Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Nihilism: The Essence of the New Left — An Interview with Roberto de Mattei

Editor’s note: The following interview with Professor Roberto de Mattei was originally conducted by Hungarian journalists Norbert Filemon and Péter Heltai. Though it has already appeared in the Hungarian press, it has been made available to us through the graciousness of the interviewers to share here for the first time with the English-speaking world. We would like to thank Mr. Filemon and Mr. Heltai for their generosity in providing us with the use of this important discussion on matters of concern to all Catholics. 


Filemon and Heltai: We’re here in Rome next to Cardinal Peter Erdő’s titular church. Have you ever been to Hungary, have you got any Hungarian connections?

Roberto de Mattei: I have only been there once, and I could only stay for a few days. As a historian I appreciate all the countries that lived under the Soviet oppression. Hungary stands out because Hungarians were brave enough to rebel against the dictatorship. Cardinal Mindszenty, who is a hero of the Catholic resistance in the 20th century, is particularly close to me.

F&H: At the end of March in your speech at Cosmos Club in Washington, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima, you drew attention to three other anniversaries that define our present: 1517, 1717, 1917. How are these numbers related to each other?

RM: In my opinion insofar as the history of ideas is concerned these three dates are related and it points out how deep political, cultural and religious crisis we live in. It is very important to understand the roots of this crisis, because our present is the result of a long process. All this started in Italy with humanism, then continued with the protestant revolution in German territories up to Luther. Then came the French Revolution, and finally the Bolshevik takeover in Russia. 1717 may be striking because it is not the French Revolution but the foundation of the first masonic lodge. There is a close relationship between the spread of the masons and the revolutionary events. It is a common denominator of the movements connected to these dates that their aim was to destroy the united Christian world.

F&H: These “attempts” clearly failed. How do we arrive at the present?

RM: In the 21st century there is a new wind is blowing: instead of construction there is destruction. Instead of (re)building there is demolition. This is the immediate target of today’s revolutionaries. What I say is easily understood in the context of Communism. The Communist ideology has two sides: on one hand there is a (not good, but) positive notion about an equal society without classes. On the other hand, there is this destructive aspect that wants to destroy Christianity and its base, family, property, state, and religion itself, in order to achieve the previous idea. This nihilism is the essence of the new left. The failures of the 20th century, namely the utopian visions brought only death and wars, have completely killed the constructivist approach — chaos and demolitions remained, and they hope something new may be born from that.

F&H: Let’s talk a bit more about those dates. 1517. This year many people remember the Reformation that started 500 years ago. The Catholic Church has changed a lot in the 20th century and has started and is trying to maintain dialogue with the other Churches ever since. What do you think, is this process successful? What may be the future of the ecumenism?

RM: I don’t think it has a future. The root of the problem is that there is not a unified protestant belief system, whereas the Catholic Church has one which has not been changed for 2000 years. One of the essential characteristics of the Catholic faith is that it is permanent. The protestant reformation is the opposite. After Luther came Zwingli, then Calvin, after that the Anabaptists, and they were followed by thousands of groups since then. The history of the Protestantism is the history of changes. The French bishop, an excellent theologian, Bossuet already wrote a book with this title in the 17th century: The History of the variations of the protestant churches. Protestantism is similar to Islam in this respect. There is no unified Islam, either. There is no coherent teaching, there are only groups and religious trends. The only correct dialogue with protestants, just like with Orthodoxy or Islam, should be continued along the lines of the embodiment of unity, the papacy. With this we arrive to another crucial topic, that today’s crisis in the Church affects the centre of unity, the papacy.

F&H: What do you mean by the crisis of the papacy and the Church? Pope Francis seems to be a popular and open Church leader who, with the courage to use social media, can effectively communicate his message to the people.

RM: There is a crisis of faith and morals in the Church. A bishop who took part in the Synod on the Family told me that serious internal issues occurred during the meetings. Normally a situation like this should always be solved by the pope. He is the head, Christ’s earthly representative whose duty is to pronounce the last word in arguments and critical situations. But now, unfortunately, it seems that the papacy carries the symptoms of the aforementioned crisis, which, of course, has other, mainly historical reasons, as well.

F&H: You mentioned the Synod on the Family. A lot has been said about the crises of the institution of the family from a lot of people and from a lot of places in the 21st century. Based on this, Pope Francis convened a synod in order to find solution to the rising questions. What is wrong with this? Is this not a quick reaction that should be welcomed?

RM: Naturally, it is not a problem if the Pope seeks a solution in calling for a synod. But with or without a synod he could have said a few clear thoughts as the Head of the Catholic Church, that could show the path for the families in the middle of the crisis. What happened since 2014 instead? Utter chaos. The Pope’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia that was published after the synods is an extremely ambiguous document that causes huge confusion in the Church. Based on this document German bishop Müller said that the teachings of the Church have not changed a bit, the institution of marriage is still inseparable.

F&H: Why is it the Pope’s fault if bishops arbitrarily interpret a teaching?

RM: We are not talking about the opposition of just a few bishops. Cardinal Marx is not alone with his opinion. And most importantly, ordinary believers, in the meantime, do not understand what is happening. A Polish Catholic can hear from his bishops that the remarried can not receive Holy Communion, while if he goes go to Germany, the opposite will be told to him. The Catholic teaching must not be changed, it must be unified everywhere. The Pope, being the Vicar of Christ, is the only one who can publicly decide on this debate. We are talking about fundamental issues that are sensitive to us. Francis has not given any clear guidance in the past two years. His task, among other things, is to strengthen believers in their faith and to govern the Church. Instead, we find that he is saying something in an interview, then he takes half a sentence in one of his homilies, or in specific cases, writes a private letter to bishops of a particular country. These all create confusion and controversy. It is Pope Francis’ responsibility to manifest publicly and clearly on controversial issues.

F&H: If I understand it correctly, most of the debates are on a footnote of Amoris Laetitia, which some interpret as opening a way of distributing Communion to the remarried.

RM: In a letter, which was about this document and was addressed to the Holy Father by forty-five theologians, not just a single footnote was criticized. There are even more problems with the text. If four cardinals send a so-called “dubia” to the pope, with their concerns about the writing, it is not just about a footnote. Not to mention that those four cardinals, who have publicly taken up this, are just the face of all the others who are also concerned.

F&H: Since then, no response has been received from Pope Francis. Do you see the chance of breaking the silence?

RM: Solving such issues cannot wait. Perhaps, the Pope will soon take a manifestation on it. I do not know, but I am sure it will be clarified in the coming months.

F&H: Do you know about circles of Cardinals that are considering to take steps in this case within the foreseeable future?

RM: I know many cardinals who support this dubia, but their names are not in the document. I talked with them too. It is likely that there will soon be a move.

F&H: The last year out of three is 1917 you mentioned in your speech, which marks not only the Bolshevik Revolution but also the hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the Fatima appearances. In this connection, you pointed out that the messages received there are significant to humanity, even though they are private revelations. What is the message of Fatima in this hundred-year perspective ?

RM: Although the Virgin Mother appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century, it has perhaps become even more clear today what she had spoken to three simple shepherd children. The core of the message was, if Russia was not going to be offered up to her Immaculate Heart, their false doctrines were going to spread out to the world that was followed by wars and persecution of the Church.

These false doctrines, though the Soviet Union collapsed, are even more raging in the world than ever, since the center of Marxism is dialectical materialism and relativism.

In this ideology, there is no stability and constancy, but evolution only. Nowadays, dictatorship of the proletariat has been replaced by the dictatorship of relativism. This is the present of western societies. So our task is to bring in the Christian counter-pole into this situation.

F&H: At first sight, it appears, in the “Western world,” this battle has finished. In political and social issues the trend or stream of relativism became the absolute dominant direction, without any particular resistance.

