are now. Modernism/drip drip with ambiguity and eventually changing everything after everyone is programmed to believe it.
A few years ago, on 1P5, I was reading a Prof. K. article. At the time, I was pretty new to everything and assumed 'Prof' meant reliable. He made references to Dorothy Day et al.. I can't remember now what he wrote, but it was about their writings/beliefs etc.
if I hadn't literally 3 weeks earlier been reading about that group and their serious links to social justice theories and liberation theology etc., I would have been none the wiser and assumed there wasn't any problem with it all. When I queried with him why he would include them, in an otherwise (to me) trad. article, he didn't seem to see any problem with it. I had already decided that they weren't Catholics whom I should be following; I've never read much from the Prof. since. I wish I'd kept a copy of his answer.
So when I read about the Tomberg 'case' a few weeks ago, I wasn't really surprised - although it took it all to a new level! There's just something very weird going round - a bit like an infection - why on earth would a Trad. Catholic be publishing such subjects? How are we to suggest to non--Catholics etc.. that it's not a good idea to mess with the occult etc., when they can just say 'But I bought this book from a Trad. publisher?' I suppose we should just chill out and say 'whatever' until it starts affecting them mentally.
" Just about everything they have believed about Church structure and authority will have been shown to be nonsense." I have been very-surprised at the number of Catholics on social media, who, responding to the photo with Martin and Leo, say, "we don't know what was said."
Mario Derksen on his Novusordowatch.org website has successfully rebutted Dr. K's writings. And he proves the position of sedevacantist is the only logically position to take under these unique and trying times.
I think the idea of Leo bringing Hope is less of a gaslighting strategy than a personal coping strategy. Besides, given the fact that Catholic ecclesiology provides no mechanisms to hold any prelate accountable, let alone a pope, hope is all that’s left.
I "hope" that every person on earth will come to know the truth that only the Catholic Church is the one, true Church with the one true religion which is clearly not what has been taught since Vatican II. But I especially pray for those members of the counterfeit Novus Ordo church to come to this knowledge sooner rather than later. My hope is in the Lord, Jesus Christ and not in any individual no matter what position he may hold.
No ill intent at all here, but would you please provide your clear definition of the "counterfeit NO church"? Is the definition specific to the clergy, or to the laity - is the definition primarily the liturgical form? or is it primarily the doctrine that is believed? A certain critical-mass (no pun intended) of some combination of those?
Context: I have many solid books, hold to the ancient doctrines, have the old Missal, have some pre-1955 stuff, Rosary every day, First Saturdays, a "fan" of Fr. Mawdsley, and do prefer the TLM; but 80% of my Masses (you might say "masses") are Novus Ordo (ad orientem on the weekdays). So I've got no idea if, just in your opinion, I'm counterfeit or not. I use the Magnificat - a monthly publication conformed to post-V2.
Bottom line - If pejoratives like NewChurch, or counterfeit church, or Vatican 2 Sect, or BogusOrdo are going to be flung around in forums like this one, then an occasional definition of terms would help. Thank you.
If you haven't read Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis - On the Doctrine of the Modernist's- and watched the video's that Father William Jenkins did explaining this encyclical, I highly recommend them because it makes it clear that the Novus Ordo church is not the Catholic Church but is the Modernist church.
The counterfeit NO church is the church that exists since the Second Vatican Council which is a different church than the Catholic Church but claims it is the Catholic Church. It is a counterfeit of the Catholic Church as its foundational documents teach heresy or make some of the perennial teachings of the Church doubtful or ambiguous because its foundation is the synthesis of heresies, Modernism.
Since its foundation is Modernism and not Catholicism it had to construct a new liturgy, a new canon law, a new catechism, new bible translations to comport to its heretical foundation. And it had to remove crosses with a crucified Christ, statues, communion rails, centuries old stain glass windows, books on theology and philosophy out of its churches and seminaries in some places to comport to its practice of "ecumenism" which is to say, not offend non-Catholics in any way (especially the Novus Ordo Missae) while denying the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that She alone is the one Church instituted by Christ.
Everything you mention. It's easier and quicker to look for something actually Catholic 100% in Modernism. My bet is that you will find Nada. Shit has drowned the fan, at this point.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. So many books have been written, so many podcasts aired, and so many articles written about how it's impossible for the Novus Ordo church to be the Catholic Church.
I’d be inclined to share such charitable benefit of the doubt had these men not meticulously coordinated their coping strategy as a team, which is how, I suspect, they earned the epithet “Trad. Inc.”
I don't know about any of the others, but I operate mostly as a "lone ranger." I do not coordinate with Marshall, Matt, LifeSite, etc. I know these folks from a distance but I'm doing my own thing. My views are my own and I arrive at them on my own timeline and for reasons that I try to make as transparent as possible to all my readers. You can find that at my Substack:
If I had a group of men in my parish, in my city of 30k, who were as aware and concerned, as angry and as heartbroken as I am over all of this, I think I could weather this storm emotionally. I don't have ONE in my parish or city that feels as I do (and as most of you who read substacks like this), and the stress of seeing the evil in Rome and the stress of isolation here is taking it's toll on me. I converted to the RCC in 2012, after 30 years of ministry in the Episcopal Church. In the beginning, I felt relief and 'safe'. What I have discovered is that I have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. I think I'll get to the point, very soon, where I'll just stay home and read 'Morning Prayer' on Sunday morning. Is anyone else 'out there' feeling as isolated, angry and stressed as I am?
Online TLMs available to watch daily online - SSPX, FSSP and I think ICK. We are not obliged to attend suspect Masses - whether blatantly sacrilegious or suspect in any way which would violate the conscience of Pre-VII faithful Catholics.
Let's be honest! Men like the Professor, Marshall, Matt and have to also include: Cardinal Burke, Zen and Sarah are not Traditionalists... They promote, defend, attend and offer up the TLM, but they are not authentic Traditionalists... Authentic Traditionalists are men like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who not only defended the TLM but True Church Teachings and not the teachings of Modern Rome! The good Archbishop said that they are creating a new religion and new church... here we have it!!! These men and others like them give a good talk, but when it comes down to the "Brass Tax" well that's another story... I will be honest with all of you, I am not the most educated priest. How I made it through the seminary in Poland was through the grace of God, but this I know... I will defend Holy Mother the Church to the best of my ability, no matter what it may cost me. Please pray for me as I pray for all of you who are trying our best to Defend Holy Mother the Church during this great crisis we are facing since the Council of Destruction! Holy Mary Mother of the Church, please pray for us ~ Holy Mother of the Clergy, please pray for us!
