There are examples over the past decades of converts and reverts who take up positions of teaching responsibilty whether in cloth, (Fr. John Corapi, Fr, Z, Father R, Father Moderator, Dimond Brothers), or have appointed themselves thanks to the new media, (Matt, Voris, Marshall, keating, Jimmy Akin).  Often we know nothing of the backgrounds of such people, yet, their opinions appear to carry more weight with more Catholic, than do those of Bishop Williamson who has been plugging away for decades.  And certainly more than those of the remaining 3 SSPX bishops who are more or less silent.

Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of Catholics are accessing the information they use to make determinations from these new media platforms.  They are not seeking out the thrice annual newletter of the SSPX which is 3 months behind every new heresy coming from Rome.

The Catholic identity conference was oversold.  Next year it will have well over 1000 attendees.  There is no doubt there is a momentum building coming from Pope Francis wringing the sponge and forcing conservatives to take a position.


So, as to these new media priests and laymen.

We have to forgive their past sins, yet have to be prudent not to be lead into error.

We have to be gentle as lambs, yet wise as serpents.

We have to accept late workers to the vineyard, but what grandmother likes to be taught how to suck eggs?

What is the correct way to make a determination as to whether to listen or ignore, or whether to encourage or warn.  The example of St. Paul is often used to defend these lay preacher (Voris particularly), but how far do we take this?  If George Soros converts and becomes a traditionalist do we believe him, or think he is infiltrating?   The infiltrators are hardly likely to make it obvious.

How many St. Pauls are there in history?  How do we know who is a St. Paul and who is Paul VI?

If we make any prudential decision to critique them, or question their sinful past, or their current suitability to preach, we are labelled as judgmental.  If they seek to "unite the clans", and we point out that some of the clans have infectious diseases and it would be prudent to have a state of quarantine we are labelled as "schismatic".

Prudence therefore appears to be useless, except for our own ability to ignore and reject.  As soon as we make our prudential doubts heard we are attacked as judgmental.  There appears to be no underlying guiding principle to determine which cannot be shot down as judging.

Whilst being right does not depend on numbers of supporters, the impact of any group, trend, change, in the world does depend on those with the loudest voices and largest audiences.  If General Patton had the newspapers behind him in 1945/46/47 we would not have the world we do today and he would have taken the fight to the communists.  If Marcel Lefebvre had a billion dollar war-chest and JP2 firmly on his side and making him a cardinal in 1979, we would not have the mess in Rome we do today.  Even if JP2 has been killed in the 1981 assasination attempt, that a martyr Pope had backed Cardinal Lefebvre would have made an ENORMOUS difference and during the rest 1980s Lefebvre would have got the support of 100million Catholics.  He might have even been made Pope Pius XIII.

Barring any divine intervention, the future will be determined, steer, influenced by these talking heads in the new media, just as the present was determined by the past actions and non actions.

There appear to be 2 actions one can take.

1.  Ignore being called judgmental and just continue to warn and speak your mind.  The problem with this is that so many people buy into this idea of judging nobody ever.

2.  Say nothing, look after yourself, and let the talking heads spread the error they spread.

What do you think?  How do you make these determinations?

Pardon if I misunderstand, but the implication is that ''our' opinion matters and we are part of a clan worth uniting. This is not so. These people have many cogent arguments and in a lot of ways, they are on the right path, superficially. The underpinnings of all of these Michael Matt and Taylor Marshall groups is that Vll, although not "loved" is still licit and is to be followed, or at least given a "hat tipping" as a valid council. They will complain about Francis when Paul Vl and JPll did the same or worse ( just didn't have the immediate info-spreading of the internet- they were able to hide and deny a lot easier) even while Michael Matt seems to reject Vll, his actions belie him- he only invites consiliar bishops (Schneider) and has only recently expanded to SSPX since they started to make their move towards acceptance by the Romans. He does not consider Bishop Williamson et al "legitimate', or at least not mainstream enough to include.
The four Bishops holding fast to the Faith without compromise are not even considered a part of the Church by these people.
So the conservative semitrads consider this a 'new" crisis, when the institutional Church has been in crisis for over 60 years, if not longer.

