Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew on September 04, 2018, 11:57:11 AM

Title: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 04, 2018, 11:57:11 AM
Tell me a bit about yourself personally.

I am 41 years old, married, with 7 children. My children are 2-12 years old, all girls except for the oldest. We live in rural Texas, about 1/2 hour from San Antonio. My profession is Software Developer. My life philosophy is "renaissance man" or polymath, and I apply this to my career as well. By that I mean I wear dozens of different hats. I can handle machinery (chainsaw, weedwhacker, tractor, riding mower), use various tools (axe, shovel, lopper, saw, hoe), pour concrete, light a fire (with no liquid accelerant), and other down-to-earth activities but I can also bake, cook, write a sonnet, mend clothing, or sing all kinds of music. I know how to make an old sink or toilet look as good as new. I'm a "jack of all trades, master of few". I was born in Illinois, and my wife is a native Texan. We both have mostly German heritage, but unlike my wife I am part Irish (hence my last name), which keeps things interesting.


Did you go to college?

No, as far as my career goes I am self-taught, but I did spend three and a half years at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. The academic standards and discipline were quite high, at least compared to most modern colleges.


Where do your kids go to school?

They are homeschooled. My wife "rolls her own" curriculum. While we're on the topic, my wife and my girls all wear dresses and skirts 24/7. We are an integrally Catholic ("Catholic 7 days a week") Trad family. Considering the man of the house was heavily influenced by Bishop Williamson, this should be expected.


Why did you start CathInfo?

Back in 2006 I was newly married and my wife and I had a lot more free time than we have today. My wife found the Fisheaters forum and we both joined. We both love living and discussing the Faith, and socializing with other Trad Catholics. But we found the atmosphere there a bit too stifling, feminist, and restrictive. They didn't allow discussion of the various conspiracies (Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, etc.) or sedevacantism. I didn't really care about the sedevacantist cause, but I did think it was ridiculous to forbid topics willy-nilly. I started CathInfo as an alternative forum with a much lighter moderating hand. Several months later, I got banned from Fisheaters after getting into an argument with an emotional feminist. I then began posting on, and promoting, CathInfo full-time. In other words, I didn't read or post anywhere else.


What is your personal position on the Crisis in the Church?

I support the worldwide SSPX Resistance, led by the faithful Bishops Williamson, Faure, Thomas Aquinas, and Zendejas. I supported the SSPX for years before that. I hold to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Pope question, which explains my support for the SSPX and then the SSPX Resistance.


How do you explain the current Crisis in the Church?

Short answer: I don't. It is unheard-of and unthinkable that the Pope should preside over the greatest self-destruction ever recorded in Church history. It is mysterious, and to attempt to understand it would require peering into the mind of God Himself. Since such a feat is above me, I am unable to fully explain or understand the current Crisis. What I do know, however, is that life goes on. This life is still a test on which hinges the eternal salvation of each one of us. We still have to save our souls. That requires the Catholic Faith. The Mass and the Sacraments haven't ceased to be critical avenues of grace. We must seek out these means of salvation as a first and highest priority. We must learn the Faith ourselves and pass it on to our children. Catholics still need to be baptized, confess their sins in sacramental confession, eat the Body of Blood of Our Lord as He commanded, become soldiers of Christ in Confirmation, get married in the sight of God through Matrimony to propagate the human race and Catholicism, and so forth. Life goes on. So while I believe a full understanding of the Crisis is impossible, nevertheless we can understand enough of it to take prudential action. We know what we must do: keep the Faith. The Traditional Catholic movement is the answer. Namely: stay completely aloof from the Conciliar Church, seek out true priests, Masses and Sacraments, and don't worry about permission from Rome (we don't need it). We need no permission from any man, even the Pope, to keep the Faith or stay Catholic.


What is your position on the "preferred Missale" issue?

I grew up with the 1954 (or maybe it was 1945) Missale, and after 2000 I attended the SSPX which uses the 1962 exclusively. I have observed no difference(s) whatsoever in the congregations at the chapels I've attended. In every possible way you could measure it, the practical effects on the congregations were the same. Therefore I have no choice but to conclude that it makes no difference whatsoever, whether the priest uses the 1945 or the 1962 Missal.


What version of the Bible do you prefer?

Based on what I've already said about myself, you won't be surprised to hear that I prefer the Douay-Rheims Bible, Challoner revision (the one sold by TAN Books for decades).


What is your position on the Flat Earth issue?

I think it's interesting at times, and a lot of people really want to discuss it, but I'm not convinced by any means personally. Let's put it this way: I see no reason to forbid the topic. I don't believe any historical or scientific topic should be taboo or forbidden for people to discuss. I do believe the Earth is the very center of the universe, with everything revolving around it. I was firmly convinced by "Galileo was Wrong" and "The Principle". I never knew that scientists didn't have a single experiment, a single proof, that shows the Earth moves.


While we're on the topic of Science, allow me to ask: Did we land on the moon?

We did not. I find the pro-hoax arguments to be extremely convincing. Especially the fact that no advanced nation has done anything on the Moon, or even anything beyond Low Earth Orbit, for the past 50 years. That evidence speaks volumes to me. NASA claiming they lost the technology to go there is just the icing on the cake. I believe the Van Allen Belts surrounding the Earth are an impenetrable obstacle for human flesh. That is why we never venture beyond Low Earth Orbit. In the entire history of man going into space, the "Moon landings" of the early 1970's stand out as a statistical aberration. If they want to convince the doubters that we landed on the Moon, having any advanced nation send a man beyond Low Earth Orbit would be a start.


What people or experiences helped shape your views on the Crisis in the Church?

Well, I was brought up Traditional Catholic at a small independent chapel. My parents met at TAN Books and Publishers, which is a family business owned (until 2009) by my father's uncle Thomas A. Nelson. I worked at TAN Books for many years myself. I attended St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (SSPX) from 2000 - 2003. I also spent a couple years attending Mass with the Institute of Christ the King (a group approved by Rome) when they came to town in the mid 1990's. So personal experience taught me a great deal about the various groups.


When did you first support the SSPX?

I grew up at an independent Trad chapel run by Thomas A. Nelson. In 2000, I began pursuing a vocation to the priesthood. Our priest pointed me to St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN. While I waited for the Fall semester to begin, I read a bunch of books on the Crisis and was inspired by the works of Archbishop Lefebvre. My parents were always pro-SSPX, but during my childhood the SSPX was a non-issue because the nearest chapel was 1.25 hours away. Our independent chapel was 20 minutes away. But I still remember the gist of my mother's comments on news stories back in 1988: "Disobedient? Rebel? Look at all the names they call the heroic bishop. Grrrr....", "Someday they will have to admit: Archbishop Lefebvre helped save the Church!", "The Archbishop will be canonized someday!"


When did you first support the SSPX Resistance?

On day one, as soon as Bp. Fellay's perfidy became public. I was already predisposed to believe the SSPX was losing it, ever since that infamous German media interview. If you recall, Bp. Fellay threw Bp. Williamson under the bus back in 2009. I completely sided with Bp. Williamson in this conflict. When Fr. K anonymously posted the famous letters on CathInfo on May 10, 2012 (Letter of the One to the Three, and the Letter of the Three to the One) that is what really started the Resistance. Ever since that fateful day, CathInfo has been ground zero for the Resistance, or its de-facto online headquarters. CathInfo was already a popular message board, but I did have to ban a lot of "accordistas" and strong pro-Fellay agitators from the forum. I immediately began supporting the SSPX Resistance effort in any way I could, including spreading the word openly at my local SSPX chapel, and working hard to have Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko come say Mass at a very primitive version of St. Dominic's Chapel. (This was before Fr. Pfeiffer went off the deep end). To me, the Resistance is just the continuation of Archbishop Lefebvre's prudent branch of the Traditional movement.


What is your position on Feeneyism?