While I have been somewaht disappointed with Mr.Marshall lately, I cannot completely be on board with your view of him not being, " traditionalist." He has stated often that the goal is not merely the TLM, but the traditional Church and her teachings. He has often referred to wanting ," that ole time religion." He also has admitted in being a monarchist since it aligns witg his view of the vertical framework of hierarchy and the social, political Kingship of Christ.
Luis, Thank you for your reply to my comment! He and other like him are sitting on a fence, leaning one way and then another way all depending on what is going on in Rome... Time will tell which side they will stay on permanently! until then... they just sway back and forth... listen to what he had to say about Leo before he became pope... God bless you and once again, thank you for your response! FDR
Very sad to hear about Prof. K. I haven’t been paying much attention lately, but seems he’s been withdrawn from media postings and softened a bit, but didn’t put 2 & 2 together, as other things going on in my life right now.
From “The New Threshold for Outrage” on, I totally agree. The saints stood up. Good priests I know, after Weisenburger hatchet on LM, are taking the obedient approach. I think what they are doing is trying to antagonize the priests so if they resist, they kick them to the curb-their intent is to get rid of good priests and close churches, so they can make a new “Catholic” Churvh to their liking. Eventually, it will be push come to shove for priests when they DO start “forcing” the heretical and abominable.
Also, I’m assuming they don’t want to be a Bp Strickland in no man’s land. Very sad.
When is enough enough, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE-literally!
Better to nip in the bud, unless the evil is widespread, only intervention from God can restore it.
The normalisation of error destroys papal infallibility at a stroke and that is how the Spirit of Lawlessness works. Its subtle. It is insidious. Who in their right mind would believe in an ex cathedra proclamation if everything else the Pope says is strewn with error and against the Gospel? Very very few people is the answer because people lean heavily on experience to determine whether something or someone is trustworthy. Remember the boy who cried wolf….there actually was a wolf at the end. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility depends upon the continued presence of the Holy Spirit in Rome and are you really going to tell me the Holy Spirit is sat, in Rome, in the Vatican as it fetes sodomite priests and prepares to welcome rainbow crosses? Sorry, but I don’t think so….
I'm quoting your line, " Who in their right mind would believe in an ex cathedra proclamation if everything else the Pope says is strewn with error and against the Gospel?" Who in their right mind would believe the claims about the Papacy made at Vatican I after this?
John 21 is clearly I would argue a commission from our Lord to St Peter but nowhere does Jesus confer the promise of infallibility, He gives St Peter a sacred duty, a mission.
Dr. K.: "If a pope attempted to abolish the old rite completely..." Is he too young to know that Paul VI did exactly that, worse than what Francis did? And Paul has inexplicably been canonized.
I am thoroughly aware of the history of Paul VI's papacy and while he may have attempted to abolish the old rite, he did not in fact either abrogate it or prevent it altogether from being celebrated. In fact, he opened the first door, with the English indult, to what would become later on JP2's indult. These are deficient steps, of course.
Why did he approve of a completely new liturgy that he had to know clearly was necessary to establish the Modernist heresies contained in the documents of Vatican II in the minds and hearts of Catholics? There was nothing wrong with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated for centuries and the laity certainly were not advocating for it to be "reformed".
Mixed feelings about him. Love the anti-Modernism. Concerned about his rupture of the immemorial Roman Divine Office, taken as precedent by both Pius XII and Paul VI.
Yep. Try to find a perfect Pope in 20 centuries (including St. Peter). You won't make it. Heaven must have made Papacy on purpose, to make us practice the virtue of humility through (not blind) obedience, combined with using our brains to defend Truth in most trying circumstances, as the present ones. It's like riding a rollercoaster all the time.
Bare with me. I am a (Fairly) recent convert that seeks clarity. In your opinion, was Vatican 2 "the product of the Holy Spirit", or not? Most of us here agree on the "resist" position, but it's hard to understand/agree upon the "recognize" position. Did the problems start at V2 because it was not the product of the Holy Spirit?
So, from my admittedly (basic) understanding on both topics, the Church (remote Magisterium), does not demand herself that belief in a specific "saint" is required - and also, the specific criteria for determining sainthood (its "checks and balances") has changed over time. Also, it is possible to say that Vatican II is both legal (like other councils) but can have errors (like other councils, and individuals), because it is not the same as say, papal infallibility, and many parts can be "resisted" (especially if they don't clarify dogma or doctrine)?
Fair enough. But Paul did do worse than Francis did. And it took Pope Benedict to point out, decades later, that Paul had not really abrogated the Old Mass, something only that traditionalists had said previously.
Great article. Now ignore him, and all of Trad, Inc. This is what Leo and his subcontractors in the destruction of the Catholic faith desire--infighting.
Trad Inc. FADES from View as It Runs Away from the DEFENSE of Catholicism
By Joseph Andrew Settanni
Michael Matt, Taylor Marshall, Michael S. Rose, Kennedy Hall, Peter Kwasniewski, and so many others cannot or do not see the actual truth that the good fight for the Holy Faith must, necessarily, continue. This is because the VCII "Permanent Revolution" has not and will not end until enough strong opposition exists to halt this tremendously evil nonsense and truly deliberate anti-Catholic garbage coming out of the Modernist-dominated Vatican.
The EVIL anti-Pope Leo XIV MUST. therefore, be so vigorously resisted, both openly and forcefully, to loudly let him and his vile henchmen know that they and their disgusting policies and programs are rightly detested mightily, not just slightly objected to, by all verily practicing and quite genuinely believing Roman Catholics.
What is being terribly faced? The Modernists/neo-Modernists are true Hegelian theoreticians; they see the First Vatican Council as the Thesis, the Second Vatican Council as then being the (needed) Antithesis, and, of course, the now Synodalist Movement and its cognate Synodal Church is the Synthesis; the last matter will, as with this so Trotskyite Permanent Revolution, provide the basis for the next Thesis.
