2 hours ago
While this news from Anthony Stine is based on an anonymous source — which should be treated with some caution until confirmed — the article below nonetheless makes a compelling case that the meeting did in fact take place, judging at least from Michael Matt's own conduct. - The Catacombs
Chris Jackson via Hiraeth in Exile [Emphasis - The Catacombs] | Jul 22, 2026
On April 27, 2025, Michael Matt looked into the camera and announced what would happen if the conclave produced another Francis.
“We will resist Francis II to his face.”
He spoke with the confidence of a veteran editor who had survived twelve years of Francis and learned the lesson. Matt reminded viewers that he had resisted Francis “honorably,” with “no regrets,” because resistance belonged to the duty of loyal Catholic sons. Days later, after quoting Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s declaration that Catholics owe no obedience to false doctrine, Matt supplied the conclusion himself:
“So there are the marching orders.”
The line now reads like prophecy with a taste for black comedy.
A little more than a year later, Anthony Stine reported that a highly placed source had described an actual meeting in Rome between Cardinal Müller and prominent traditional Catholic media figures. According to Stine, Müller urged them to stop attacking the newly elected Leo XIV—to surrender, soften their coverage, and give the new pope room.
Stine said his source specifically identified Taylor Marshall and unnamed others as having changed course after Müller’s intervention. Stine added that, as far as he knew, no money changed hands. The apparent inducement was the hope that friendly treatment of Leo might bring relief for the traditional Latin Mass.
An anonymous source deserves careful handling. There is no recording of the alleged meeting, no verified guest list, no admission from Müller, and no confession from the media figures said to have attended. Anyone presenting the report as a fully proved fact would outrun the evidence.
Fortunately, the case no longer rests upon that report alone.
Michael Matt recorded himself before, during, and after the conclave. His own broadcasts trace the whole transformation: the promise to resist; the instant search for encouraging rumors; the elevation of papal clothing and temperament over the new pope’s announced program; the insistence that Leo was changing; the ridicule of journalists who continued examining his record; the public discussion of a possible conclave “quid pro quo”; the demand that Catholics “cool it”; and the premature declaration that the revolution had already lost.
These videos turn an anonymous allegation into something far more serious. They reveal that Matt publicly adopted the exact strategy Stine’s source attributed to Müller, whether the strategy arrived through a private meeting, informal conversations in Rome, or Matt’s own eagerness to believe that Vatican access could purchase a reprieve.
The currency appears to have been influence, respectability, access, and hope for liturgical concessions. Cash would almost have made the arrangement less embarrassing.
Before the Conclave: “We Will Resist”
Matt’s pre-conclave position was admirably clear.
Francis had exposed the revolution. A successor continuing Francis’s program would have to be opposed. The laity possessed an active responsibility beyond prayer. Catholic loyalty required resistance when Roman authorities promoted error. Matt said he had done exactly that throughout the Francis years and felt no regret.
His analysis before the conclave also recognized the institutional facts. Francis had created most of the electors. The conclave was intensely political. The Holy Ghost did not mechanically select the pope. External forces, alliances, personalities, and ecclesiastical factions could influence the result. Criticism of a pope therefore could never be dismissed as criticism of the Holy Ghost.
Matt’s April 2025 programs contained none of the timid uncertainty that would appear after Robert Prevost emerged on the loggia. He spoke of a hostile takeover of the Church. He invoked Müller’s warning that a heretical pope would be catastrophic. He promised to resist another Francis “to his face.” He called the faithful to active resistance and closed by treating Müller’s words as “marching orders.”
That standard matters. Matt later portrayed immediate scrutiny of Leo as rash, immature, un-Catholic, strategically stupid, and driven by clicks. Yet before the conclave, he had already laid out the opposite standard: examine the record, identify continuity with the revolution, and resist openly.
The principle changed only after the man wearing the white cassock changed.
Much more in the rest of the article, here: https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/sell...no-mullers
Selling Us Out Over Sagrantino: Müller’s Marching Orders to Trad Inc.
