Matt reserved his contempt for the people doing the work he had promised to do.
He described younger commentators as “chickens without their heads,” poring over Leo’s sermons and breathlessly announcing that the pope was one of the synodal establishment. Their work was “cute.” They lacked Matt’s grasp of the larger strategy. He presented himself as the seasoned old warrior calming excitable children.
The insult deserves to be remembered because those “chickens” were reading the pope’s words.
Leo had declared his desire for a synodal Church from the balcony. Two days later, he recommitted the hierarchy to the postconciliar path and praised Francis’s renewal of that program. The reporters examining those texts required no Roman whisper network. They had primary sources.
Matt had conclave scuttlebutt, anonymous favorable impressions, hope, and a theory about a bargain.
Yet he characterized textual reporting as amateur hysteria.
He also suggested there was “no hurry.” If Leo eventually proved disastrous, Catholics could launch “Operation lambaste Leo” later. For the moment, waiting imposed no cost because “we really seriously have nothing to lose.”
That was perhaps his worst prediction.
Traditional Catholics had plenty to lose:
They could lose a year in which the emerging record went largely uncontested by the movement’s biggest platforms.
They could lose trust in writers who had built careers criticizing Francis and abruptly discovered restraint when Francis’s chosen successor appeared.
They could lose clarity as papal externals were used to obscure programmatic continuity.
They could lose unity when those who raised alarms were mocked as imprudent, cynical, click-hungry, half-cocked, or spiritually disordered.
They could lose negotiating leverage by showing Rome that a little lace, Latin, and private access could mute the very media ecosystem that had spent twelve years condemning the revolution.
And ultimately, traditional Catholics affiliated with the SSPX would face the most sweeping Roman sanctions imposed upon them in decades.
The people making the wager risked their credibility. Ordinary Catholics risked their chapels, priests, marriages, confessions, schools, and spiritual homes.
By May 28, Matt was taking a victory lap.
He mocked critics who kept finding evidence of continuity. He reportedly compared their behavior to zombies and urged everyone to “cool it for a few months.” He praised the need for long-term cunning, strategic silence, and knowing when to keep one’s mouth shut.
He pointed again to Müller’s comments about restoring the Latin Mass and announced:
“They failed. They failed.”
The revolution had failed, Matt said, because the old Mass remained a central question. Then came the triumphal declaration:
“We just won a battle, friends. Congratulate yourselves.”
His audience was encouraged to discuss the victory over dinner and thank God for it.
What had been won?
Leo had issued no universal restoration of the traditional Mass. He had repealed no restriction. He had changed no major doctrinal trajectory. The conclusion rested on optimistic interpretations of statements by conservative cardinals and speculation about conversations surrounding the conclave.
Matt even compared strategic Catholic silence to the patience and secrecy of Freemasonry: the enemy thinks in centuries, knows when to remain quiet, and communicates discreetly. Catholics, he argued, needed similar long-term cunning.
This was a revealing comparison. Matt’s followers were being asked to trust a strategy whose participants, terms, and commitments remained undisclosed.
The strategy could be defended only while the audience remained outside the room.
The videos cannot establish when the reported Müller meeting occurred. They narrow the window.
Matt was in Rome through at least May 11. His May 18 program described him as newly back in the United States after “a long couple weeks” covering the conclave. The public movement in his coverage accelerated during that period:
On May 8, he offered cautious hope based on an unnamed former student and the Benedict analogy.
By May 11, he was reporting that all signals looked good and reminding viewers that he was the veteran who understood Rome.
By May 18, he declared categorically that Leo was no Francis II, that the reign of terror had ended, and that the new pope might be an honest liberal already moving toward Tradition.
By May 25, Matt publicly speculated that something had happened at the conclave and that Müller’s Latin Mass intervention resembled a quid pro quo.
This chronology proves no private meeting. It does show that the reported message and Matt’s public editorial line matched closely.
The most plausible reading is that Müller’s strategy may have confirmed, organized, or extended an inclination already present in Matt. He wanted to believe conservative insiders could work upon Leo. He wanted a Roman opening for the old Mass. He wanted the Remnant’s resistance to graduate from the catacombs into a respected place at the table.
Müller was the ideal man to tell him the table was within reach.