I completely disagree with the Feeneyites, at least as I understand them. But I'll admit I've never looked into the issue very deeply. I only know what I've been told about them. I believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as taught by the Council of Trent. God is free and is not limited to His ordinary means. I also prefer St. Thomas Aquinas whenever he conflicts with St. Augustine. But I think that most of the endless discussions of EENS, implicit faith, membership in the Church, etc. are not time well-spent, unless you are a priest and/or trained theologian. For my purposes, every non-Catholic needs to be converted to the Traditional Catholic Faith and water baptized, period. That will be my recommendation for 100% of potential converts I come across. And I completely oppose the false ecumenism of Vatican II which killed the Church's missionary spirit. But for me, opposing Vatican II is enough. I don't care if some priest wants to trace the false ecumenism of Vatican II to some earlier seed, long before Vatican II. Practically speaking, the Church was OK before Vatican II and was not OK after it. So to me the whole thing is academic, like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. The academic discussions of what is necessary for a pagan to save his soul completely bores me, as it should because it's not my field. It is above me, and above my training. I am only concerned with the practical: Send in the missionaries already! All non-Catholics need to be taught the whole Catholic Faith and water baptized. We Traditional Catholics have bigger fish to fry, like dealing with the neo-pagan Modern World. In summary, discussion of these topics requires theological knowledge -- it should be done by theologians trained in Traditional Catholic universities and seminaries. I am not a theologian, nor do I play one on TV. So I remain aloof from these discussions, which are not profitable for me (or for most Catholics) to engage in.


Since you're not a Feeneyite yourself, why do you allow them on CathInfo?

Firstly, I keep all discussion touching on Feeneyism in a single sub-forum, since many (most?) people don't want to hear it. But some people can't get enough of such discussion -- both pro and con. Who am I to forbid them to discuss what they want to discuss? Secondly, because it's impractical and near impossible to forbid entire topics of discussion on a discussion forum -- topics which are often closely related to many other topics. I have nothing but contempt for Angelqueen's infamous and laughable moderation policy, where they inserted [BLEEP] every time "Sedevacantist" or "Sedevacantism" was mentioned. Notice that AQ is dead and irrelevant as a forum today. No one mentions AQ anymore, except in a historical context. It sounds good at first glance to "ban Feeneyites", but where does it end? EENS? Membership in the Church? Catholic doctrine on Salvation? Baptism? It's too hard to carve out an exact forbidden area with no ambiguity. The same with Fisheaters banning all discussion of "conspiracies" back in 2006. Does that include all conspiracies, even those with tons of evidence? So any case of 2 or more men getting together to work evil, without being completely open about their plans to the whole world, is forbidden? That's an awfully broad definition.


What is your position on Sedevacantism?

I disagree with sedevacantists, because I hold the so-called "Recognize and Resist" position exemplified by Archbishop Lefebvre. The Archbishop speaks for me on this issue. I do consider most sedevacantists to be Catholic. I consider the Dimond Brothers and other extremists to be schismatic, since they take a chainsaw to the Mystical Body of Christ by excommunicating all and sundry. Some sedevacantists are consumed by bitter zeal. I consider the Pope question to be a prudential matter, or a matter of opinion, touching on this unprecedented Crisis in the Church. No one has the certainty of Faith on the Pope question. Just like no one can fully explain the Crisis in the Church, no one can fully explain the Pope crisis either. The most any of us have is a best guess. I believe sedevacantism solves no problems but only creates more problems. It adds nothing over and above the benefits you get from the "plain vanilla" Traditional Catholic package. But everything I said just now about Feeneyism applies to Sedevacantism as well: way too many people waste far too much time on this topic. We have more important things to worry about.


Would you care to elaborate what important things you refer to?

Mostly related to being Catholic, and raising one's children Catholic in this Modern World. You have issues with family, schooling, economics, men have to deal with sodomites and other pagans, many Catholics have difficulty finding a place to attend Mass, Catholics try to have a natural-sized family ("all the children that God sends") but they are the first ones in their family to do so -- their parents and grandparents can't even help with advice. Men have to find work wherever they can, which often involves uprooting the family. Women and girls have to make their own clothes because the stuff they sell at the store is only fit for whores. Parents are concerned about the effect the world will have on their children. "Where will I find suitable friends for my children, and suitable spouses for my grown children?" I hope you see what I'm getting at. All of these crucial, practial, life-or-death issues, and people want to argue about the status of the Pope. No thanks. I say: as long as you're resisting him, and completely aloof from Modernist Rome and the Conciliar Church, you're good.


What kind of Catholics do you want on CathInfo?

All Traditional Catholics are welcome. All who can rationally discuss with other Traditional Catholics are welcome. However, they need to be able to get along with those who disagree with them on disputed points. Lay-popes, or those who act as judges or arbiters of truth and attempt to put down "the final, definitive word" on centuries-long theological debates, are not welcome and won't last long here. If you are not the Pope, please do not pass off your opinion as a "Papal Bull". Since you are not the Pope, it is not Papal. So we are left with "Bull".
CathInfo members should all realize that their chosen group is nothing more than a lifeboat -- yes, even the grand old SSPX. How much wealth does the SSPX have, just in real estate, worldwide? I'm sure the answer would shock most Catholics. And yet they are fundamentally in the same boat as Bp. Zendejas and his small network of around 6 chapels. Emergency jurisdiction doesn't magically morph into normal jurisdiction from the Pope just because you cross a certain number of parishioners, a 25th year in business, or $1 Billion in assets.


Where do you attend Mass?

I attend "St. Dominic's Chapel", a Resistance chapel under Bp. Zendejas which happens to be on my property. I am the chapel coordinator.


Do you prefer High Mass or Low Mass?

Definitely High Mass. My whole family is really into music, and we know lots of Chant, including many versions of the Kyriale, and many Traditional hymns. I taught all my kids that Mass of the Angels is overrated and overused. My son plays the organ, and my oldest 2 girls play the violin. I am a vocalist (tenor). I think I get that from my Irish heritage.


Do you have any pet causes?

Yes, I do. I am trying to get Traditional Catholics to go "back to basics", back to their roots, back to a simpler time when there was less division. We need to focus on what unites us, not the side issues that divide us. Some issues just aren't that important. Maybe it's my Irish side talking, but I'm very down-to-earth and practical. I strongly value education, knowledge, and culture, but I have no use for sterile, academic, ivory tower discussions a.k.a. "intellectualism".


What is your least favorite group in the Traditional Movement?

First of all, I think you mean, "the broader, anti-Vatican 2 movement" because all Traditional Catholics are more or less OK with me by definition (despite some disagreements on side-topics here or there). But among those who claim to be against Vatican II, there is one group that really boils my blood, and that is the "dogmatic home-aloners". These are they who hate Vatican II and the new religion, but they believe there are no priests and bishops left, or that the Traditional Movement is still not legitimate to support. They stay at home on Sunday for dogmatic reasons, hence the "dogmatic" adjective. A normal Catholic without a Traditional Mass option who happens to stay at home on Sunday through no fault of his own is a home-aloner per accidens or only by coincidence. But the dogmatic home-aloners believe that getting into lifeboats is forbidden, so they flounder about in the open sea. Having lived in a Traditional lifeboat for my entire life (my parents met at a Traditional Catholic book publisher, and were married at a Traditional independent chapel), I can fully appreciate the folly of this group. They fail to realize that life has to go on, especially when the Crisis was intended by God to last 50+ years. Moreover, they are dead-wrong on their judgment regarding the validity of a priest or bishop. Their theology is obviously flawed.


You said you're into music. What other kinds of music do you listen to?

Eclectic would best describe my taste. Any music I listen to must be real music, it must be objectively beautiful: melody, harmony, and rhythm. But as a family we listen to a lot of classical, folk, Irish, and instrumental music. I guess I would call it "video game music" or instrumental music that is exciting, with a beat, that you can work to, or dance around the living room to. You can find "Epic Battle Fantasy" on Youtube. Another good example is "Bullet Heaven - Following Your Star" by HalcyonicFalconX.


What else do you like to do? What hobbies do you have?

Spending time with my family and/or rural living, for starters. I am digging a pond with a garden tractor and front loader. It would be much easier with a backhoe, or something more powerful like a bobcat. But it's a good challenge. But all the dirt from the pond is also being used to build a "mountain" which the kids like to play on. If you live where it snows, you know what snow mountains are. Basically my mountain is the same, only made of heavy clay soil so it exists year-round. We are also mowing a path in a small wilderness on my property, and the kids plan to make a fort or campsite. Lots of fun to be had in the country!