RM: It might be so. Unfortunately, these mistakes affected the Catholic Church itself. Otherwise, here in Europe, there’s a false impression that every bad thing comes straight from the United States. The roots of every single false ideology is to be looked for on the “Old Continent.” In 1968, when the student riots in Berkeley, as one of the centers of the insurgency, had begun in California, its ideological background actually came from the Frankfurt School! Members like Adorno and the others took Marx and the Russian example as a basis. However, it’s also interesting that the LGBT’s agenda and the gender theory originate from Germany. Of course, the United States is the most significant propagators of all of this, but the source was always Europe and Russia. Abortion was legalized first in Russia, fifty years before it happened in the US. So I don’t agree with those views which imagine the US as the source of all trouble. I don’t even know considerable theorists in the above-mentioned subject. Gramsci, unfortunately, was Italian, Marx was German, and Lenin was Russian.

F&H: The solution, if there is one, could only come from Europe?

RM: The solution could come solely from Rome, from the Catholic Church. Perhaps during the papacy of Pope Francis or not, I don’t know for sure. Formerly when I was reading about the Messages of Fatima which says Russia will spread its false doctrine, I thought it this meant geographically. Now I clearly see that we cannot talk about just political and cultural spreading. This revolutionary process infiltrated the biggest counter-pole, represented by the Catholic Church. For me, this brought much closer the reality of the Messages of Fatima. Pope Francis uses Marxist style or rhetoric in his speeches. A few days ago, regarding the attacks committed against the Coptic Christians in Egypt [in an April 14 interview – ed.] the Pope emphasized the arms trade as the first reason and source of these types of attack. He was talking about material or financial interests, however it was clearly a terrorist attack carried out on religious basis. The Pope is not Marxist, but the rhetoric he applies, the conclusions are.

The only true answer may come from Christianity.


F&H: You mentioned multiple times the religion of Islam, which is one way or another, but more and more intensively present in Europe. You have five children. What kind of future do you picture for themselves?

RM: Merely on the basis of human aspects, Europe’s future is not too bright. The demographic crisis, which we talk about a lot, is a consequence of moral crisis. We have forgotten or have thrown our very values. Cases like this are always in favour of hedonism and relativism, the “fruits” of which we can already see. Contrarily, under the heading of migration, a Muslim inrush is happening towards Europe. This silent, peaceful Islam contains more dangerous risks than its violent version, because the latter – with suicidal terror attacks – is able to arouse shocking psychological reactions in the society and awake the people.

F&H: There have been many shocking terror attacks in the past few years all around Europe.

RM: And there will be more. There are two types of Islam. The first is the “Leninist,” violent direction, which attempts to take possession of power and make possible to hold it through violence. At the same time, there is another way which uses the change of demographic composition as a tool. From the European viewpoint both of them remained unsolved and we do not have the answers.

The religion of Islam hates Christianity. For more than fifteen hundred years Europe defined itself as Christian, and it also had strife with Islam within this definition. Due to lack of this now we experience the prominence and advantage of Islam.

F&H: There are plenty of European leaders and bishops who emphasize the “Christian response” when they stand behind the receptive migrant policy.

RM: Exactly, this is the problem. This attitude that the politicians and bishops represent is wrong and neglects the aforementioned bellicose mentality which, after all, contributes to the breakdown. I’m certain that the Church is strong enough to start off the action of resisting and fighting against progressivism, and the annihilators of the faith and the Church itself. If we take our part out of it, we’ll be able to change the mentality of Europe and organize the bout against external adversaries. Nevertheless, we know that this is an exceptionally uncertain period we live in. The situation in the Middle East and concerning the international associated with it represents a real threat which could end in a war that – in that case – could change the entire situation.

F&H: We are having this conversation in Rome right now, on Good Friday. If I correctly understand you, the “Western world” is also having its Good Friday. And what about the Resurrection?

RM: Falsehood can only prevail when the truth is hiding in the shadows. For the victory of the truth, there is no need for financial resources or power of numbers, only one thing: integrity. Fidelity. The Lord is never silent and passive on our things. The source of the problem is the infidelity of the western people. We need to rely on the divine grace, as Our Lady Fatima made her promise: “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” It’s a clear and firm promise. We don’t know exactly when will this happen, one year, or ten years in the future… We cannot make a prediction on this. What I do believe is that the centenary has an important significance.