The tragedy is that Leo never concealed his program.
From the first balcony address, he praised Francis, spoke of dialogue and encounter, and called for a synodal Church.
On May 10, 2025, he asked the cardinals for full adherence to the road traveled since Vatican II, praised Francis’s presentation of that road in Evangelii Gaudium, and highlighted collegiality, synodality, inclusion, and dialogue with the contemporary world.
In January 2026, Leo called Vatican II’s magisterium the “polar star” of the Church’s journey and began a catechetical series devoted to rereading and implementing the council’s documents.
The following day, he told the cardinals that the journey begun with the council could never be emphasized enough. He identified Evangelii Gaudium and synodality as important elements of that continuing process.
In June 2026, he again described synodality as the way forward and said it deepens the meaning of ecclesiastical authority.
On the same-sex blessing controversy, Leo praised Francis’s decision permitting informal blessings of couples and said he saw no need to move beyond what Francis had already allowed. The restraint lay in refusing further formalization; the Francis policy itself remained in place.
This was continuity delivered in a lower voice.
Matt’s great error was measuring Leo against Francis’s manner rather than Francis’s program. Leo lacked the scowls, insults, theatrics, and improvisational chaos. He retained the conciliar path, the synodal machinery, the Francis legacy, and the governing personnel.
A revolution can hire an adult.
There was one visible concession.
In October 2025, Cardinal Raymond Burke celebrated a traditional Latin Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica with Leo’s approval. The event encouraged Catholics who had suffered under Francis. It deserved to be acknowledged as a favorable gesture.
The gesture never became the restoration Matt predicted.
By November 2025, the apostolic nuncio to Great Britain told bishops that Leo did not intend to repeal Traditionis Custodes. Bishops could receive limited dispensations, while Francis’s governing restriction remained.
The bargain, insofar as one existed, produced symbolism and case-by-case relief. Rome retained control. Traditional Catholics received enough oxygen to keep hoping and too little freedom to alter the structure of the dispute.
That is an old Roman arrangement: a concession at the altar rail, submission in the council hall.
Seven months after confidently declaring that Leo was “not Pope Francis II,” Michael Matt returned to defend the verdict.
The title of his December 30 broadcast captured the new maneuver:
“Francis 2.0? If only it were that simple!”
Matt no longer argued principally that Leo might free the traditional Mass or move toward Catholic restoration. By then, those early hopes were becoming harder to sustain. Instead, he announced that calling Leo “Francis 2.0” was naïve, simplistic, and characteristic of “new recruits” who had not lived through the previous stages of the postconciliar revolution.
Matt described himself as “a guy who remembers it all” and had “been there, done that.”
This is how a failed prediction becomes a credential.
When Leo was elected, Matt had declared that the new pope was no Francis II because something appeared genuinely different: the reign of terror was supposedly over; Leo seemed like an honest liberal, possibly a truth seeker; he might be changing; conservative cardinals might have secured a conclave bargain restoring the old Mass.
By December, Matt offered a different theory.
Leo was no longer the possible liberator whose goodwill must be cultivated. He was “Pope Benedict XVII,” a more sophisticated conciliar operator who might pursue the “reform of the reform,” introduce more Latin and eastward celebration into the new rite, and use an aesthetically conservative Novus Ordo to place the traditional Mass itself into a “peaceful rest.”
That was almost the opposite of the May sales pitch.
In May, Matt urged silence because Leo might restore the old Mass.
In December, Matt predicted that Leo might use a refurbished new Mass to euthanize it.
Matt nevertheless presented both judgments as evidence that he understood Leo better than the critics.
This made his position practically unfalsifiable. If Leo restored the traditional Mass, Matt’s strategy had worked. If Leo left the restrictions in place, Leo was playing a longer Benedictine game. If Leo continued Francis’s policies with better manners, that proved he was not Francis. If critics noticed the continuity, their analysis lacked “nuance.”
Matt could never be wrong. The facts merely supplied material for the next explanation.
The most revealing part of the December broadcast was Matt’s description of Leo as more polished and strategically intelligent than Francis.
Francis, Matt said, had been “easy, obvious, and clumsy.” He ripped away the mask, created traditionalists, and exposed the revolution. Leo was different because he appeared sincere, Midwestern, restrained, and uninterested in visibly tearing the Church apart.
That was the argument the early critics had been making from the beginning.
They were never claiming that Leo would reproduce every Francis insult, theatrical gesture, or chaotic interview. Their warning was that Prevost represented Francis continuity administered with discipline: the same conciliar and synodal direction, delivered by a calmer and more institutionally competent man.
Matt spent months ridiculing them for saying so.
By December, he adopted their central insight and renamed it sophistication.
Leo was not Francis II because he was a more effective version of the same postconciliar project. He could preserve Vatican II, manage traditionalists gently, offer conservative liturgical gestures, and neutralize resistance without Francis’s open brutality.
Matt’s new description vindicated the people he had called zombies, chickens without heads, click-seekers, and inexperienced recruits.
He simply refused to give them the credit.
Matt’s comparison with Benedict also rested upon selective memory.
Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum, declared that the traditional rite had never been juridically abrogated, and lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops. Whatever the limitations of his theology or “mutual enrichment” project, Benedict took concrete acts that materially expanded access to the old Mass.
By December 2025, Leo had done nothing comparable.
Matt nevertheless predicted that the January consistory might launch a Benedict-style “reform of the reform.” He imagined Latin, eastward celebration, liturgical peace, and an effort to consolidate the Church upon a conservative Vatican II trajectory.
The January consistory did discuss liturgy. Leo placed it alongside Evangelii Gaudium, the governance reforms of Praedicate Evangelium, and synodality. He then declared that all the selected themes were deeply rooted in Vatican II and in the path originating from the Council, explicitly identifying Evangelii Gaudium and synodality as essential elements of that continuing journey.
The consistory did not reveal Benedict XVII.
It revealed the same Leo who had announced himself on the balcony: Francis’s conciliar and synodal continuity pope, speaking with greater discipline and wearing better vestments.
The December broadcast also demonstrates what had happened to the great Latin Mass bargain.
In May, Matt believed some sort of conclave quid pro quo was probable. Conservative cardinals may have supported Prevost, he speculated, in exchange for relief from Traditionis Custodes. Traditional Catholics therefore needed to avoid antagonizing Leo while the arrangement developed.
Seven months later, the proposed restoration had been downgraded into a theory that Leo might supply a Latinized Novus Ordo and allow the ancient rite to die peacefully.
That was no quid pro quo.
It was capitulation.
Matt’s own forecast now envisioned Rome achieving what Francis had failed to accomplish: not destroying the traditional Mass through open persecution, but absorbing its aesthetics into a reconditioned conciliar rite until the original could be dismissed as unnecessary.
The commentator who told traditionalists to remain quiet so Leo might liberate their Mass was now explaining how Leo might more effectively eliminate it.
And he still thought the embarrassing people were the critics.
Matt also deployed providence to soften his record.
Francis, he argued, had become “the greatest recruiter traditional Catholicism ever had.” His clumsy persecution exposed modernism, destroyed papolatry, and drove influential Catholics toward tradition. God writes straight with crooked lines.
There is truth in the observation. Francis’s excesses awakened many Catholics.
It does not rescue Matt’s argument.
Before the 2025 conclave, Matt did not say that another Francis would be a welcome recruiter for tradition. He promised to resist Francis II “to his face.” He warned that another such pontificate would be catastrophic.
After Leo’s election, he instructed Catholics to stop using the very label he had invoked before the conclave.
By December, he had converted Francis’s destructive pontificate into a providential strategic victory and used that victory to belittle anyone who recognized Francis’s continuation under Leo.
Whatever happened, Matt could narrate it as Trad Inc. winning.
Francis persecuted the Mass? Traditionalism grew, so the revolution lost.
Leo refused to restore the Mass? He was pursuing a more sophisticated Benedictine settlement.
The SSPX came under attack? Matt would return to resistance and act as though the year of strategic restraint had never occurred.
This is less analysis than an endless system for protecting the analyst.
The “Benedict XVII” theory became grotesque once Leo’s government moved against the SSPX.
The July 2026 Vatican decree stated that the consequences followed episcopal consecrations undertaken against Leo’s repeatedly expressed will. It characterized SSPX sacred ministers as schismatics subject to excommunication and extended the threat to laypeople who formally adhere to the Society.
Benedict lifted the SSPX bishops’ excommunications.
Leo’s government imposed new ones and broadened the language of schism.
The comparison had failed at the exact point Matt had used to construct it.
Matt’s December performance therefore belongs in the record because it shows that his May mistake was no temporary excess of hope. Months after the evidence had accumulated, he remained committed to defending his original posture, insulting the people who had read Leo correctly, and producing increasingly elaborate explanations for why an obvious continuation of the postconciliar revolution should never be called Francis II.
He had ceased trying to understand Leo.
He was trying to prove that Michael Matt had never been wrong.
Then came the result no one could hide behind a mosetta.
Cardinal Müller publicly declared the SSPX’s planned 2026 episcopal consecrations schismatic. He said consecrations without papal approval were “absolutely impossible” and against God’s will, characterizing those responsible as outside Catholic obedience.
Müller had also insisted that selective or “graded” assent to Vatican II was unavailable. His position required the Society to accept the conciliar settlement that gave rise to the crisis in the first place.
After the Society proceeded with four consecrations on July 1, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued its decree. The consecrating and consecrated bishops were excommunicated. The explanatory note declared SSPX sacred ministers schismatic and subject to excommunication. It warned that laypeople who formally adhere to the Society could be treated as schismatics and excommunicated. It also declared SSPX confessions and marriages invalid and instructed the faithful to avoid the Society’s celebrations and activities.
The promised rapprochement ended in a Roman decree threatening the sacramental and ecclesial life of the very Catholics Matt’s strategy was supposed to protect.
The traditional Mass remained restricted.
Vatican II remained non-negotiable.
Synodality remained the governing path.
Francis’s blessing policy remained.
The SSPX received a declaration of schism.
Matt had said traditional Catholics had nothing to lose.
Rome supplied an itemized answer.
By the spring and summer of 2026, Matt’s tone had changed again.
He began criticizing Leo to some extent (though mostly “the Vatican” and “Rome”), defending the SSPX, challenging Rome’s handling of the dispute, and arguing that the real crisis began at the top of the Church. On June 30, he rebuked Leo for continuing Francis’s campaign against the traditional Mass and said the crisis reached “right at the top.” In July, the Remnant published a rapid series of articles opposing the Vatican’s SSPX decree and its underlying ecclesiology.
But Matt has yet to explain his missing year.
Where is the retrospective on “Our new pope is not Pope Francis II”?
Where is the correction of “the reign of terror is over”?
Where is the retraction of the claim that Leo appeared to be an honest liberal beginning to change?
Where is the apology to the “chickens without their heads” who read Leo’s speeches accurately?
Where is the accounting for the “quid pro quo” strategy Matt himself floated?
Where is the admission that the victory announced in May 2025 never occurred?
A journalist may revise his judgment. A Catholic may discover that hope was misplaced. Honesty requires showing the reader where the analysis failed and what caused the failure.
Simply resuming the old resistance posture after the strategy collapses leaves the audience with amnesia instead of accountability.
The most honorable response came from a smaller commentator who had initially disagreed with the early critics.
TLM Ryan said publicly that he had thought Stephen Kokx reacted too quickly. He had told me to “chill.” The tone had bothered him. He believed commentators who asked for a year deserved a year.
Then he examined Stine’s report and the pattern of coordinated silence.
His conclusion was direct:
“Stephen Kokx was right. I was wrong.”
That sentence separates correction from spin.
Ryan said the silence eventually looked “too tight” and “too clean” to be organic. Independent commentators naturally diverge. They notice different events, reach different thresholds, and change direction at different times. The striking uniformity around Leo suggested some shared influence.
Ryan also asked the question at the center of the entire scandal:
“Why couldn’t we have just been honest?”
A commentator could have told his audience that a cardinal had requested a period of restraint. He could have explained the proposed strategy, its objectives, its time limit, and the conditions that would end it. Readers could then judge the arrangement.
Instead, critics were treated as fools while private guidance remained concealed.
Ryan invoked Canon 212 §3, which recognizes that the faithful may possess a right and sometimes a duty to make their concerns known both to pastors and to other Catholics. He rejected the idea that a private request from a cardinal could erase that duty.