Anthony Stine’s source, TLM Ryan’s public reversal, Taylor Marshall’s deleted warning,
and Michael Matt’s own words expose a year of coordinated silence sold to traditional Catholics as prudence
Anthony Stine’s source, TLM Ryan’s public reversal, Taylor Marshall’s deleted warning,
and Michael Matt’s own words expose a year of coordinated silence sold to traditional Catholics as prudence
Chris Jackson via Hiraeth in Exile [Emphasis - The Catacombs] | Jul 22, 2026
On April 27, 2025, Michael Matt looked into the camera and announced what would happen if the conclave produced another Francis.
“We will resist Francis II to his face.”
He spoke with the confidence of a veteran editor who had survived twelve years of Francis and learned the lesson. Matt reminded viewers that he had resisted Francis “honorably,” with “no regrets,” because resistance belonged to the duty of loyal Catholic sons. Days later, after quoting Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s declaration that Catholics owe no obedience to false doctrine, Matt supplied the conclusion himself:
“So there are the marching orders.”
The line now reads like prophecy with a taste for black comedy.
A little more than a year later, Anthony Stine reported that a highly placed source had described an actual meeting in Rome between Cardinal Müller and prominent traditional Catholic media figures. According to Stine, Müller urged them to stop attacking the newly elected Leo XIV—to surrender, soften their coverage, and give the new pope room.
Stine said his source specifically identified Taylor Marshall and unnamed others as having changed course after Müller’s intervention. Stine added that, as far as he knew, no money changed hands. The apparent inducement was the hope that friendly treatment of Leo might bring relief for the traditional Latin Mass.
An anonymous source deserves careful handling. There is no recording of the alleged meeting, no verified guest list, no admission from Müller, and no confession from the media figures said to have attended. Anyone presenting the report as a fully proved fact would outrun the evidence.
Fortunately, the case no longer rests upon that report alone.
Michael Matt recorded himself before, during, and after the conclave. His own broadcasts trace the whole transformation: the promise to resist; the instant search for encouraging rumors; the elevation of papal clothing and temperament over the new pope’s announced program; the insistence that Leo was changing; the ridicule of journalists who continued examining his record; the public discussion of a possible conclave “quid pro quo”; the demand that Catholics “cool it”; and the premature declaration that the revolution had already lost.
These videos turn an anonymous allegation into something far more serious. They reveal that Matt publicly adopted the exact strategy Stine’s source attributed to Müller, whether the strategy arrived through a private meeting, informal conversations in Rome, or Matt’s own eagerness to believe that Vatican access could purchase a reprieve.
The currency appears to have been influence, respectability, access, and hope for liturgical concessions. Cash would almost have made the arrangement less embarrassing.
Before the Conclave: “We Will Resist”
Matt’s pre-conclave position was admirably clear.
Francis had exposed the revolution. A successor continuing Francis’s program would have to be opposed. The laity possessed an active responsibility beyond prayer. Catholic loyalty required resistance when Roman authorities promoted error. Matt said he had done exactly that throughout the Francis years and felt no regret.
His analysis before the conclave also recognized the institutional facts. Francis had created most of the electors. The conclave was intensely political. The Holy Ghost did not mechanically select the pope. External forces, alliances, personalities, and ecclesiastical factions could influence the result. Criticism of a pope therefore could never be dismissed as criticism of the Holy Ghost.
Matt’s April 2025 programs contained none of the timid uncertainty that would appear after Robert Prevost emerged on the loggia. He spoke of a hostile takeover of the Church. He invoked Müller’s warning that a heretical pope would be catastrophic. He promised to resist another Francis “to his face.” He called the faithful to active resistance and closed by treating Müller’s words as “marching orders.”
That standard matters. Matt later portrayed immediate scrutiny of Leo as rash, immature, un-Catholic, strategically stupid, and driven by clicks. Yet before the conclave, he had already laid out the opposite standard: examine the record, identify continuity with the revolution, and resist openly.
The principle changed only after the man wearing the white cassock changed.
Much more in the rest of the article, here: https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/sell...no-mullers
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre