On the July 20 edition of the Return to Tradition podcast, Dr. Anthony Stine dropped a bombshell that most Catholics failed to notice.
While discussing the Society of St. Pius X, Stine revealed that a “very well connected” source previously informed him there was a “meeting” held between Trad Inc. influencers and German Cardinal Gerhard Müller after the 2025 conclave.
At the meeting — which has not been independently confirmed — Müller allegedly told them to “basically stop, to surrender” with the criticisms.
Stine further explained that to the best of his knowledge there was no exchange of money or other benefits given to the supposed attendees for agreeing to abide by the policy.
Whether Stine’s alleged source is telling the truth, lying, or is purposefully or unwittingly distorting what may have happened, there now exists an allegation in the public domain that, if true, would confirm what many Catholics on social media began to notice — some before others — after the 2025 conclave: namely, that many traditional influencers who were calling out the errors of Francis suddenly went silent under Leo.
A look back at the first year
The shift was palpable in the days after the conclave. While many Traditional Catholics on social media weren’t all that concerned with the dialing down of the criticisms — after all, it does make sense to give a new pope some time to get settled — as the months went by it became clearer and clearer to myself and others that Leo was following in the footsteps of his immediate predecessor and that things weren’t going to get better.
Among other things, during the first months of his reign, Leo permitted openly sinful and unrepentant homosexuals to parade through St. Peter’s Basilica. He also elevated heretical priests to lead dioceses and said nothing as Latin Masses were obliterated in parish after parish in the United States. He then scandalously claimed that someone who is against abortion but doesn’t oppose the death penalty isn’t truly pro-life.
Beyond that, Leo was exposed by Fr. Charles Murr and Mario Derksen as having bowed before a demonic idol when he was a priest in Latin America, an act he has never publicly denounced or expiated. He has also kept on Cardinal Victor Fernandez, who has written what can only be charitably called slam poetry passed off as papal encyclicals.
Enjoying Integrity? Donate Today!
While all of this was unfolding, hardly a word was said in the traditionalist online world — with a few exceptions.
Stephen Kokx, Catholic Esquire, Chris Jackson, and others did speak out about these things. For doing so, they were vilified and mocked, especially Kokx, who theorized that Cardinal Burke or some other high-ranking clergy told everyone to keep quiet.
Presumably, their efforts infuriated Michael Matt. On a Remnant podcast last August, Matt seemed to be referring to them when he denounced traditionalists who were calling Leo “Francis 2.0.”
“Do you know how easy it is to say that?” he exclaimed. These people are “just chasing clicks down” in order to “be relevant on YouTube.”
Matt said this while unironically urging traditionalists to stop engaging in a “circular firing squad.”
On a separate podcast with Taylor Marshall in August, Matt defended what has since come to be known as the “zip it” policy.
“Even in terms of trying to get some advantages like the Latin Mass restored, it makes sense to kind of zip it a little bit and see what happens with men like Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Sarah, who are pushing in a favorable direction,” he said.
The Dispatch
Matt has not yet publicly commented on Stine’s allegation.
Twelve months is long enough
Earlier this year, a fellow podcaster who follows social media more closely than I do told me it was mysteriously quiet in the Traditional Catholic world. He was right. It was quiet. It seemed that many had adopted a “one year” strategy that gave Leo the benefit of the doubt up until May.
Human nature being what it is, my instinct was that this new approach was not organic as the silence was too uniform.
When May arrived, the scandals in the Vatican had not slowed down. Again, hardly a sound came from the most influential voices in the Traditional Catholic world.
Then the SSPX consecrations arrived. Taylor Marshall, who previously supported the Society’s 1988 consecrations, came out against what took place on July 1.
On a recent show, he said that what changed his mind was that there are “more Latin Masses” now, among other things.
I forget: Is the crisis over liturgy or doctrine?
Marshall’s about-face, which everyone except him seems to be able to see, has only intensified the speculation that he is following Müller’s marching orders.
Regardless, is it even morally right to take a vow of silence or to “zip it” even if a cardinal or pope asks you not to criticize clergy today? The 1983 Code of Canon law suggests the opposite. As Canon 212 §3 states:
“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they posses, [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
Strategically inept
Many questions now emerge. One is: Why? Why would a cardinal ask this of influencers? Do they really think the best way to combat the errors coming from Rome is to look the other way just so they can get more Latin Masses? Was this an attempt to position for a rescinding of Traditiones Custodes?
What’s more, why couldn’t a meeting like this be disclosed? Why couldn’t these podcasters simply state publicly, “We’ve discussed communication tactics with some cardinals in Rome and we think it best to give this pope some space and a grace period so that we can discuss our concerns with him.”
Perhaps this is why the conservative faction of cardinals have routinely lost to the ultra-liberal prelates — they don’t know how to fight.
The lack of transparency on the supposed meeting has caused many lay faithful to distrust those podcasters who failed to defend the truth and who kept quiet while evil was spread. The laity now have reason to question those podcasters’ motives and integrity.
Anecdotally, views for many of the most popular traditionalist podcasts have decreased over the past year. Many trads are now reading Substack blogs and watching newly-launched YouTube channels that are speaking out about Leo. Perhaps the algorithm — or, worse, their credibility — has resulted in their diminished audience.
Whatever the case, this was entirely predictable. It is a duty to defend the truth and to expose error, as error has no rights. One hopes the controlled mouthpieces of the Conciliar Church will remember that sooner rather than later.