I suspect the "unite the clan" movement would come to an abrupt halt if BXVl were re-installed as pope and Francis was kicked out, and everything returned to it's recent consiliar past. They consider that "Tradition" enough.

Where did this guy Taylor Marshall come from? He is everywhere now when I go online. Google is pushing him on me and amazon is trying to get me to buy his book. I do wish the talking heads would make certain things obvious and clear so we could judge them. Clearly state their position on the Jєωs and what they think about 9-11 would be a good start.

Like the OP said -- how nice of them to join us. But know your place. No seasoned veteran likes to be bossed around by a new recruit that just came out of Basic Training! Generally speaking, such new recruits have *nothing* to teach a 30-year seasoned veteran. And frankly, they should show some respect.

Nothing new.  Even here the 30 year veterans presume to teach and boss around the 70-80 year old veterans.  

I saw it in a thread at SuscipeDomine, when one poster was complaining about Voris they were called out as "being judgemental",  the poster who made a compliant then offered to pay a contribution to the forum for every similar judgment anyone could find anywhere on the internet about Voris.  I looked myself and could not find any and neither could anyone else.  I think someone came up with a grand total of 1 in the end.  Nearly every comment was supportive of Voris'.  Almost zero were in anyway judgmental.  I cannot find the thread any longer but that was the crux of it.

Wait, everyone supported Voris? I did not. I publicly do not support Voris right now. I think he should be silent as the humblest monk in a monastery for at least a few years, though I will not question his sincerity, and not be the most public spokesman for conservative Catholicism. He is not getting married so this would be possible. It is like the Jєωs chose him for us in jest and said to us "we know you hate sodomy so we will make your leader a sodomite and you will not complain or we will shout you down as a bigot!"

Wait, everyone supported Voris? I did not. I publicly do not support Voris right now. I think he should be silent as the humblest monk in a monastery for at least a few years, though I will not question his sincerity, and not be the most public spokesman for conservative Catholicism. He is not getting married so this would be possible. It is like the Jєωs chose him for us in jest and said to us "we know you hate sodomy so we will make your leader a sodomite and you will not complain or we will shout you down as a bigot!"

Matto, you may have misread what I wrote above.  I did not say that everyone supported Voris at Suscipedomine.com but rather that with one part of the forum labelling the others "uncharitable and judgmental" that when offered monetary incentive to demonstrate this judgmentalism existed anywhere outside the forum, nobody could find much, if any, such comments critical of Michael Voris  within the hundreds if not thousands of supportive comments after he admitted being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ in April 2016.
As a lerker I felt that was something of a wake up moment for me.  The fact was that judgmentalism is very rare, and getting rarer as the younger generation are brainwashed to think all perversion is just youthful error at the very worst.  It was impossible to find in the many, many comments of the conservative Catholic bloggers who wrote about Voris's mea culpa.  I read dozens of blogs and could not find any.
And this leaves me wondering today where Prudence lives and how it operates, since it would appear to require judgment.  How for example would Catholics stop the Church from being infiltrated by sodomites, freemasons, etc, if they had to give every effeminate seminarian the benefit of the doubt and avoid "judgmentalism".  And if every freemason simply confessed it and was forgiven with no more said how could they be stopped from becoming priests?
There is a reason we don't let felony convicts own guns, if you get my point.  Society judges them to be far too risky.  I am certain that some of them are reformed and one or two are holy.  Yet they are not allowed firearms to defend their homes.  

In the last 5 years he has changed his mind and admitted he was wrong about Trads and the SSPX.  I watch his videos and he is moving right at warp speed.

I follow him on twitter and he just tweeted that Archbishop Lefebvre was never schismatic.

1) I never heard of him before 4-5 months ago;

2) He is promoted by all the wrong people;

3) He is supportive of the rallied SSPX;

4) Never heard him promote the Resistance.

All of this adds up to an unavoidable conclusion:

He is basically an indultarian.