More and more radicalization is, therefore, to be logically expected and demanded as a direct nominalist consequence of this here-noted Hegelianism, applied to the ever-evolving, progressivist, Modernist ecclesiology and its many nefarious results, of course. What, however, must be bravely done?
Catholics, including the Trad Inc. people, cannot just sit back, relax, go along to get along for access and recognition, while Catholicism is significantly being trashed, many orthodox dogmas and doctrines are ignored, and the true moral and ethical teachings of Holy Mother Church, prior to 1962, are just so notoriously gutted to great secularist applause.
Hall, Kwasniewski, Marshall, Matt, Rose, and many others cannot just plead any lack of Catholic intelligence, concerning the important need to recognize and denounce heresies, when openly seen or cleverly promoted by Leo XIV and his own mainly corrupt hierarchy.
Damage is surely being done to Catholicism, and it is immoral and very unworthy of such men that they willingly tolerate much manifestly notable evil for the sake of not wanting to offend Leo XIV; this is seen in his vile quest to deliberately weaken, degrade, dilute, and hide from sight any critical matters that may possibly offend the demonic Globalist-Fascist-Capitalist parasitic elites and their too heavily jaded and degenerate followers.
Hopefully, what is adamantly written here will not, thus, be carelessly dismissed as obscure or, more to the point, denounced supposedly as too extreme, for correctly noting the massively evident diabolic disorientation that is, quite certainly, real enough, not simply imagined as such. Q. E. D.
I wonder whether The Kwasnian Kwietism is moved by his new conversion to the Morello concept of REAL “Catholic” tradition, the Tombergian enlightenment which he thinks gets him out of the bind of his wholly false conception of obligations to one he regards as the Pope, for inner spiritual light of an “abandoned tradition” of occult origin?
Tomberg’s “Meditations on the Tarot” is a great book, and I learned much from his discussion of egregores. In his time, it was the egregore of communism, and in our time, it is the egregore of the scientific materialist administrative state. That conservatives and traditionalists spend so much time complaining about Tomberg is a sign of what a pack of losers that they have all become, with nothing useful or relevant to say about the contemporary situation. Where is OUR Nicolas Gomez Davila?
“The problem with the world, in a nutshell: Bureaucratic, technological society naturally self-assembles into an unfriendly superintelligence.” - Roko Mijic
I read “Meditations of the Tarot” 23 years ago in French as I was researching von Balthasar’s dubious sources & pre-occupations, having learned of his liaison with Adrienne von Speyr, as Ignatius Press featured them as spiritual giants. If that’s what floats your boat, then float — but don’t pretend it’s a source of revelatory spiritual insight without which somehow one can’t grasp the devitalization & distortion of the Western mind starting with Ockham & descending thereafter. For fifty years I’ve watched wannabes in various academic & theological making titanic discoveries vital for Christians, only to see them replaced again and again with the flavor of the day after they misled their enthusiastic disciples into swamps of estoricism & misery, all the while proclaiming that they had discovered the true flame of the Spirit.
" That conservatives and traditionalists spend so much time complaining about Tomberg is a sign of what a pack of losers that they have all become, ..." That's your masterwork, is it?
I have to admit when I read the title and subtitle of this article. I laughed. But what isn't funny is that it got to the point that Mr. Jackson had to write it.
Dr. K has done a lot of good work in his time, right up until the 180. He was one of the most solid and knowledgeable Trads out there. He used to tell it like it is, and now... not so much.
I'm not really surprised by this turn of events. Those of you who remember the "We Resist You to the Face" controversy know exactly what I'm talking about.
I've pretty much said what I needed to say to Dr. K in the previous article comments. I hope he thinks seriously about it and gets back on track.
A commenter here suggested an interview between Mr. Jackson and Dr. K. I think Dr. K explained his opinion quite well in his response to my comment. All he really has to do is call out Leo (when necessary) the way he did Francis. Problem solved for the most part.
That being said, if Dr. K is willing to do an interview with Mr. Jackson, I sure don't see anything wrong with that. After all, we are supposed to living out and defending the Faith, right?
What I find interesting is that no one has been able to point out any contradiction between what I am saying now and what I have said in the past. I have not renounced anything I wrote about Francis. But for me, the verdict on Leo XIV is far from being clear. Sure, he's done bad things; yawn. Every pope has been a mixed bag for the past 60 years (and actually there are plenty of problems before that; Pius XII's Holy Week, anyone?). I am, indeed, watching and waiting and giving the benefit of the doubt to the extent it can be given. I am ready to change my mind and speak against Leo as I have spoken against Francis, but I am not there yet. The fact that different people have different thresholds also should not be surprising. Not everyone finds Chris Jackson or the WM Review persuasive.
[I will add here my reply to you left at the article prior to this one:]
I don't see the 180-degree turn that the sensationalists are talking about. I asked for calm, patience, prayer, and observation, while expressing my concerns with Leo XIV (I've never simply praised him, I've always expressed reservations, yet suffused with some hopes). Also, anyone who's actually been paying attention to me can see that I've warmed up considerably to the SSPX. This doesn't sound like someone who's taken up his pipe and left the battlefield.
So, that is what I am doing. I feel as if people like Chris Jackson are always crying wolf until their throats are hoarse. First it's deafening, and then it's background noise, and finally it's just predictable, like a ChatGPT of errors and anathemas. I don't see how this is actually bearing witness to the truth in an effective way.
I also think it's very superficial to think that everyone has to respond in exactly the same way. Maybe some people need to pull out the bully pulpit and shout down the errors (though as I said above, I have my doubts at times about the ones who have appointed themselves the preachers). Maybe others need to concentrate on building up Catholic liturgy and culture, promoting all the good things that are happening on the ground, and advancing the ball down the field that way.
Well, we will probably not convince each other, but for the record I will say it again: I have not changed my theological views one bit. If there is any disagreement, it is in the prudential order. I assume that people as dogmatically strict as the readers here recognize and can make the distinction between theoretical and practical matters, and can acknowledge that men of good will often disagree about where and how to respond to concrete situations?
I understand how you feel/You want to wait more//fine!!!But as of now ,in my opinion
Pope Leo has demonstrated his adherence to the modernist regime in Rome. He was elected by them. Pope Leo clearly said he will travel Francis's road of the false conciliar church. His appointments are shocking. Example ,putting a pro euthanasia head of the pontifical life dicastery. It seems clear to me that he has shown his hand.
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
I think you don't see the problem. It's not about a 'contradiction', it's about the perception that you're not speaking out against Leo's obvious continuation of the Vatican II revolution. I don't think anyone has accused you of 'renouncing" anything you wrote about Francis, in fact the main complaint is that you won't call out Leo as you did Francis; it's that (it seems) you don't want to see that Leo is Francis 2.0, that he is not doing anything that would make anyone believe he's opposed to Francis' program, the continuation of the revolution. Leo declared Francis is in Heaven (WTH?), he's appointed obvious modernists to be bishops, etc. etc.
No disrespect intended, but what exactly is this 'threshold'? How many more modernists does he have to promote, how many more sex abusers does he have to protect, how many more times does he have to meet with Martin, how much longer must he keep doing what he's doing, before you speak out? The time for 'benefit of the doubt is over.
You said, "Sure, he's done bad things; yawn." Really? Yawn? I think Mr. Jackson said what had to be said about that. Now for my thought on that. I think it would be a good idea for you to step away for a while, go on an Ignatian retreat. Even if there isn't one going on, go do one on your own if need be. I think you are suffering from a kind of spiritual battle fatigue. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, I'm no expert. Let's just say that I don't want to see you go the Skojec route (though IF you did crash & burn, I don't think it would be because of an obsession with money).
Lastly, you said, "Not everyone finds Chris Jackson or the WM Review persuasive."
Well, I can't speak on WM Review, since I haven't read much of them, however, as far as Mr. Jackson, maybe not, but even you have acknowledged good work on his part not too long ago...
I really wish we could get you to talk to Dr. Kwasniewski in person or interview. I think he'd be far more persuadable and reasonable on these issues in person. I know him somewhat well (I know his children far better), but he always seems far more reasonable and approachable than he does in written polemic, and he'd probably reconcile to you if you could explain your position directly.
I felt like he did about Leo, for example, until Monday of this week. Many people are still in Kwasniewski's position and generally move more slowly. His articles and books during Francis's pontificate started more optimistic and almost popesplainly in 2014 and then slowly built up to his denunciations. He'll eventually reach the same place you have; he just moves more slowly.
I'd love to try to arrange a parlay between you. The Church needs both of you, his focus on Catholic culture and yours on rooting out the roots of the evil that fights it.
I actually wonder if Trad. Inc. were actually visited the day after Leo's election, one by one, by some Vatican Men in Black sort of, that left them useless to Catholic Truth for the time being. 😅 Scary thought!
Piecing together the narrative, my theory is each was contacted by Cdl. Burke on behalf of the new pope and persuaded to take this “wait and see” position. Persuaded how is anybody’s guess.
I can verify, at least, that neither men in black nor Cardinal Burke contacted me. In fact, nobody asked me to take the view I have at this time. It seemed to me the right approach. You can disagree, but please don't cook up conspiracy theories.
Dear Professor, thank you for your honest, civil response. I can’t read your mind. But the “Wait and see” advice from you and your cohorts, while Bergoglio’s abuses and heresies openly resumed in the very first week of the Prevost papacy, spoke for itself. You’re out of the fight.
I agree with your assessment whole heartedly. It's distressing to see such apathy.I am grateful that you continue to remain vigilant as well as a few others. Thank you and Thank God.
“...we should only panic if the pope solemnly proclaims heresy ex cathedra, abolishes the Latin Mass universally…”
We should more than panic right now, with 95% of our young people raised in the Novus Ordo ceasing their practice of the Catholic faith when they reach adulthood. Doctrines of course are important, but they exist for the welfare of the sheep. When the sheep, especially the young sheep, are being left to the wolves, it most certainly is time to "panic". And even if we may have only weak concern for the young sheep going astray, we should have more than enough concern for our own well-being, in light of what Christ said about what is deserved by those who are a party to scandalizing the little ones.
The “impossible crisis” has already arrived. The “sky is falling”, now. What less can you call it when the souls of such a vast percentage of our children are being devoured?
I absolutely agree with your assessment.
Attending a glorious High Mass this past weekend, I wondered how my children would have turned out had they had that Mass growing up. But they did not. They had the homosexual priest, the narcissistic priest, and priests who did not believe in the Real Presence. We did move away but too late. My grown children are 50/50 in the practice of the Novus Ordo faith which was all we had access to when they were growing up. I grieve for what has been and still is being taken away from us, the faithful.
Spot on, DJG. The grim figures on Catholic education in England and Australia showed that 90% of pupils lapse during their schooldays or soon after.
Yes, it is great to blame someone else, especially the teachers. I went to a Christmas concert at a primary (elementary) school on the other side of town in 2001. I have known the devoted headteacher (principal) for decades. The angelic 5 year olds sang "Away in a manger" and there was not a dry eye in the hall.
You just know you are due for a kick in the teeth. The headteacher stood up and pleaded with the parents to take their children to Mass, at least for Christmas. Are any of those 5 year olds still practising in 2025?
Sadly, Dr. K is a big influence and does not teach the true Catholic faith.
Yes, I do not teach sedevacantism.
I think Dr. K’s behavior reflects several trends. First, it demonstrates the default Catholic response of blind deference to clerical authority. Second, it shows that people like Dr. K at his theological comrades are sick and tired of fighting. For the past 12 years, they have expended a lot of emotional, mental and spiritual energy fighting Francis. Basically, they’ve shot their bolt.
Third, in fighting Leo with the same urgency with which they fought Francis, Dr. K and his comrades would be admitting to themselves the Wobegon nature of Catholic ecclesiology. Just about everything they have believed about Church structure and authority will have been shown to be nonsense. They can’t afford to fight Leo with the same spirit or energy because it would destroy their ecclesiastical illusions. Better to live with those illusions and ignore the heresy that a corrupt clerical class creates than to confront the truth.
"They can’t afford to fight Leo with the same spirit or energy because it would destroy their ecclesiastical illusions." They also cannot financially afford to do so, which indicates that the things of this world may be more important to them than the unpleasant and unpopular truth.
Sequere pecuniam!
Yes, the best journalistic and theological advice ever. The problem is trying to get the key financial information. Who is paying these people, how much are they getting from each source?