Do you have any animals?

We have one chicken that lays eggs, and a bunch of outdoor cats and kittens. We have a wild deer that comes by often and isn't afraid of people. All our food scraps go to the cats. We're mostly cat people here. Our kids need to get a bit older before we try larger animals; they are a lot of work and the kids need to be able to take care of them.


What is your favorite drink?

Iced tea, unsweetened. If it's anywhere near bedtime, decaf as well. No carbs for me.


Margarine or butter?

We don't even stock margarine in this house. Butter all the way. It's more natural. Bp. Williamson used to call margarine "plaaaaaaastic".


Thank you for taking the time to do this interview. Do you have any parting statements before I go?

Yes. I'd like to remind everyone that we are all Catholics trying to do our best to please God and get ourselves and our families to heaven. Just because you disagree with a person doesn't make him the devil. Your "opponent" is probably 99% like you, except for one or two side issues you happen to disagree on. Try to get along with as many people as possible.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 04, 2018, 11:58:18 AM
If anyone has any other good questions, please let me know. The "interviewer" isn't far away, and I know him pretty well.

:jester:

My favorite part is where I thank myself for my time.  :laugh1:

Seriously, though, I had a good reason for creating this "Interview":

1. A trusted source told me that people were coming up to him and asking, "Is Matthew a Feeneyite?" and/or "Is Matthew a Sedevacantist?"

2. It's always good to know that a real human being lives behind that screen name. We are all fragile, flawed human beings with struggles, hopes and dreams. This world is tough; in fact, no one makes it out alive!


I didn't think it was possible to become famous without people knowing anything about you. If they know about me or CathInfo, haven't they read ANY of my posts? This Interview is meant to hand "the real me" out to the world on a silver platter, so it's that much harder to get it wrong. In other words, to counter any misinformation, assumptions, or rumors that might be flying about. Time for a good hearty dose of truth, right from the horse's mouth.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: confederate catholic on September 04, 2018, 01:27:53 PM
You are also a fair moderator and deal with a lot on this site. Keep up the good work. :cheers: 
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 04, 2018, 01:36:25 PM
What is your position on Feeneyism?

I completely disagree with the Feeneyites. I believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as taught by the Council of Trent. God is free and is not limited to His ordinary means. But I think the endless discussions of EENS, implicit faith, membership in the Church, etc. are all wastes of time. 

I'm not going to get into the BoD question per se, but no, no, no ... EENS, implicit faith, and membership in the Church are NOT "wastes of time".  As Bishop Williamson tried to hammer into us, ideas matter.  Those ideas regarding implicit faith and looser criteria for membership in the Church are the theological foundations for all the Vatican II errors.  If we don't understand those points and come to a Catholic understanding of them, we cannot and do not justify our Resistance to Vatican II.  I've never spent five minutes of my time arguing BoD with someone UNLESS they also happened to inject these modern/modernist ecclesiological errors along with them.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 04, 2018, 01:39:34 PM
I might be one of the few here who prefer Low Mass.  I like the quiet ... even moreso after having been blessed with 6 children, who leave me no more than 5 minutes with my own thoughts most days.  Ah, whatever happened with the traditional sentiment of "children should be seen, not heard"?  For someone who was most drawn to a contemplative life, this is by far my single biggest cross ... the constant sound and noise ... even if innocent and wholesome.  When I did my first 5-day retreat (before seminary), while others couldn't wait for it to be over, I couldn't get enough and didn't want it to end.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 04, 2018, 01:43:57 PM
A trusted source told me that people were coming up to him and asking, "Is Matthew a Feeneyite?" and/or "Is Matthew a Sedevacantist?"

SeanJohnson spreading rumors?
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: klasG4e on September 04, 2018, 01:44:17 PM
Thanks Matthew.  It was very interesting and uplifting to read of your background.  After reading it I was somewhat surprised, however, that you as a tradCat would say that your life philosophy is "renaissance man."  I certainly don't think Pius X or Marcel Lefebvre would have ever wanted to associate that philosophy with themselves, but perhaps I'm missing something here.  In any event, I thought you might want to at least change the wording for a different expression in so much as the Renaissance is generally thought of as the start of the demise of Christendom.

Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 04, 2018, 01:49:28 PM
Overall, though, I must say that i have never felt the desire to participate in any other forum than CI.  I enjoy the disagreements and the exposure to people with different positions (even the Flat Earth stuff).  It all helps me to think more deeply about things.  I would be downright bored on a forum where everybody was a theological clone of myself.  Probably would post once ever few months in the recipe section.  Now, my wife has a completely different personality than I do ... very upbeat and outgoing, whereas I am very reserved and tend toward melancholic.  When she lamented our differences (in that regard) at some point, I told her that I loved the fact that she's so different, that she has all these qualities that I naturally lack (that I wish I had but simply do not), that I enjoy these vicariously in her.  I didn't want to marry a female clone of myself ... as I would want to strangle her ... LOL.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: forlorn on September 04, 2018, 02:04:47 PM
Quote
I consider the Dimond Brothers and other extremists to be schismatic, since they take a chainsaw to the Mystical Body of Christ by excommunicating all and sundry.
I was in the Dimond camp for a long time, and it's this that drove me away from them and made me realise they're nuts. Imagine a 60 year old man when Vatican II was in session. He had been a faithful Catholic all his life, going to Mass every Sunday and trying his best to live a virtuous life, and going to Confession whenever he faltered. Vatican II comes and goes and he's a bit surprised and confused about the Mass being in English now, but the Church does what the Church does and he has no reason to question it. This was before the internet, a random working man somewhere might never have even heard of the SSPX when it came around, let alone that the new Sacrament of Ordination is somehow invalid due to a change in the prayers said. That's far too deep and esoteric for a random layman to know about, especially when he has no internet. So he continues on, living his life well and devout, until one day the local parish Priest changes and the new one is a young man who was recently ordained under the new Rite. The man keeps going to Mass and continues going to Confession under this new Priest. And eventually a years later the man gets ill and passes on as all men eventually do, and receives his Last Rites(but under the new form). 

According to the Dimonds, any man like that one in the story was damned to Hell if he committed a single mortal sin in all the years after the young Priest took over the Parish. All the Confessions and the Last Rites were apparently invalid due to the new rite of Ordination and the man was damned despite having no way of knowing that. And even if the man didn't commit a single mortal sin in all those years, he'd STILL probably be damned according to the Dimonds because he went to a Novus Ordo mass and believed in the "Vatican 2" religion rather than the Catholic faith, again despite the fact he'd have no way of knowing any of that. And there were millions and millions of Catholics who died in the situation of that hypothetical man - and according to the Dimonds, and I've asked them this to confirm, ALL those Catholics were damned through no fault of their own(although the Dimonds insist it is their fault because "the information was out there!" despite the fact that not even the Dimonds themselves were sedevacantists until the 90s). 

Even if the Dimonds were right about sedevacantism, all those Sacraments being invalid, etc.(which is a HUGE if), the assertion that tens of millions of Catholics could be damned through no fault of their own like that is an absolutely ridiculous notion. It's exactly like what you said - they take a chainsaw to the Mystical Body of Christ and cut off basically everyone who isn't a member of their monastery or a user of their website. 
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Smedley Butler on September 04, 2018, 02:06:10 PM
Question: why the beard?
:popcorn:
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: forlorn on September 04, 2018, 02:11:20 PM
Thanks Matthew.  It was very interesting and uplifting to read of your background.  After reading it I was somewhat surprised, however, that you as a tradCat would say that your life philosophy is "renaissance man."  I certainly don't think Pius X or Marcel Lefebvre would have ever wanted to associate that philosophy with themselves, but perhaps I'm missing something here.  In any event, I thought you might want to at least change the wording for a different expression in so much as the Renaissance is generally thought of as the start of the demise of Christendom.
Renaissance man means polymath 
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 04, 2018, 02:11:55 PM
Thanks Matthew.  It was very interesting and uplifting to read of your background.  After reading it I was somewhat surprised, however, that you as a tradCat would say that your life philosophy is "renaissance man."  I certainly don't think Pius X or Marcel Lefebvre would have ever wanted to associate that philosophy with themselves, but perhaps I'm missing something here.  In any event, I thought you might want to at least change the wording for a different expression in so much as the Renaissance is generally thought of as the start of the demise of Christendom.