He also identified the grotesque imbalance in Taylor Marshall’s conduct: restraint toward Leo, followed by what Ryan described as shooting the SSPX “with a 12 gauge.”
Ryan’s correction does more than support Kokx. It destroys the excuse that everyone merely made an innocent initial mistake. An innocent mistake can be admitted. A coordinated strategy hidden behind insults raises a different issue.
Taylor Marshall’s public record supplies the clearest visual example of the pivot.
On May 5, 2025, his podcast published an episode titled “A NEW LIBERAL POPE? Worst Case Situation Analysis.” A video copy remains publicly available.
In the deleted video, Marshall described Prevost as a dangerous dark-horse candidate and possibly the worst-case outcome. He said Prevost should never have become a cardinal or pope.
Then Prevost became pope.
Marshall’s immediate livestream described Leo as clearly on the Francis trajectory. Within a day, that video disappeared from public view. Marshall replaced the alarm with a program beginning, “I submit myself to his holiness Pope Leo XIV,” explaining that prayer and reflection had left him encouraged. Contemporary reporting documented the overnight transformation.
People change their minds. A serious commentator preserves the original analysis, explains the revision, identifies the new evidence, and accepts responsibility for whichever assessment proves wrong.
Deletion creates a different impression. It treats the audience’s memory as a brand-management problem.
No verified evidence currently establishes that Marshall attended the alleged Müller meeting. However, the public chronology still demands an explanation: what information entered between “worst case” and “I submit”? Who provided it? Why did the earlier record disappear?
Prayer may change a man’s disposition. It does not alter Prevost’s résumé overnight.
Müller occupies a useful position in the postconciliar system.
He speaks forcefully against the German Synodal Way, sexual revolution, doctrinal relativism, and many Francis-era scandals. That earns him credibility among conservative and traditional Catholics. He occasionally celebrates the traditional Mass and calls for relief from liturgical persecution.
At the same time, he defends Vatican II as a binding magisterial settlement, rejects the SSPX’s doctrinal critique, and treats resistance that crosses Roman limits as schismatic.
He can therefore channel traditional anger without permitting traditional conclusions.
Before the conclave, Matt used Müller to justify resistance to a future heretical pope. After the conclave, according to Stine’s source, Müller used his authority to restrain criticism of the pope who was actually elected. By 2026, Müller had become one of the most prominent voices condemning the SSPX’s resistance.
The sequence is almost too perfect.
Müller tells traditionalists that false doctrine need not be obeyed.
Müller decides which concerns qualify as legitimate.
Müller offers hope for the old Mass.
Müller demands acceptance of the council.
Müller condemns the Society created to resist the council’s consequences.
The resistance is permitted to roar inside the enclosure. Müller guards the gate.
Müller has also written heretical explanations concerning the Eucharist, the bodily Resurrection, and Mary’s perpetual virginity. Therefore, the traditional movement chose as its strategic guide a conciliar conservative whose ecclesiology has always placed Vatican II and Roman institutional unity above the SSPX’s account of necessity.
The ending was contained in the beginning.
The known evidence supports no sweeping declaration that every prominent traditional commentator attended Müller’s alleged meeting.
There is presently no established proof that Peter Kwasniewski, Eric Sammons, Tim Flanders, the hosts of Avoiding Babylon, or every other figure who softened coverage of Leo sat in the same room. It would be reckless to assign attendance by association.
Attendance is only one question.
Who knew that leading figures had been asked to suppress criticism?
Who adopted a common strategy?
Who repeated Michael Matt’s attacks on early critics?
Who privately agreed to give Leo a protected period while publicly presenting that restraint as independent spiritual prudence?
Who knew about the hoped-for Latin Mass bargain?
Who received guidance from cardinals, donors, conference organizers, clergy, publishers, or media colleagues?
Who watched others call Kokx, me, and similar writers crazy, imprudent, moronic, click-hungry, or strategically ignorant while knowing that a coordinated policy existed?
Silence can be coordinated without every participant attending the first meeting. A few respected figures establish the line. Others imitate it. Access incentives reinforce it. No formal conspiracy is required once an ecosystem understands which opinions open doors and which opinions close them.
That is how an industry line becomes a consensus.
Trad Inc.’s deepest failure lies beyond a bad prediction about Leo.