One small aspect of the problem was well illustrated by the unholy row earlier in 2025 over Sebastian Morello's "Mysticism, Magic and Monasteries"....which is published by Peter K's Os Justi press. The ferocious and hilariously bad tempered arguments might been about the exact meaning of "magic" and whether weird occult ideas were being smuggled into the Church. But inevitably money is involved in the production and sales of a new title.
Another much more worrying aspect of that row was the fondness of both Morello and Professor K for the writings of Valentin Tomberg. Tomberg's huge tome "Meditations on the Tarot" preaches reincarnation, hermeticism, the Luminous Holy Trinity (I'm not making this up), astral bodies and much more. How many more "trad" Catholics are being corrupted by this and other esoteric writings?
The Majik occult did enter.
“The smoke of Satan has entered the Church” Pope Pius VI. Where they try say it’s a symbolic meaning of something else. Especially the satanic Mass said in Chicago with young “Agnes” offered up by a sexual ritual, late ‘50s, just in time to sabotage the Council. So when people get upset about Vat II not being valid, it’s more due to the highjacking that went on. Something originally to be benign changed the Church to where we are now. Modernism/drip drip with ambiguity and eventually changing everything after everyone is programmed to believe it.
And who was most responsible for not only the smoke of Satan to enter the Church but also his doctrines but the apostate Paul VI?
That " Satanic Mass," was said in Chaleston, not Chicago. Among the alleged presiders was, a future Cardinal of Chicago; Joseph Bernadin.
A few years ago, on 1P5, I was reading a Prof. K. article. At the time, I was pretty new to everything and assumed 'Prof' meant reliable. He made references to Dorothy Day et al.. I can't remember now what he wrote, but it was about their writings/beliefs etc.
if I hadn't literally 3 weeks earlier been reading about that group and their serious links to social justice theories and liberation theology etc., I would have been none the wiser and assumed there wasn't any problem with it all. When I queried with him why he would include them, in an otherwise (to me) trad. article, he didn't seem to see any problem with it. I had already decided that they weren't Catholics whom I should be following; I've never read much from the Prof. since. I wish I'd kept a copy of his answer.
So when I read about the Tomberg 'case' a few weeks ago, I wasn't really surprised - although it took it all to a new level! There's just something very weird going round - a bit like an infection - why on earth would a Trad. Catholic be publishing such subjects? How are we to suggest to non--Catholics etc.. that it's not a good idea to mess with the occult etc., when they can just say 'But I bought this book from a Trad. publisher?' I suppose we should just chill out and say 'whatever' until it starts affecting them mentally.
" Just about everything they have believed about Church structure and authority will have been shown to be nonsense." I have been very-surprised at the number of Catholics on social media, who, responding to the photo with Martin and Leo, say, "we don't know what was said."
It’s insane cope.
Mario Derksen on his Novusordowatch.org website has successfully rebutted Dr. K's writings. And he proves the position of sedevacantist is the only logically position to take under these unique and trying times.
Sede vs R&R wasn’t the topic of the article.
Reality is the topic of the article of which R&R does not partake.
I was replying to the post mentioning Dr. K.
I think the idea of Leo bringing Hope is less of a gaslighting strategy than a personal coping strategy. Besides, given the fact that Catholic ecclesiology provides no mechanisms to hold any prelate accountable, let alone a pope, hope is all that’s left.
I "hope" that every person on earth will come to know the truth that only the Catholic Church is the one, true Church with the one true religion which is clearly not what has been taught since Vatican II. But I especially pray for those members of the counterfeit Novus Ordo church to come to this knowledge sooner rather than later. My hope is in the Lord, Jesus Christ and not in any individual no matter what position he may hold.
No ill intent at all here, but would you please provide your clear definition of the "counterfeit NO church"? Is the definition specific to the clergy, or to the laity - is the definition primarily the liturgical form? or is it primarily the doctrine that is believed? A certain critical-mass (no pun intended) of some combination of those?
Context: I have many solid books, hold to the ancient doctrines, have the old Missal, have some pre-1955 stuff, Rosary every day, First Saturdays, a "fan" of Fr. Mawdsley, and do prefer the TLM; but 80% of my Masses (you might say "masses") are Novus Ordo (ad orientem on the weekdays). So I've got no idea if, just in your opinion, I'm counterfeit or not. I use the Magnificat - a monthly publication conformed to post-V2.
Bottom line - If pejoratives like NewChurch, or counterfeit church, or Vatican 2 Sect, or BogusOrdo are going to be flung around in forums like this one, then an occasional definition of terms would help. Thank you.
If you haven't read Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis - On the Doctrine of the Modernist's- and watched the video's that Father William Jenkins did explaining this encyclical, I highly recommend them because it makes it clear that the Novus Ordo church is not the Catholic Church but is the Modernist church.
Here is a link to Father Jenkins videos:
www.wcbohio.com/categories/pascendi-series
The counterfeit NO church is the church that exists since the Second Vatican Council which is a different church than the Catholic Church but claims it is the Catholic Church. It is a counterfeit of the Catholic Church as its foundational documents teach heresy or make some of the perennial teachings of the Church doubtful or ambiguous because its foundation is the synthesis of heresies, Modernism.
Since its foundation is Modernism and not Catholicism it had to construct a new liturgy, a new canon law, a new catechism, new bible translations to comport to its heretical foundation. And it had to remove crosses with a crucified Christ, statues, communion rails, centuries old stain glass windows, books on theology and philosophy out of its churches and seminaries in some places to comport to its practice of "ecumenism" which is to say, not offend non-Catholics in any way (especially the Novus Ordo Missae) while denying the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that She alone is the one Church instituted by Christ.
Everything you mention. It's easier and quicker to look for something actually Catholic 100% in Modernism. My bet is that you will find Nada. Shit has drowned the fan, at this point.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. So many books have been written, so many podcasts aired, and so many articles written about how it's impossible for the Novus Ordo church to be the Catholic Church.
I’d be inclined to share such charitable benefit of the doubt had these men not meticulously coordinated their coping strategy as a team, which is how, I suspect, they earned the epithet “Trad. Inc.”
I don't know about any of the others, but I operate mostly as a "lone ranger." I do not coordinate with Marshall, Matt, LifeSite, etc. I know these folks from a distance but I'm doing my own thing. My views are my own and I arrive at them on my own timeline and for reasons that I try to make as transparent as possible to all my readers. You can find that at my Substack:
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/special-my-hopes-my-fears-and-my
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/taking-the-long-view-on-not-lionizing
Good point.