A "renaissance man" is a specific thing. I thought this was a popular term.
Ren·ais·sance man
ˈˌrenəˈˌsäns man/
noun

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]


If it WEREN'T "a thing", or if one were unfamiliar with the definition (above), one might mistakenly take it to mean "a child of the Renaissance" or something ... not true at all.[/font][/size]
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 04, 2018, 02:13:45 PM
Question: why the beard?
:popcorn:

Why not? I guess I could say it's because I'm not a low-T, beta soy-boy. On the contrary, I'm more of a high-T, alpha, meat-eating conservative. hahaha

But a more serious answer -- St. Matthew had a beard. I'm not a Baby Boomer, so I never understood the whole "clean cut/clean shaven/look like a 12 year old boy" thing. Let's just say that "clean-shaven as a virtue" is not part of my values or culture at all. I have more in common with Millennials in this regard. For me, a beard (or the ability to grow one) is a sign of testosterone and general manliness.

As my hair started thinning on top, I chose to grow a beard instead. I've had a beard about like this since 2012 or so. The beard, together with my general muscular build (I have forearms like Popeye), makes me seem scarier than I actually am. At least when I'm not smiling. I've actually never been in a fight.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 04, 2018, 02:18:55 PM
SeanJohnson spreading rumors?

Perhaps. I would even say it's likely. 
But I'm going to leave aside the Sean Johnson subject for now. I'm not done with him yet though!
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 04, 2018, 02:30:27 PM
I'm not done with him yet though!

:furtive:

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Smedley Butler on September 04, 2018, 03:49:00 PM
Just wondering. 

The Marines view clean-shaven as a virtue.

And tactical.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: forlorn on September 04, 2018, 04:14:13 PM
Just wondering.

The Marines view clean-shaven as a virtue.

And tactical.
Societal views on beards change constantly, but our Lord had a beard so you can't go too far wrong with one. 
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Maria Regina on September 04, 2018, 04:20:39 PM
That is a very manly beard, Matthew!

My husband, a Veteran, also wears a beard.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Nadir on September 04, 2018, 05:03:12 PM
Question: why the beard?
:popcorn:
Umm. He's a man.
(I'm not surprised that your downvotes are more numerous than your posts.)
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 04, 2018, 05:23:31 PM
Bp. Williamson confirmed you in a firehouse hall a few years ago, right?

Nope.

I guess we're just smashing rumors and misinformation left and right, aren't we now? hahaha
Do I have a doppelganger?

I was confirmed in the Indult (via Institute of Christ the King, done by the local bishop) in the late 90's, and then during my Seminary years I was conditionally confirmed by Bp. Williamson in Our Lady's chapel in a small private ceremony. It was probably around 2001. When the question of confirmation validity came up, I completely left it up to them.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 04, 2018, 05:32:53 PM
I heard Matthew prefers margarine to real butter.  Say it ain’t so!!

No blankety-blank way!

We don't even stock margarine in this house. Butter all the way. We also drink only whole milk (wish it was fresh from the cow, but we're not that fortunate). Why pay the dairy to take out part of the milkfat? The milk is usually the same price. I can't stand lowfat milk.
The adults in this house are on an Atkins-style diet. Lots of fats, meat, and veggies -- not much in the way of carbs or sugar.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Nick on September 04, 2018, 06:04:23 PM
 :applause: :ready-to-eat:

That response elicited my very first smile of the day. Thank you. I apprentice this thread, it's a timely reminder. God bless you and yours !
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: MyrnaM on September 04, 2018, 06:25:59 PM
Thank you for the read.   :)
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Struthio on September 04, 2018, 07:21:58 PM
Quote from: Matthew
So to me the whole thing is academic, like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Well, it should not even depend on whether the head of the pin is flat or spherical, given the answer for the tip of the pin.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on September 04, 2018, 08:58:26 PM
I enjoyed reading your interview.   
( my husband has a goatee)
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: JoeZ on September 04, 2018, 09:53:16 PM
Question: why the beard?
:popcorn:
A man has a beard by nature and therefore needs a reason to shave. One cannot question why a man has a beard, you can only question why he shaves.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 05, 2018, 05:34:36 AM
I'm not going to get into the BoD question per se, but no, no, no ... EENS, implicit faith, and membership in the Church are NOT "wastes of time".  As Bishop Williamson tried to hammer into us, ideas matter.  Those ideas regarding implicit faith and looser criteria for membership in the Church are the theological foundations for all the Vatican II errors.  If we don't understand those points and come to a Catholic understanding of them, we cannot and do not justify our Resistance to Vatican II.  I've never spent five minutes of my time arguing BoD with someone UNLESS they also happened to inject these modern/modernist ecclesiological errors along with them.
.
I thought it was an interesting interview, even if done facing a mirror, but that one paragraph on "Feeneyism" is a real blemish.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: ranlare on September 05, 2018, 06:20:15 AM
Thank you for the informative selfie interview. It has been archived.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 05, 2018, 09:25:51 AM
.
I thought it was an interesting interview, even if done facing a mirror, but that one paragraph on "Feeneyism" is a real blemish.


Neil, I took most of your post and moved it to the proper subforum, along with a detailed response from me:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/response-to-neil-obstat/

I have been around the block a few times; I know this is the kind of discussion that can completely derail a thread. Not gonna happen.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: XavierSem on September 05, 2018, 10:47:11 AM
Very nice "interview" with a great deal of practical wisdom. Should be stickied. I agree almost 100%. Catholics should be firmly united in faith and love with each other, resolved to grow deeper in union with God each day, and advance in grace and holiness; all the while firmly focused on working for restoration in Rome and the Church. I mostly agree with the mainstream SSPX and firmly believe that exorcism where it was said, "After a long struggle, Econe will triumph". But lately I've been thinking the "Feeneyite" (that's a misnomer, it's really the Augustinian position - St. Augustine said, "Perish the thought that one predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the Sacrament of the Mediator" [Absit enim, ut praedestinatus ad vitam sine Sacramento Mediatoris finire permittatur hanc vitam](Aug. c. Julianum. 5, 4, 14) - at the same time, not denying, that Cornelius had received Baptism of Desire, as a catechumen, and then also Baptism in Water, in Acts in the Bible - the Church has also said St. Augustine's teaching on grace and predestination is absolutely safe and may be freely held and taught) issue is misunderstood and the Augustinian position is legitimate. The Thomistic teaching is great as well (all men predestined for salvation will receive the grace to become Christians before the end of their lives) and both of these can and should be openly preached for the Church to be restored. If Church authorities were not teaching that not only Jews and Muslims and pagans, but also atheists and agnostics and secularists could be saved without converting, much of the current crisis would not have happened. But I wholly agree with "For my purposes, every non-Catholic needs to be converted to the Traditional Catholic Faith and water baptized, period. That will be my recommendation for 100% of potential converts I come across." Also really like, "I'd like to remind everyone that we are all Catholics trying to do our best to please God and get ourselves and our families to heaven."
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 05, 2018, 10:58:29 AM
I have been around the block a few times; I know this is the kind of discussion that can completely derail a thread. Not gonna happen.

Well, yeah, the mere mention of some hot button issues can derail any thead into 100 pages, and you touched upon several of these:  sedevacantism, Feeneyism, geocentrism, flat earthism, moon landing, the Missal version, Low Mass vs. High Mass, Bible version, Resistance vs. SSPX, butter vs. margarine, your favorite drink, being a cat person.  I can spin off the official butter vs. margarine thread now if you'd like to nip that one in the bud.

So this thread is loaded.   :laugh1:  You'll need to stay on top of it.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: MyrnaM on September 05, 2018, 11:28:11 AM
Yes, Ladislaus but don't forget during an interview many subjects should be touched upon, and those reading here need to respect his honest answers whether or not they agree with them or not, considering the theme of the thread as "getting to know Matthew, the moderator/owner" better.  

At least that is the way I looked at it.

My favorite awakening was the "beard."
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 05, 2018, 11:54:29 AM
My favorite awakening was the "beard."

