Author Topic: The Remnant newspaper (Read 3280 times)

Marlelar · « **on:** August 26, 2012, 10:05:43 PM »

I stopped reading the Remnant newspaper years ago because after a 10 yr subscription I got fed up with the creeping modernism in that paper. Now I am starting to see Mr. Matt (editor of the Remnant) mentioned in more traditional minded circles, most recently as a guest of "Voice of Catholic Radio". Has he, along w/the paper become more traditional?

Marsha

Thorn · « **Reply #1 on:** August 26, 2012, 10:40:56 PM »

Good question! I stopped several years ago as well. Too many things were wrong & letters to the editor or a certain columnist didn't do any good.

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** August 26, 2012, 11:02:00 PM »

Matt, I think, has spoke at conferences with John Vennari of Catholic family News? And Judith Sharpe of In Spirit of Chartes Committe would know him.

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #3 on:** August 27, 2012, 12:45:54 AM »

Ditto on lapsing the sub.

Mike Matt is an extremely fine individual and I think we all reacted to what was a probable case of hope triumphing over experience in his case, along with Chris Ferrara, at the time of the election of Benoit XVI.

I, like Mike and Chris, was given to think Ratzinger was going to kick arses, take names, toss live grenades and clean out the Augean stable.

Ooops!

( It happens.... )

N.B. The guy who got it ABSOLUTELY right, from the moment the white smoke hit the azure Roman sky, was John Vennari. He was never hoodwinked by the agitprop.

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** August 27, 2012, 06:37:37 AM »

I haven't seen The Remnant in a while, but Anthony Benedict is quite right. He was taken with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger and expected, I think, a return to tradition to come to the Conciliar Church. For some reason, he forgot all of the negative things he had written about Ratzinger in the past.

Mr. Matt is (or was) an extreme anti-sedevacantist. His newspaper ran a series of articles a few years ago about the "sedevacantist enterprise". I never quite understood what that series was getting at (I was not a sedevacantist at the time), but it seemed as if a major premise was that sedevacantist "groups" were capitalizing on the sedevacantist theory in nefarious ways. The whole thing didn't make much sense.