If I had a group of men in my parish, in my city of 30k, who were as aware and concerned, as angry and as heartbroken as I am over all of this, I think I could weather this storm emotionally. I don't have ONE in my parish or city that feels as I do (and as most of you who read substacks like this), and the stress of seeing the evil in Rome and the stress of isolation here is taking it's toll on me. I converted to the RCC in 2012, after 30 years of ministry in the Episcopal Church. In the beginning, I felt relief and 'safe'. What I have discovered is that I have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. I think I'll get to the point, very soon, where I'll just stay home and read 'Morning Prayer' on Sunday morning. Is anyone else 'out there' feeling as isolated, angry and stressed as I am?
Commiserating in California
Online TLMs available to watch daily online - SSPX, FSSP and I think ICK. We are not obliged to attend suspect Masses - whether blatantly sacrilegious or suspect in any way which would violate the conscience of Pre-VII faithful Catholics.
Let's be honest! Men like the Professor, Marshall, Matt and have to also include: Cardinal Burke, Zen and Sarah are not Traditionalists... They promote, defend, attend and offer up the TLM, but they are not authentic Traditionalists... Authentic Traditionalists are men like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who not only defended the TLM but True Church Teachings and not the teachings of Modern Rome! The good Archbishop said that they are creating a new religion and new church... here we have it!!! These men and others like them give a good talk, but when it comes down to the "Brass Tax" well that's another story... I will be honest with all of you, I am not the most educated priest. How I made it through the seminary in Poland was through the grace of God, but this I know... I will defend Holy Mother the Church to the best of my ability, no matter what it may cost me. Please pray for me as I pray for all of you who are trying our best to Defend Holy Mother the Church during this great crisis we are facing since the Council of Destruction! Holy Mary Mother of the Church, please pray for us ~ Holy Mother of the Clergy, please pray for us!
While I have been somewaht disappointed with Mr.Marshall lately, I cannot completely be on board with your view of him not being, " traditionalist." He has stated often that the goal is not merely the TLM, but the traditional Church and her teachings. He has often referred to wanting ," that ole time religion." He also has admitted in being a monarchist since it aligns witg his view of the vertical framework of hierarchy and the social, political Kingship of Christ.
Luis, Thank you for your reply to my comment! He and other like him are sitting on a fence, leaning one way and then another way all depending on what is going on in Rome... Time will tell which side they will stay on permanently! until then... they just sway back and forth... listen to what he had to say about Leo before he became pope... God bless you and once again, thank you for your response! FDR
Very sad to hear about Prof. K. I haven’t been paying much attention lately, but seems he’s been withdrawn from media postings and softened a bit, but didn’t put 2 & 2 together, as other things going on in my life right now.
From “The New Threshold for Outrage” on, I totally agree. The saints stood up. Good priests I know, after Weisenburger hatchet on LM, are taking the obedient approach. I think what they are doing is trying to antagonize the priests so if they resist, they kick them to the curb-their intent is to get rid of good priests and close churches, so they can make a new “Catholic” Churvh to their liking. Eventually, it will be push come to shove for priests when they DO start “forcing” the heretical and abominable.
Also, I’m assuming they don’t want to be a Bp Strickland in no man’s land. Very sad.
When is enough enough, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE-literally!
Better to nip in the bud, unless the evil is widespread, only intervention from God can restore it.
Pax Chisti
The normalisation of error destroys papal infallibility at a stroke and that is how the Spirit of Lawlessness works. Its subtle. It is insidious. Who in their right mind would believe in an ex cathedra proclamation if everything else the Pope says is strewn with error and against the Gospel? Very very few people is the answer because people lean heavily on experience to determine whether something or someone is trustworthy. Remember the boy who cried wolf….there actually was a wolf at the end. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility depends upon the continued presence of the Holy Spirit in Rome and are you really going to tell me the Holy Spirit is sat, in Rome, in the Vatican as it fetes sodomite priests and prepares to welcome rainbow crosses? Sorry, but I don’t think so….
I'm quoting your line, " Who in their right mind would believe in an ex cathedra proclamation if everything else the Pope says is strewn with error and against the Gospel?" Who in their right mind would believe the claims about the Papacy made at Vatican I after this?
John 21 is clearly I would argue a commission from our Lord to St Peter but nowhere does Jesus confer the promise of infallibility, He gives St Peter a sacred duty, a mission.
Dr. K.: "If a pope attempted to abolish the old rite completely..." Is he too young to know that Paul VI did exactly that, worse than what Francis did? And Paul has inexplicably been canonized.
Canonizations by an Anti-Pope & False Pope attempting to destroy the Church, ie Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Prevost's Rabbi--do not count.
St Pope Paul VI, prey on us.
I am thoroughly aware of the history of Paul VI's papacy and while he may have attempted to abolish the old rite, he did not in fact either abrogate it or prevent it altogether from being celebrated. In fact, he opened the first door, with the English indult, to what would become later on JP2's indult. These are deficient steps, of course.
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/does-a-priest-need-permission-to
Why did he approve of a completely new liturgy that he had to know clearly was necessary to establish the Modernist heresies contained in the documents of Vatican II in the minds and hearts of Catholics? There was nothing wrong with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated for centuries and the laity certainly were not advocating for it to be "reformed".
Believe me, I am no defender of Paul VI!
See:
https://onepeterfive.com/paul-vi-not-saint/
You are no defender of Pope St. Pius X either.
Mixed feelings about him. Love the anti-Modernism. Concerned about his rupture of the immemorial Roman Divine Office, taken as precedent by both Pius XII and Paul VI.
Yep. Try to find a perfect Pope in 20 centuries (including St. Peter). You won't make it. Heaven must have made Papacy on purpose, to make us practice the virtue of humility through (not blind) obedience, combined with using our brains to defend Truth in most trying circumstances, as the present ones. It's like riding a rollercoaster all the time.
Your concern is irrelevant as the pope had the authority to do what he did.
Bare with me. I am a (Fairly) recent convert that seeks clarity. In your opinion, was Vatican 2 "the product of the Holy Spirit", or not? Most of us here agree on the "resist" position, but it's hard to understand/agree upon the "recognize" position. Did the problems start at V2 because it was not the product of the Holy Spirit?