Well, yes, I did find something else that I share in common with Matthew, despite our differences ... we have a nearly identical hairline.  Though I did just turn 50 a couple months ago, so there.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 05, 2018, 11:57:23 AM
I can handle machinery (chainsaw, weedwhacker, tractor, riding mower), use various tools (axe, shovel, lopper, saw, hoe), pour concrete, light a fire (with no liquid accelerant), and other down-to-earth activities but I can also bake, cook, write a sonnet, mend clothing, or sing all kinds of music. I know how to make an old sink or toilet look as good as new.

Reads very much like a "singles" ad for any eligible ladies in Texas (where these skills are most important for a man).   :laugh1:   Don't forget that you're also adept at dispatching venomous snakes (a must for Texas).   Mrs. Matthew had better be on the lookout.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 05, 2018, 12:10:42 PM
Reads very much like a "singles" ad for any eligible ladies in Texas (where these skills are most important for a man).   :laugh1:   Don't forget that you're also adept at dispatching venomous snakes (a must for Texas).   Mrs. Matthew had better be on the lookout.

I guess it's too bad for all the ladies then...I'm taken.  8)

I didn't mean to sound like a singles' ad, but my interview would be seriously deficient if I didn't touch on this key part of my life philosophy: always learning, being as well-rounded (polymath/ Renaissance man) as possible.

I love lists like this:
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/100-skills-every-man-should-know/
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 05, 2018, 12:57:02 PM
I didn't mean to sound like a singles' ad ...

I know.  I was just having some fun with you.

We do have a lot in common.

I'm a bit older, 50.

former STAS seminarian

6 kids (2 boys and 4 girls) -- most Trads look down on me for having too few, but I was 32 and my wife 29 when we got married

Computer Programmer by trade

I DID get a college degree, but was basically self-taught in programming (as my degrees are in Greek and Latin ... so no bearing on my current profession)

I agree with your overall philosophy of how you run the board, even if I don't see eye to eye on all the individual issues.

I think that margarine was invented by the devil (butter all the way).

... but I greatly dislike cats (much prefer dogs).  Only thing I like about cats is that, in Buddhism, the cat was said to be the only animal to refuse to bow down to Buddha.  So I'll give it credit for that at least.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Kazimierz on September 05, 2018, 01:00:00 PM
Tell me a bit about yourself personally.

My life philosophy is "renaissance man" or polymath, and I apply this to my career as well. By that I mean I wear dozens of different hats. I can handle machinery (chainsaw, weedwhacker, tractor, riding mower), use various tools (axe, shovel, lopper, saw, hoe), pour concrete, light a fire (with no liquid accelerant), and other down-to-earth activities but I can also bake, cook, write a sonnet, mend clothing, or sing all kinds of music. I know how to make an old sink or toilet look as good as new. I'm a "jack of all trades, master of few".
A most interesting glimpse into he who watches over this sight. :)
Your picture reminds me a bit of St. Benedict, even though his beard is longer. ;D
A man of varied talents which means you can likely whistle Dixie as you clean your muzzleloader. :cowboy:
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Kazimierz on September 05, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
I know.  I was just having some fun with you.

We do have a lot in common.

I'm a bit older, 50.

former STAS seminarian

6 kids (2 boys and 4 girls) -- most Trads look down on me for having too few, but I was 32 and my wife 29 when we got married

Computer Programmer by trade

I DID get a college degree, but was basically self-taught in programming (as my degrees are in Greek and Latin ... so no bearing on my current profession)

I agree with your overall philosophy of how you run the board, even if I don't see eye to eye on all the individual issues.

I think that margarine was invented by the devil (butter all the way).

... but I greatly dislike cats (much prefer dogs).  Only thing I like about cats is that, in Buddhism, the cat was said to be the only animal to refuse to bow down to Buddha.  So I'll give it credit for that at least.
This ole bear is 51, so respect your elders! :P (cough cough hack wheeze) I feel ancient. ???
Like cats, dogs, bears, wolves. Have a cat that owns me. Paraphrasing CS Lewis "A Cat and her bear"
BA in English, History, Philosophy
MDiv equivalent
M.Th. with doctoral level thesis (no big whoop really. just an academia nut)
Single but tried out my vocation in many places.
Otherwise a country loving , mountain hugging, gun packing Alberta Secessionist  of a Templar Knight disposition ;) :cowboy:
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 05, 2018, 01:27:48 PM
6 kids (2 boys and 4 girls) -- most Trads look down on me for having too few, but I was 32 and my wife 29 when we got married
I know, and I am extremely critical of such poor excuses for Trads. Some Trads need to learn how to MYOB (Mind Your Own Business).

Being open to life, avoiding birth control and NFP, and having 9+ children are NOT synonymous.

In fact, being open to life and having as many children as physically possible are also not synonymous. The Duggars are an example of the latter. Mrs. Duggar didn't do much breastfeeding, since that negatively affects a woman's fertility. Some women are completely infertile while they full-time breastfeed. And yet, breastfeeding is natural, designed by God, and therefore what's best for the baby. I would even say that breastfeeding your baby is God's will in most cases.

Anyhow, these Pharisaical Trads also need to learn basic manners and what is socially acceptable behavior: because, frankly, some atheists and pagans have them beat.
The phrase "socially retarded" comes to mind.

Some Trads embrace the Trad package because it means being contrarian, so they can rub it in the world's face. They actually enjoy being a sign of contradiction to the Modern World. That can be a good starting point for spiritual growth, but it can also be a starting point for narcissism and pride. Hint: when you compare the size of your family to others, as though it's a contest, you're not on the right path.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Geremia on September 05, 2018, 03:47:38 PM
My profession is Software Developer.
Do you work from home?
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 05, 2018, 03:53:51 PM
I know, and I am extremely critical of such poor excuses for Trads. Some Trads need to learn how to MYOB (Mind Your Own Business).

Being open to life, avoiding birth control and NFP, and having 9+ children are NOT synonymous.

In fact, being open to life and having as many children as physically possible are also not synonymous. The Duggars are an example of the latter. Mrs. Duggar didn't do much breastfeeding, since that negatively affects a woman's fertility. Some women are completely infertile while they full-time breastfeed. And yet, breastfeeding is natural, designed by God, and therefore what's best for the baby. I would even say that breastfeeding your baby is God's will in most cases.

Yeah, it's funny that I routinely get derided by people in the world for having 6, but then looked down on by Traditional Catholics for having 6.  There's one woman at our local chapel here who pops a child out every 9 months.  Having gotten married practically the day she turned 18, she's on pace to have 25-30.  She too doesn't breastfeed (IMO on purpose) because it's like some contest she has going on with her sister (who's trying to do the same thing).  I'm just waiting for her to get induced at 7 months going forward.  And, yes, breastfeeding does tend to space children out about 2 years apart.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Ladislaus on September 05, 2018, 03:56:56 PM
Since cats have been mentioned, I mistyped Cathinfo, leaving out a character (not having actually hit that key when reaching for it) ... and ended up here --

https://catinfo.org/
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Kazimierz on September 05, 2018, 04:44:53 PM
Since cats have been mentioned, I mistyped Cathinfo, leaving out a character (not having actually hit that key when reaching for it) ... and ended up here --