They treated their own readers as obstacles to strategy.
Traditional Catholic media acquired its audience by attacking the managed narratives of diocesan bureaucracies, Vatican press offices, episcopal conferences, and establishment Catholic journalism. Its appeal rested on a promise: we will tell you what the official organs conceal.
Then its leading figures acquired their own Roman strategy and concealed it.
They wanted the audience to remain calm without explaining why.
They wanted critics to stop investigating without disclosing who had asked for restraint.
They wanted trust without transparency.
They wanted the freedom to negotiate through private influence while denying their readers enough information to evaluate the negotiation.
When readers noticed the sudden silence, the readers became the problem. They were too angry. Too online. Too young. Too pessimistic. Too interested in clicks. Too ignorant of Roman strategy. Too lacking in hope.
The experts who misread Leo spent a year lecturing the people who read him correctly.
Matt repeatedly framed “hope” as the Catholic response and criticism as a temptation toward despair.
Christian hope concerns God’s promises. It does not require optimism about Robert Prevost. A Catholic may possess supernatural hope while concluding that a particular prelate will continue a destructive program.
Matt blurred that distinction.
By doing so, he converted a strategic judgment into a spiritual hierarchy. His side had hope. The critics dashed hope “to hell.” His side possessed patience, wisdom, and Catholic instinct. The critics chased outrage.
That maneuver insulated the strategy from evidence.
Every adverse fact could be met with another appeal to hope. Anyone insisting upon the facts could be accused of harming souls. The more Leo confirmed continuity, the more spiritually suspect the people describing continuity became.
This is an old ecclesiastical technique. Obedience is detached from truth and attached to office. Hope is detached from Christ and attached to institutional possibilities. Charity is detached from justice and attached to silence.
Then the people who object are accused of lacking all three.
Even granting the most charitable account, the Müller strategy has failed.
Its goal was presumably to avoid alienating Leo, cultivate access, secure greater freedom for the traditional Mass, and influence the pontificate from within.
He preserved Traditionis Custodes.
He recommitted the Church to Vatican II.
He intensified the synodal process.
He praised Francis’s same-sex blessing policy.
He described the council’s magisterium as the Church’s polar star.
His doctrinal dicastery declared the SSPX clergy schismatic, threatened formal adherents among the laity, declared confessions and marriages invalid, and instructed Catholics to avoid Society activities.
Measured against Matt’s May 2025 expectations, the verdict is plain.
Leo did not become Benedict.
The revolution did not fail.
The “reprieve” never developed into restoration.
The quid pro quo yielded no quo worth the silence.
Michael Matt can still perform a service to the traditional Catholic world.
He can tell the truth about Rome.
He can explain whom he met during the conclave period. He can describe his conversations with Müller and other cardinals. He can say whether anyone asked him to moderate criticism of Leo. He can identify what he believed had “happened” at the conclave. He can explain the “quid pro quo” he discussed on May 25. He can acknowledge which predictions failed and apologize to the writers he mocked.
Taylor Marshall can explain why his warning video vanished and what produced his overnight reversal.
Other major figures can state whether they knew of the strategy, participated in it, or adopted it secondhand.
None of them needs to reveal sacramental confidences or genuinely private pastoral matters. They do need to account for a public editorial policy that affected millions of Catholics and reshaped the traditional response to a new pontificate.
They spent a year demanding patience for Leo while showing little patience toward the Catholics who preserved the record.
Now Matt has returned to partial resistance as Rome moves against the SSPX. His current work may contain valuable arguments. It cannot erase the campaign that preceded it.
The repair begins with names, dates, conversations, requests, expectations, and admissions. Until that happens, every new denunciation of “Rome,” “the Vatican,” “the synodal machine,” or “Tucho” will carry an unanswered question:
Why did the men who built their careers warning Catholics about the revolution suddenly lower their voices when the revolution asked them to zip it?"
If you value independent Catholic analysis and want to help keep this work going, you can make a contribution or subscribe below. Every donation and subscription directly supports the writing, research, and production of Hiraeth in Exile.
End of article...
Pray for strength and honor!
Viva Cristo Rey! Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...
St. Joseph, pray for us!!
Gene DeLalla
Donate
Recurring Donation