A quick sketch of my position on Vatican II:
https://onepeterfive.com/games-holy-spirit/
So, from my admittedly (basic) understanding on both topics, the Church (remote Magisterium), does not demand herself that belief in a specific "saint" is required - and also, the specific criteria for determining sainthood (its "checks and balances") has changed over time. Also, it is possible to say that Vatican II is both legal (like other councils) but can have errors (like other councils, and individuals), because it is not the same as say, papal infallibility, and many parts can be "resisted" (especially if they don't clarify dogma or doctrine)?
Thanks. I'm reading your Paul VI article, but will get to the other once I'm done.
Fair enough. But Paul did do worse than Francis did. And it took Pope Benedict to point out, decades later, that Paul had not really abrogated the Old Mass, something only that traditionalists had said previously.
THANK YOU!!! He NEEDED that! Whether he has the humility to recognize it or not..
Great article. Now ignore him, and all of Trad, Inc. This is what Leo and his subcontractors in the destruction of the Catholic faith desire--infighting.
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia.
Im very disappointed in professor K!!!! I think they are giving up!! Need prayers!
Trad Inc. FADES from View as It Runs Away from the DEFENSE of Catholicism
By Joseph Andrew Settanni
Michael Matt, Taylor Marshall, Michael S. Rose, Kennedy Hall, Peter Kwasniewski, and so many others cannot or do not see the actual truth that the good fight for the Holy Faith must, necessarily, continue. This is because the VCII "Permanent Revolution" has not and will not end until enough strong opposition exists to halt this tremendously evil nonsense and truly deliberate anti-Catholic garbage coming out of the Modernist-dominated Vatican.
The EVIL anti-Pope Leo XIV MUST. therefore, be so vigorously resisted, both openly and forcefully, to loudly let him and his vile henchmen know that they and their disgusting policies and programs are rightly detested mightily, not just slightly objected to, by all verily practicing and quite genuinely believing Roman Catholics.
What is being terribly faced? The Modernists/neo-Modernists are true Hegelian theoreticians; they see the First Vatican Council as the Thesis, the Second Vatican Council as then being the (needed) Antithesis, and, of course, the now Synodalist Movement and its cognate Synodal Church is the Synthesis; the last matter will, as with this so Trotskyite Permanent Revolution, provide the basis for the next Thesis.
More and more radicalization is, therefore, to be logically expected and demanded as a direct nominalist consequence of this here-noted Hegelianism, applied to the ever-evolving, progressivist, Modernist ecclesiology and its many nefarious results, of course. What, however, must be bravely done?
Catholics, including the Trad Inc. people, cannot just sit back, relax, go along to get along for access and recognition, while Catholicism is significantly being trashed, many orthodox dogmas and doctrines are ignored, and the true moral and ethical teachings of Holy Mother Church, prior to 1962, are just so notoriously gutted to great secularist applause.
Hall, Kwasniewski, Marshall, Matt, Rose, and many others cannot just plead any lack of Catholic intelligence, concerning the important need to recognize and denounce heresies, when openly seen or cleverly promoted by Leo XIV and his own mainly corrupt hierarchy.
Damage is surely being done to Catholicism, and it is immoral and very unworthy of such men that they willingly tolerate much manifestly notable evil for the sake of not wanting to offend Leo XIV; this is seen in his vile quest to deliberately weaken, degrade, dilute, and hide from sight any critical matters that may possibly offend the demonic Globalist-Fascist-Capitalist parasitic elites and their too heavily jaded and degenerate followers.
Hopefully, what is adamantly written here will not, thus, be carelessly dismissed as obscure or, more to the point, denounced supposedly as too extreme, for correctly noting the massively evident diabolic disorientation that is, quite certainly, real enough, not simply imagined as such. Q. E. D.
Athanasius contra mundum!
I wonder whether The Kwasnian Kwietism is moved by his new conversion to the Morello concept of REAL “Catholic” tradition, the Tombergian enlightenment which he thinks gets him out of the bind of his wholly false conception of obligations to one he regards as the Pope, for inner spiritual light of an “abandoned tradition” of occult origin?
Tomberg’s “Meditations on the Tarot” is a great book, and I learned much from his discussion of egregores. In his time, it was the egregore of communism, and in our time, it is the egregore of the scientific materialist administrative state. That conservatives and traditionalists spend so much time complaining about Tomberg is a sign of what a pack of losers that they have all become, with nothing useful or relevant to say about the contemporary situation. Where is OUR Nicolas Gomez Davila?
“The problem with the world, in a nutshell: Bureaucratic, technological society naturally self-assembles into an unfriendly superintelligence.” - Roko Mijic
I read “Meditations of the Tarot” 23 years ago in French as I was researching von Balthasar’s dubious sources & pre-occupations, having learned of his liaison with Adrienne von Speyr, as Ignatius Press featured them as spiritual giants. If that’s what floats your boat, then float — but don’t pretend it’s a source of revelatory spiritual insight without which somehow one can’t grasp the devitalization & distortion of the Western mind starting with Ockham & descending thereafter. For fifty years I’ve watched wannabes in various academic & theological making titanic discoveries vital for Christians, only to see them replaced again and again with the flavor of the day after they misled their enthusiastic disciples into swamps of estoricism & misery, all the while proclaiming that they had discovered the true flame of the Spirit.
I said what I said. I will await your masterwork of spiritual erudition with bated breath….
" That conservatives and traditionalists spend so much time complaining about Tomberg is a sign of what a pack of losers that they have all become, ..." That's your masterwork, is it?
I have to admit when I read the title and subtitle of this article. I laughed. But what isn't funny is that it got to the point that Mr. Jackson had to write it.
Dr. K has done a lot of good work in his time, right up until the 180. He was one of the most solid and knowledgeable Trads out there. He used to tell it like it is, and now... not so much.
I'm not really surprised by this turn of events. Those of you who remember the "We Resist You to the Face" controversy know exactly what I'm talking about.
I've pretty much said what I needed to say to Dr. K in the previous article comments. I hope he thinks seriously about it and gets back on track.
A commenter here suggested an interview between Mr. Jackson and Dr. K. I think Dr. K explained his opinion quite well in his response to my comment. All he really has to do is call out Leo (when necessary) the way he did Francis. Problem solved for the most part.