https://catinfo.org/
Is that called a con-cat-ination? :P
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 05, 2018, 04:48:21 PM
Yeah, it's funny that I routinely get derided by people in the world for having 6, but then looked down on by Traditional Catholics for having 6.  There's one woman at our local chapel here who pops a child out every 9 months.  Having gotten married practically the day she turned 18, she's on pace to have 25-30.  She too doesn't breastfeed (IMO on purpose) because it's like some contest she has going on with her sister (who's trying to do the same thing).  I'm just waiting for her to get induced at 7 months going forward.  And, yes, breastfeeding does tend to space children out about 2 years apart.
I think if God meant for the average family to have double-digit children, then polygamy would still be a thing (that is, a permissible thing, like in Old Testament times). 
Those children DO need to be raised as well. Educating children is a lot of work for 2 parents. Hooray for not artificially limiting family size, but do they have to go to the opposite extreme? They almost make a mockery of Traditional Catholics when they do that.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: forlorn on September 05, 2018, 04:50:44 PM
Yeah, it's funny that I routinely get derided by people in the world for having 6, but then looked down on by Traditional Catholics for having 6.  There's one woman at our local chapel here who pops a child out every 9 months.  Having gotten married practically the day she turned 18, she's on pace to have 25-30.  She too doesn't breastfeed (IMO on purpose) because it's like some contest she has going on with her sister (who's trying to do the same thing).  I'm just waiting for her to get induced at 7 months going forward.  And, yes, breastfeeding does tend to space children out about 2 years apart.
Breast-feeding is actually crucial for a child's long term health and development, it's a shame that even many Trad mothers are skipping it. 
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: forlorn on September 05, 2018, 04:52:58 PM
I think if God meant for the average family to have double-digit children, then polygamy would still be a thing (that is, a permissible thing, like in Old Testament times).
Those children DO need to be raised as well. Educating children is a lot of work for 2 parents. Hooray for not artificially limiting family size, but do they have to go to the opposite extreme? They almost make a mockery of Traditional Catholics when they do that.
Agreed, I don't think double-digit families were EVER the norm. They certainly existed, but even long before birth control had ever been invented, most families didn't have that many kids. 
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 05, 2018, 05:16:28 PM
Think of it this way: Trads (or any other woman) who don't breastfeed their babies are setting them out to be different from Our Lord at the tender age of 1, 2, or 5 weeks old. If they can't imitate Our Lord at 5 weeks old, how can they hope to imitate Him later in life when it is so much more difficult?

How will the children understand how much Jesus loved His mother, when they aren't as bonded to their own mother, due to skipping breastfeeding which is known to create a strong bond between mother and child? Especially if the mother goes on to work outside the home, send children to public school, etc.

Religion doesn't happen in a vacuum. Nature is a foundation that grace builds upon.

How can we do God's will in difficult things when we can't even follow basic dictates of nature as God designed it?
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Geremia on September 05, 2018, 06:44:57 PM
Nature is a foundation that grace builds upon.
But our nature needs grace just to return back to normalcy, even before we can do things beyond nature's ability.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Pax Vobis on September 05, 2018, 09:29:08 PM
Quote
How will the children understand how much Jesus loved His mother, when they aren't as bonded to their own mother, due to skipping breastfeeding which is known to create a strong bond between mother and child?
Right.  I know there are circumstances where a mother can't breastfeed, but it seems like it should be the normal way.  I mean "infant formula" is a modern invention of the 1950s.  In the past, if a mother's couldn't feed (for whatever reason), they had a 'wet nurse' or some other alternative.

p.s.  My comment might be a distraction, so feel free to delete or move.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Struthio on September 05, 2018, 10:28:47 PM
My favorite part is where I thank myself for my time.  :laugh1:

My favorite part is:

Quote from: Matthew
What kind of Catholics do you want on CathInfo?

All Traditional Catholics are welcome. All who can rationally discuss with other Traditional Catholics are welcome. However, they need to be able to get along with those who disagree with them on disputed points. Lay-popes, or those who act as judges or arbiters of truth and attempt to put down "the final, definitive word" on centuries-long theological debates, are not welcome and won't last long here. If you are not the Pope, please do not pass off your opinion as a "Papal Bull". Since you are not the Pope, it is not Papal. So we are left with "Bull".

I am "Cradle Catholic" but not a "Cradle Trad" like you are. I rejected the conciliar sect A.D. 1980 when I was 17. They had told me, that rules had changed and that it is not necessary to be a Catholic anymore to please the Lord. I left, because I realized that they didn't even believe that the Gospels are true reports. I had heard about Lefebvre at school, but he was presented as some kind of rebel/amish/jehovas witness. 25 years went by before I was kicked back to the faith. Now, other than a "Cradle Trad", I needed justifiable reasons to reject the conciliar sect and move ahead to the SSPX, later to the Resistance, then to my "authority-vacant" position.

I spent much time on many a topic in the past 13 years. Looking for good substantiation of my decisions. When judgement comes around, I hope to be pardoned.

With respect to the "more important things" you mention, I have less a load. My wife is more zealous than I am, and then there is a dog only.

What I have learned in studying, researching, and debating trad issues, is: In many cases, one can do the most obvious thing. For example, on the one hand, one can argue many topics connected to the question whether a certain cleric has lost his office; on the other hand, it is simply absurd to accept someone as an apostolic authority, who walks and houls like a wolf. A study of the Magisterium and/or theologians is never useless, but on the other hand it is not really needed. Noone waits for the judge to condemn the pedophile teacher before making sure that his child is out of danger. So, for all practical purposes, it is the right thing to assume, that the wolf does not represent the authority of our Lord.

Another example is religious liberty. It is infallibly condemned. But one doesn't even have to know that, to reject it. It is idiotic. They say that God on the one hand reveals commandments and threatens severe punishment, and on the other hand provides a natural right to ignore him and his commandments and punishments. As if God was a lunatic (like they themselves are).



If anyone has any other good questions, please let me know. The "interviewer" isn't far away, and I know him pretty well.

Why did you require that one has to have "Trad heroes"? Catholics have as heroes the Lord and his virgin mother Mary, apostles, popes, fathers, saints etc. My special heros are all the fathers of the Vatican Council and of the Council of Trent, St. Pius V. with respect to the mass, and St. Pius X. with respect to modernism. Also I am not a Trad (and they are Catholics). I am a Catholic (and they are the conciliar sect, as Lefebvre appropriately called them).




Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: CJH on September 05, 2018, 11:12:45 PM
I know, and I am extremely critical of such poor excuses for Trads. Some Trads need to learn how to MYOB (Mind Your Own Business).

(snip)

Anyhow, these Pharisaical Trads also need to learn basic manners and what is socially acceptable behavior: because, frankly, some atheists and pagans have them beat.
The phrase "socially retarded" comes to mind.

Some Trads embrace the Trad package because it means being contrarian, so they can rub it in the world's face. They actually enjoy being a sign of contradiction to the Modern World. That can be a good starting point for spiritual growth, but it can also be a starting point for narcissism and pride. (snip)
I snipped out the parts about family size because the comments above are right on in a general sense, not just about that topic.
I love the traditional faith, but find many trads to be unbearable.  That's why I agree with what you said in the interview about many of the theological arguments not being beneficial to the average Catholic.  Pray, and live the faith.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Kazimierz on September 06, 2018, 09:45:48 AM
No doubt many of us have encountered those radical Trads who were just too imbalanced. Pride and hardheadedness amongst one particular matriarch I unfortunately had to deal with. She got into a loggerhead dispute with the priest, got seriously miffed, and the whole family ended up going back to the Nervous OhNo. Certainly shows a Faith poorly grounded.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 06, 2018, 09:58:20 AM
Why did you require that one has to have "Trad heroes"?


It's simple.

It borders on blasphemy to sit there claiming the Trad movement hasn't begun, or that God hasn't sent anyone to help us during this time in the desert.

That isn't how God has worked in the past. There have always been heroes or prophets sent by God to help His people through trying times. Why wouldn't he do this in the New Testament, for Catholics who are in a special way part of Jesus Christ Himself (via the Mystical Body)? God always gives help, especially to those of good will and those with eyes to see and ears to hear. The Trad movement fits this modus operandi perfectly. It's difficult enough, but still within reach of virtually everyone WHO WANTS IT.

If God sent Moses and Joshua to lead the Chosen People through the desert, why would He leave the faithful Catholics, part of the Mystical Body, COMPLETELY FLOUNDERING with no help or guidance for 50+ years?

That's not the God I know, love, and serve.

See what I'm saying? This isn't about suffering or trials. God has always tried those He loved like gold in the furnace. However, in those trials there was always a path, a certain amount of guidance, and a way to deal with it.

This is why I have zero respect, and nothing but criticism, for those who would throw the entire Traditional Movement into the rubbish bin or stay aloof from it.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 06, 2018, 12:02:07 PM

Only thing I like about cats is that, in Buddhism, the cat was said to be the only animal to refuse to bow down to Buddha.  

So I'll give it credit for that at least.

.
Cats don't bow down to anything, that is, unless they're getting ready to grab it and EAT it.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 06, 2018, 12:07:45 PM

A man of varied talents which means you can likely whistle Dixie as you clean your muzzleloader. :cowboy:

.
Then you could say, "He's not just whistlin' Dixie!"                         
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 06, 2018, 12:29:27 PM
Since cats have been mentioned, I mistyped Cathinfo, leaving out a character (not having actually hit that key when reaching for it) ... and ended up here --

https://catinfo.org/
.
Looks like a useful site for sage advice, from a DVM, with a grateful cat named Robbie. Doesn't have such a bad life:
.
(https://catinfo.org/website/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Robbie-window-3-web-300x284.jpg)(https://catinfo.org/website/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Robbie-head-in-cat-food-web.jpg)
Saying "Thank you" for dinner....................... Checking out tomorrow's handcrafted menu.
.
Author, Lisa Pierson, DVM, explains in detail Robbie's health crisis which she remedied by designing a special diet for him.
The best pets are often those who are rescued from life-threatening situations, as if they're aware they owe everything to you.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 06, 2018, 12:47:46 PM
Quote
Why did you require that one has to have "Trad heroes"? Catholics have as heroes the Lord and his virgin mother Mary, apostles, popes, fathers, saints etc. My special heros are all the fathers of the Vatican Council and of the Council of Trent, St. Pius V. with respect to the mass, and St. Pius X. with respect to modernism. Also I am not a Trad (and they are Catholics). I am a Catholic (and they are the conciliar sect, as Lefebvre appropriately called them). 
.
All throughout history God has provided contemporary living saints for the current generation, whenever it was. 
.
We are not left on our own quasi-Deist-like where everything was set in motion long ago and God is at a vast distance.
.
Although I never met him myself, I met several others who had known Padre Pio firsthand.
.
A great saint has a way of rubbing off on others, their spirit is contagious; this is a very important feature of a living faith.
.
There's only so much you can glean from reading books --- it takes real one-to-one interaction with living people. 
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 06, 2018, 02:58:14 PM
Claiming that God has stopped sending us saints, ESPECIALLY in a great time of tribulation like the past 50 years, is also quite foolish. Anyone who suggests something like that must not know God very well.

And if there are saints today, where would we find them? They might be sprinkled here and there, but I guarantee you a bunch of them would be in the Traditional Movement. I've read enough Lives of the Saints to confidently make that prediction. Now we might be surprised about who they are -- quietly praying in the back of the chapel next to their walker (because they are 90 years old and can't walk very well) rather than vesting for Mass in the Sacristy... but I digress.

Nothing against Trad priests today -- I'm just extrapolating from actual Lives of the Saints, and private revelations that have been given to us in the past. I distinctly remember a certain person was shocked to hear from God that the holiest person in the parish was actually a married housewife or something like that. Also, the number of canonized parish priests in the past 200 years: isn't it just the Cure of Ars and maybe Fr. Miguel Pro?
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Struthio on September 06, 2018, 10:52:40 PM
It's simple.

It borders on blasphemy to sit there claiming the Trad movement hasn't begun, or that God hasn't sent anyone to help us during this time in the desert.

That isn't how God has worked in the past. There have always been heroes or prophets sent by God to help His people through trying times. Why wouldn't he do this in the New Testament, for Catholics who are in a special way part of Jesus Christ Himself (via the Mystical Body)? God always gives help, especially to those of good will and those with eyes to see and ears to hear. The Trad movement fits this modus operandi perfectly. It's difficult enough, but still within reach of virtually everyone WHO WANTS IT.

If God sent Moses and Joshua to lead the Chosen People through the desert, why would He leave the faithful Catholics, part of the Mystical Body, COMPLETELY FLOUNDERING with no help or guidance for 50+ years?

That's not the God I know, love, and serve.

See what I'm saying? This isn't about suffering or trials. God has always tried those He loved like gold in the furnace. However, in those trials there was always a path, a certain amount of guidance, and a way to deal with it.

This is why I have zero respect, and nothing but criticism, for those who would throw the entire Traditional Movement into the rubbish bin or stay aloof from it.


Thank you, Matthew, for the detailed answer.


With respect to "claiming that God hasn't sent anyone to help us during this time in the desert."

I do believe that there certainly will be a final time of tribulation without precedence (Mt 24, Dan 12). Our Lord will let the reign of Antichrist happen. The prophecies about the final time of tribulation speak of the worst time on earth ever. They don't sound as if there will be much help for the announced scattered handful of faithful left. Rather the opposite: Affliction.

We may or may not live in this final time of tribulation, when the Church will be "in eclipse" (as St. Jerome said in "In Danielem"). I don't know. My guess is: yes we do. But that's just a guess.

We may on the other hand live in some other sort of tribulation, less dramatic. Yes, 50 years already, but the last tribulation is announced to be the worst. Then this is a situation not prophecised. At least I wouldn't be aware of the prophecy. You say: then God would send a prophet. Given, you're right, we'd better follow that prophet.

But why do you want folks to have "a Trad hero"? Wouldn't it have to be a specific hero? Wouldn't it have to be the prophet God sent us? Or did he send more than one? Wouldn't Feeney be a false prophet? Or Pfeiffer? What about Pagliarini?

Most impressing and helpful to me was Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer. Even more than Abp Levebvre. Both did formidable work. But then: what happened to the majority of their sheep? What happened to the institutions they founded?

Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Struthio on September 06, 2018, 11:24:45 PM
All throughout history God has provided contemporary living saints for the current generation, whenever it was.
.
We are not left on our own quasi-Deist-like where everything was set in motion long ago and God is at a vast distance.

What are you talking about? "God at a vast distance" or "quasi-Deist-like"?

I don't see any living saint. Maybe you are one, maybe Matthew is one. Not joking! But I rather stick to the saints declared and defined by popes who recognisibly acted like popes.


Although I never met him myself, I met several others who had known Padre Pio firsthand.

Padre Pio is a Novus Ordo Saint, canonized by JPII. I know that that's not a fault of Padre Pio. But I prefer to stick to saints I can safely accept as such.


A great saint has a way of rubbing off on others, their spirit is contagious; this is a very important feature of a living faith.

The Council of Trent uses the term "living faith", signifying that the faithful is not only faithful but also in the state of grace (decree on justification in one of the canons). The faith is living in case the faithful acts according to the will of Our Lord.

I have never heard about contagious spirits which are transmitted by direct or indirect corporeal contact. Books are better:


There's only so much you can glean from reading books --- it takes real one-to-one interaction with living people.

No, no, no! You better avoid people as good as you can. Read Thomas à Kempis: The Imitation of Christ, one of the most popular and best known Christian books on devotion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_%C3%A0_Kempis) By the way: He's a Rheinländer (and not Irish).
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Nadir on September 07, 2018, 01:43:49 AM

Quote
Struthio said:
I don't see any living saint. 

How far does your vision reach?
Is it necessary for a saint to be a public or well-known figure, and so to be visible?
How many faithful are being persecuted, tortured for their faith in lands outside America?

By the way St Pio was never an Novus Ordo priest, and he is not a Novus Ordo saint either, regardless of who canonised him.
.
A living saint (in the sense of living in this world) is one who cannot yet possibly have the stamp of approval by the Church as a saint. That doesn’t mean one cannot recognise  one. I myself, I have no doubt, have experienced living with two saints. There are others who are hidden from us.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Stubborn on September 07, 2018, 06:37:43 AM
My favorite part is where I thank myself for my time.  :laugh1:
LOL
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: cassini on September 07, 2018, 08:01:38 AM


Matthew, why does your forum have like and dislike options?

In my experience it allows a kind of bullying of opinions,
especially with regard to comments on the SSPX and the Resistance.

All one needs is half a dozen 'get lost' hits for someone to move on to a different subject thinking their opinion is not wanted or needed.

Surely a forum, especially a Catholic one, should allow debate on a subject to decide if it has merit or not, and not be allowed put down by annonomous persons clicking on 'dislike.'

That said Matthew, many thanks for allowing debate on subjects that other Catholic forums will ban you for bringing them up. 
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Struthio on September 07, 2018, 12:03:48 PM
Quote from: Nadir
How far does your vision reach?
Is it necessary for a saint to be a public or well-known figure, and so to be visible?
How many faithful are being persecuted, tortured for their faith in lands outside America?

By the way St Pio was never an Novus Ordo priest, and he is not a Novus Ordo saint either, regardless of who canonised him.
.
A living saint (in the sense of living in this world) is one who cannot yet possibly have the stamp of approval by the Church as a saint. That doesn’t mean one cannot recognise  one. I myself, I have no doubt, have experienced living with two saints. There are others who are hidden from us.

I don't say that there are no saints living on earth today or no martyrs dying for Christ today. Also, I don't mind people who recognize saints. I just don't think it is a duty to do so.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: alaric on September 08, 2018, 07:17:03 AM
Great interview Matthew, I've been reading your forum for years now, so what you presented was pretty much what I knew about you already, although I've learned some of the more intricacies of  some of your beliefs, like the "Flat Earth" nonsense (which I believe, even with my limited knowledge is preposterous) or the "Moon-landing hoax", which, I gotta admit, some things just don't add up (Like why the hell haven't we've gone back in almost half a century?), but I do have some of my own assumptions based on the evidence at hand. However, I digress into the interview.

While I'm not SSPX or Sede (which I believe many are loons), I do sympathize with both camps at times and lean more with the Lefebvre-ites who have a valid case against the "Romans". But, I will admit, I haven't enough knowledge about the whole situation. I do consider myself a "trad" Catholic and will only attend the TLM in the "Conciliar" Church how you put it. I don't have time to go into the how and why I still attend Mass in these conciliar churches, but I'm a few years older than you and remember a time when the "NO" was a lot more conservative, just after the effects of VII begun taking place in my local parish and Catholic school I attended, so with the Summorum Pontificum that Benedict issued over a decade ago, held out hope for me to return to the  pre-VII days of old, which is where I am now, so to speak.

Also, I absolutely agree with your positions on the "Crisis" and "Sede" issue. You pretty much nailed it.

As for this;

Quote
All who can rationally discuss with other Traditional Catholics are welcome.
I couldn't agree more. Especially the key word "rationally". I really can't deal with a bunch of zealous, irrational nutters.

There's enough of them on the other "trad" Catholic forums out there.

Speaking of which, we do have something in common as we were both "banned" from FE years ago, probably about the same time over pretty much the same damn issues with the femi-nazis and closeted (or not) sodomites infesting that place. which to me was a shame, because they had some pretty good reads there at one time and Quis actually turned me on to your site because of my more "controversial" opinions and worldviews on things like race, the jews and anti-sodomite issues. Seems that almost the whole Internet is absoultuely terrorized over the mere "discussion" of these topics, which just goes to show you, ((who)) realy is running the show on the Web these days.

Anyway, again, great interview, and I really appreciate you site and how you handle yourself as a moderator, thanks for the oppourtunity for other Trads to have a place for sane, sound  reasonable dicussion, debate and conversation. (without the threat of KGB-like retaliation)

I'll comment more on your interview as time permits.
Title: </about>?/Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: AlligatorDicax on September 10, 2018, 02:01:43 PM
I'm quite pleased that you decided to produce & post the interview.

It partially resolves a pet peeve I have: Web sites that have no page devoted to what the Web site is about.  My peeve resulted from my years of providing a separate Web page (i.e., not a mere side-bar) that lists external Web sites (e.g., CathInfo).  After presenting my own comments on each, which might be a mixture of laudatory-vs.-critical [#], it seems only fair that I link to a single Web page on that external site that presents its owner's, moderator's, or webmaster's own claims, goals, or other summary material.  So as considered for  CathInfo, that would be a page where you might discuss your Web site's history and current significance to the Resistance, summarize the establishment of your St. Dominic chapel, and link to the </about> pages of Bp. Williamson and each of those whom he consecrated.  It's a Web-page suitable for more content than would seem advisable nowadays (if exercising the "further review" of the season) to still be squeezing into each & every header or footer on CathInfo.

Alas, a disappointly high proportion of quite useful external Web-sites provide no such Web-page.  But when provided, it would preferably be maintained as a static page, e.g., <www.cathinfo.com/about/ (http://www.cathinfo.com/about/)>, to be kept free from extraneous content, including any & all follow-on discussion.  Providing such a page has been customary on a wide variety of Web-sites for well more than a decade--if not 2.  If & when you were to decide that you omitted important content that ought to be presented about yourself as moderator, or your site overall, just edit it in (then also please update that static page to display a conspicuous revision-date, preferably near the top, not the bottom, of the page).

I really do not want that page, when on, e.g., a Catholic Web-site, to be cluttered with changeable content, e.g., a schedule of chapel Masses & sacraments, a saint-of-the-day biography, nor latest news from Menzingen or the Vatican; such content can easily be provided on a Web-site's main page if one believes he must, but better yet, on separate Web-pages, e.g., <www.cathinfo.com/schedule/ (http://www.cathinfo.com/schedule/)> or <www.cathinfo.com/chapel/ (http://www.cathinfo.com/chapel/)>, <www.cathinfo.com/todays-saint/ (http://www.cathinfo.com/todays-saint/)>, or <www.cathinfo.com/news/ (http://www.cathinfo.com/news/)> (all 3 now hypothetical).

To satisfy readers eager to see the discussion that followed your original posting, you would simply link the static page to this topic as posted at <https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/interview-with-matthew-the-moderator/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/interview-with-matthew-the-moderator/)>.

Please keep in mind that I opened this reply by expressing approval of your interview posting.  I know fully well that I have no standing to change anything about the organization of CathInfo.  But I would like to believe that a fellow "Software Developer" would grant favorable consideration to the logic & merit of what I'm recommending.  And I have no doubt that you already know technically how to make it happen.

-------
Note #: Think of the fun you could have with F.E. if ever in a really bad mood!
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Capt McQuigg on September 11, 2018, 04:33:06 PM
Now that I know what Matthew looks like, I must say that it doesn't match up with what I imagined him to look like.  I imagined him looking like the guy in the red shirt in the picture I am posting.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Smedley Butler on September 15, 2018, 12:37:45 PM
Question for Matthew:

Asked this on another thread, but maybe you missed it.

You said you grew up with Bp. Slupski.

If you consider him to be a legitimate bishop, wouldn't you then also consider Bp. Trinh to be legitimate? 
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: Matthew on September 15, 2018, 02:53:57 PM
Question for Matthew:

Asked this on another thread, but maybe you missed it.

You said you grew up with Bp. Slupski.

If you consider him to be a legitimate bishop, wouldn't you then also consider Bp. Trinh to be legitimate?

1. I didn't "grow up with him" -- that makes it sound like we were schoolyard pals. He was considerably older than me :)
He was ordained about 15 years before I was even born.

2. He isn't a legitimate bishop anymore, since he is deceased. RIP+

3. I have no reason to consider him NOT legitimate, no more or less than any other Thuc-line bishop.

4. I didn't witness his consecration, so I can't really speak to its validity with any authority. I don't talk about anything and everything regardless of ignorance or knowledge. When I open my mouth, it means I know what I'm talking about and I'm certain about something. That keeps it simple for readers.

5. The validity of his consecration doesn't affect me at all, since I don't attend Mass in that part of the country (the Midwest, specifically Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio), nor in the Sedevacantist milieu that Bp. Petko, Fr. Ramolla, etc. exist in. Almost everything Bp. Slupski ever did only affected the Midwest. I no longer live in that part of the country.

6. As far as I know, Bp. Trinh is legitimate -- again, I just don't know. He is currently on another secret sabbatical (his last un-announced sabbatical lasted 2 years), so even those who live by one of his chapels (specifically, the one near Austin, TX) don't attend his Masses at the moment.
Title: Re: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator
Post by: MyrnaM on September 15, 2018, 06:14:51 PM
Now that I know what Matthew looks like, I must say that it doesn't match up with what I imagined him to look like.  I imagined him looking like the guy in the red shirt in the picture I am posting.
A while back ago, Matthew put up a thread for all who wanted to participate put up their picture, he assured us he would delete the thread after a bit, it was just there so we can see what each of us looked like.  It was fun and surprising since as you say, most of the time no one looked as they were imagined.  Maybe that is the way life is, others see us differently than we really are, not only in looks but personality too.