That being said, if Dr. K is willing to do an interview with Mr. Jackson, I sure don't see anything wrong with that. After all, we are supposed to living out and defending the Faith, right?
What I find interesting is that no one has been able to point out any contradiction between what I am saying now and what I have said in the past. I have not renounced anything I wrote about Francis. But for me, the verdict on Leo XIV is far from being clear. Sure, he's done bad things; yawn. Every pope has been a mixed bag for the past 60 years (and actually there are plenty of problems before that; Pius XII's Holy Week, anyone?). I am, indeed, watching and waiting and giving the benefit of the doubt to the extent it can be given. I am ready to change my mind and speak against Leo as I have spoken against Francis, but I am not there yet. The fact that different people have different thresholds also should not be surprising. Not everyone finds Chris Jackson or the WM Review persuasive.
[I will add here my reply to you left at the article prior to this one:]
I don't see the 180-degree turn that the sensationalists are talking about. I asked for calm, patience, prayer, and observation, while expressing my concerns with Leo XIV (I've never simply praised him, I've always expressed reservations, yet suffused with some hopes). Also, anyone who's actually been paying attention to me can see that I've warmed up considerably to the SSPX. This doesn't sound like someone who's taken up his pipe and left the battlefield.
So, that is what I am doing. I feel as if people like Chris Jackson are always crying wolf until their throats are hoarse. First it's deafening, and then it's background noise, and finally it's just predictable, like a ChatGPT of errors and anathemas. I don't see how this is actually bearing witness to the truth in an effective way.
I also think it's very superficial to think that everyone has to respond in exactly the same way. Maybe some people need to pull out the bully pulpit and shout down the errors (though as I said above, I have my doubts at times about the ones who have appointed themselves the preachers). Maybe others need to concentrate on building up Catholic liturgy and culture, promoting all the good things that are happening on the ground, and advancing the ball down the field that way.
Well, we will probably not convince each other, but for the record I will say it again: I have not changed my theological views one bit. If there is any disagreement, it is in the prudential order. I assume that people as dogmatically strict as the readers here recognize and can make the distinction between theoretical and practical matters, and can acknowledge that men of good will often disagree about where and how to respond to concrete situations?
I understand how you feel/You want to wait more//fine!!!But as of now ,in my opinion
Pope Leo has demonstrated his adherence to the modernist regime in Rome. He was elected by them. Pope Leo clearly said he will travel Francis's road of the false conciliar church. His appointments are shocking. Example ,putting a pro euthanasia head of the pontifical life dicastery. It seems clear to me that he has shown his hand.
2 Timothy 4-4.
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
That's Catholic, in season and out of season.
Dr. K.
I think you don't see the problem. It's not about a 'contradiction', it's about the perception that you're not speaking out against Leo's obvious continuation of the Vatican II revolution. I don't think anyone has accused you of 'renouncing" anything you wrote about Francis, in fact the main complaint is that you won't call out Leo as you did Francis; it's that (it seems) you don't want to see that Leo is Francis 2.0, that he is not doing anything that would make anyone believe he's opposed to Francis' program, the continuation of the revolution. Leo declared Francis is in Heaven (WTH?), he's appointed obvious modernists to be bishops, etc. etc.
No disrespect intended, but what exactly is this 'threshold'? How many more modernists does he have to promote, how many more sex abusers does he have to protect, how many more times does he have to meet with Martin, how much longer must he keep doing what he's doing, before you speak out? The time for 'benefit of the doubt is over.
You said, "Sure, he's done bad things; yawn." Really? Yawn? I think Mr. Jackson said what had to be said about that. Now for my thought on that. I think it would be a good idea for you to step away for a while, go on an Ignatian retreat. Even if there isn't one going on, go do one on your own if need be. I think you are suffering from a kind of spiritual battle fatigue. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, I'm no expert. Let's just say that I don't want to see you go the Skojec route (though IF you did crash & burn, I don't think it would be because of an obsession with money).
Lastly, you said, "Not everyone finds Chris Jackson or the WM Review persuasive."
Well, I can't speak on WM Review, since I haven't read much of them, however, as far as Mr. Jackson, maybe not, but even you have acknowledged good work on his part not too long ago...
Scrutonism…
I really wish we could get you to talk to Dr. Kwasniewski in person or interview. I think he'd be far more persuadable and reasonable on these issues in person. I know him somewhat well (I know his children far better), but he always seems far more reasonable and approachable than he does in written polemic, and he'd probably reconcile to you if you could explain your position directly.
I felt like he did about Leo, for example, until Monday of this week. Many people are still in Kwasniewski's position and generally move more slowly. His articles and books during Francis's pontificate started more optimistic and almost popesplainly in 2014 and then slowly built up to his denunciations. He'll eventually reach the same place you have; he just moves more slowly.
I'd love to try to arrange a parlay between you. The Church needs both of you, his focus on Catholic culture and yours on rooting out the roots of the evil that fights it.
Rather than question the validity of Francis’ papacy, he actually questioned Vatican 1.
I never questioned Vatican I. Only the extrapolations of it that were made praeter litteram (beyond its explicit teaching).
I actually wonder if Trad. Inc. were actually visited the day after Leo's election, one by one, by some Vatican Men in Black sort of, that left them useless to Catholic Truth for the time being. 😅 Scary thought!
Piecing together the narrative, my theory is each was contacted by Cdl. Burke on behalf of the new pope and persuaded to take this “wait and see” position. Persuaded how is anybody’s guess.
I can verify, at least, that neither men in black nor Cardinal Burke contacted me. In fact, nobody asked me to take the view I have at this time. It seemed to me the right approach. You can disagree, but please don't cook up conspiracy theories.
I haven't changed any of my views as expressed in my books and articles. Not one bit. Can you demonstrate that I have?
Dear Professor, thank you for your honest, civil response. I can’t read your mind. But the “Wait and see” advice from you and your cohorts, while Bergoglio’s abuses and heresies openly resumed in the very first week of the Prevost papacy, spoke for itself. You’re out of the fight.
There's a lot to fight about nowadays, and maybe the same person can't fight on every front simultaneously.
I agree with your assessment whole heartedly. It's distressing to see such apathy.I am grateful that you continue to remain vigilant as well as a few others. Thank you and Thank God.