Roberto de Mattei (1948):

Professor de Mattei is an Italian Catholic historian, writer and president of Lepanto Foundation in Rome. He studied political science and history at the University of Rome. He currently teaches modern history and Christian history at the European University of Rome. He also works as an editor at the newspaper Radici Cristiane and at the Correnpondenza Romana news agency. Between 2003 and 2011 he was the vice-president of the Italian National Research Council, and from 2005 to 2011, he was board member of the Italian Academy at the Columbia University in New York. He has published dozens of books and academic studies about the history of Europe and Christianity, which have been translated into many European languages. He is married with five children.

82 thoughts on “Nihilism: The Essence of the New Left — An Interview with Roberto de Mattei”

  1. Thanks for posting this interview, Steve. As usual Professor de Mattei does not disappoint.

    There seems to be a typo in the text. The famous French bishop who wrote books was called Bossuet (not Bousset).

    • Thanks, it’s been updated. The interviewers were kind enough to provide their own English translation; I cleaned it up in places where it needed some work, but I missed that.

    • Professor de Mattei was too timid, too rambling, did not cut to the chase as he could have. I guess he’s a gentleman and very diplomatic and who knows who butters his bread.

  2. You mentioned multiple times the religion of Islam, which is one way or another, but more and more intensively present in Europe.

    Is it not true that every European leader has no children?
    If so, that is very symbolic of the moral sterility and a warning sign of the demographic crisis.

    • Not all of them – but quite a few of them (May, Macron, Merkel, Rutte, Löfven, Sturgeon, Bettel, etc.).

      There are exceptions, though perhaps not surprisingly they are more commonly found in Eastern Europe. Viktor Orban, for example, has five children.

      • Indeed–the childless leaders of New Europe see in themselves the model for the future of the continent. They have no love for their own people, no sense of the patrimony of which they are merely custodians for the next generation.

        A Europe without European children is precisely what they want.

  3. Here we go again on the dubia: “I am sure it will be clarified in the coming months.” Keep calm. Remember, Christus vincit…! And if you don’t pray the Rosary daily, please start now and do what Our Lady of Fatima asked for. Less comment and more prayer is what the Church needs.

    • “Less comment and more prayer” is exactly what the Bergoglians want. I say far more of both. Far more comment and far more prayer. The vermin need be named and their vile comportment sighted every time they make a move.
      Name the demon and shine the light.

    • We can do both. In fact, let me amend that by saying we MUST do both: all 20 decades of the Rosary EVERY day (no criticism of the Luminous Mysteries, please; meditating on them is very productive), along with an unrelenting barrage of suppressive fire aimed especially at our complacent and compliant bishops as well as at the leftist sitting currently in Peter’s chair. Speaking of the Luminous Mysteries, something occurred to me while reciting the fifth the other day. Jesus could have chosen any number of ways to have himself handed over to the Sanhedrin, but he elected having a traitor from within, from the most illustrious cohort ever assembled on Earth. Why? Could it be to send a message to the faithful, not to be alarmed, that we will also be plagued by men like Theophylactus of Tusculum, Sergius, Octavianus, and Jorge Bergoglio?

      • 15 decades are enough. The 15 decades Rosary made the european christianity winning over the turkish fleet in Lepanto.
        The luminous mysteries are uselessly disturbing the logical chronology and purity of the original Rosary as it was given by our Lady to Saint Dominic.
        They discourage the pious people who want to pray a full Rosary everyday.

          • I agree with jdumon. Leave things alone. I have difficulty believing that Wojtyla could have possibly been the Pope, so that might have something to do with it.

          • Perhaps St. Dominic should have withheld the Rosary too? I mean, we Catholics had done swell up to that point without it! Why not just leave well enough alone? And then there’s that suspicious addition of the Fatima prayer, topped off later in the century by the temerity of Wojtyla who actually added more daily meditation on the life of Jesus! Any sentient Catholic has to ask himself, if there’s no end to this madness?!?

            As I said to jdumon, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’ll pass on the skepticism with a dash of lethargy. Thanks just the same. (By the way, the idea of the Luminous Mysteries came originally from Fr. Patrick Peyton, the Rosary Priest, not from JP II.)

          • Well I guess that since the Council, doctrine, liturgy, canon law, the rites of the sacraments, the catechism, devotions, prayers, customs, clear thinking and a dozen other things have changed, so why not the Rosary too? Good point!

          • If only you’d been around to tell the 3 kids at Fatima to keep their mouths shut about that prayer! But, wait, wasn’t that before Vatican II?

          • That’s an approved revelation, and they were therefore bound to make it public.

            What has happened since VII is completely unprecedented in the history of the Church. I think this is apples and oranges.

            Since the time of Paul VI, all bets are off. The safe path is to “hold fast to tradition” which, being a Divine command, is binding. We have no right before God to adopt novelties regarding doctrine or the sacraments. This is why I go to the SSPX.

          • Well, we nearly agree on one thing. I almost answered you by saying the list you made above was a bananas and apples fruit mix. And forgive me for noting that the Rosary is neither a doctrine nor a sacrament, that there are “novelties” incorporated into its recitation that you appear to accept but others that you reject, and that being a traditionalist is one thing, but being hidebound is quite another.

          • It’s all fruity, that’s for sure!

            We have to make our way safely through this horrible crisis the best we can, armed with the teaching of the Church from before Vatican II, and applying it to our time.

            We are not the aggressors here, neither you nor I. We are the laity, the sheep, abandoned by hirelings. Some people forget that. They think you are the bad guy for demanding the practice of the Faith as it was handed on in its entirety before the darkness that we are living under covered the Earth.

          • We agree. Things are in a lamentable state presently. The wonder is that there are daffy prelates who think things are just dandy….or, at least, that’s what they say.

          • Well, the Church only goes by externals, and so must we if we want to think like Catholics.

            The fact that most prelates accept and promote all the destructive changes since the Council is all I need to know in deciding that I must avoid them. I am neither bound nor able to judge their hearts.

            Do they mean well, or do they mean evil? That’s completely irrelevant.

            I apply the Faith as I have learned it from the Church, and simply say, “Those men do not appear to be Catholics, and by Divine Law I must not submit to them”.

  4. Excellent interview. Prof. de Mattei is always so concise and clear. I’m currently reading his book “The Second Vatican Council: An Untold Story.” It’s really quite excellent. I wish we got this kind of clarity from the hierarchy.

  5. Ecumenism to me is not the muddying of faith, but the peaceful, respectful coexistence with diverse faiths. While I will agree, and affirm that the Catholic faith is the “true” faith, why does the possibility of a united Christendom make me uneasy. I don’t believe for one moment that a united Christendom would solve any problems or make people better Christians, only the second Coming would unite people under one faith without the pitfalls of Sin.

    We have all seen, read, what an all powerful Catholic Church has and can do that has actually been an instrument of evil. I do not believe humankind has changed enough to prevent it from reoccurring. The only one world religion will be when Christ returns, and anything before that will fail. God with His Son are the only ones that can convert people to the Trinity, it is our mission to tell the world what we know.

      • Everything that has cost lives, caused suffering, done against the faith. As far as I can determine while the faith is rock solid their ability to “rule”, impose their will ends in all kinds of misery. When has the Church been at it’s zenith(s) (less the Apostles and shortly there after) and “ruled” with the love of Christ? You must know your church history.

        • I do. The Church exists in human history. Human reality will not be free sin until it is ash. I think perhaps you need to get a precise and accurate view of how the Church has navigated human reality. It has not been without fault, but it has been the force in Western Civilization until the most recent past. Not that much to be shamed of… until it took its eyes off Christ and decided to confect something a little more in line with the zeitgeist. Protestantism and its spawn.

          • According to Frank Sheed; “The Church is the source of the holiness of its members, but the Church’s holiness is not measured by its members’ response.” Of course, the Church is the source of its members’ holiness, since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth, and is therefore perfectly holy. If the Church’s holiness were nothing more than the sum total of the holiness of all its members, she would have disappeared into a black hole centuries ago.

    • That is a good question.

      The problem is quite simple.

      Catholic ecumenists are made up of two groups, one being that which is orthodox and simply wants to make friends with other professing Chrisitans, possibly with intent to show the truth in Catholicism. The other seems to believe that all faiths are equal and deserving of a place at the table of world debate, as equals.

      BOTH seem to accept the notion that they are “dialoguing” with unchanging entities.

      They are not.

      It is precisely in this that I say the passages of V2 that refer to our “separated brethren” are timebound and for most ecumenical dialoge, obsolete.

      The reason is that the theological and doctrinal condition of the groups the Council Fathers had in mind is now TOTALLY unlike that which they saw in 1965. Protestantism does NOT bear the charism of indefectibility!!!! Catholic leaders do NOT seem to truly grasp this!

      What was once possibly Christian isn’t today. How can we dialogue with groups that ordain lesbian and homosexual “priests”, who approve of divorce and who accept abortion? Indeed, we now have more in common with Mormons than we do with mainline Protestant groups on moral issues! We cannot even say we have something like valid orders in common as we do with the Orthodox.

      On the Protestant side, you must understand, ecumenism is all about THEM being accepted by US. They are pressing for “change” in the CC, not the other way around, and if you watch our leaders, our leaders are pressing for that change all too frequently as well as they compromise with the Protestants.

      I come from a long line of Protestant ministers and am Wesleyan seminary trained myself. My father was a wonderful man, a Methodist minister and he took part in many ecumenical gatherings. I assure you he had no interest in becoming a Catholic, not that I can say one single Catholic priest ever tried to convince him or even educate him as to the faith.

      Ecumenism is a dead effort for doing what The Catholic Church NEEDS to be doing; prophetically proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, preaching Him crucified and Resurrected, and opening the doors to all those who believe to be received into the One, Holy Apostolic, Catholic Church. By NOT doing this we are shirking the mission Jesus gave us. It is high time we got back to it.

      • The great farce of ecumenism is that none of them are in the least bit interested in unity with the Catholic Church. As you say, it is all about them being accepted by the CC exactly as they are.

        • Yep, I’m very skeptical of ecumenism, esp since it came out of Vat II. I suspect it’s more about wanting to be accepted by the world, and of course that would mean compromising Church teaching. No thanks!

        • The more we move towards protestantism, the more triumphant do the protestants feel. They were ‘right’ all along, and we Catholics are finally waking up to the fact. As for what they were ‘right’ about; that’s another matter. There could be anything up to 40,000 protestant denominations and sects throughout the world today, all claiming to possess “the truth”.

      • “The other seems to believe that all faiths are equal and deserving of a place at the table of world debate, as equals.”

        This used to be known as the heresy of indifferentism and before Vatican II the Church had a clear stand on the issue. The Popes spoke out against it repeatedly. The encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos (August 15, 1832), is a very good example. In it he states: “Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.”

      • Dear Sir, you are completely correct.
        I know from many personal experiences with protestants (actual believers in Christ, or just in name), active in the so-called ecumenical movement, and have never found one single one who was interested in becoming a Catholic, or even learning what Cahtolics really believed and why. On the catholic side, our representatives had more in common with members of parliament from differing but similar parties that are trying to write some kind of coalition contract. I do not think that I ever met a catholic representative who was convinced that there was any kind of substantial difference between the Catholic Church and the various protestant sects. Here are two short examples of what I mean, positive and negative.
        1. I was at a festive Vespers in Vienna cathedral celebrated for the visit of the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom, by the way, many Orthodox see as being too ecumenically minded! He was put on a throne alongside the Cardinal of Vienna. He gave the sermon in the presence of the Catholic hierarchy and dignitaries, plus representatives of the “official” protestant church in Austria, and some others of their sects. In opposition to our own Cardinal, he preached clearly and directly and stated that their can ONLY be a coming together of the Churches – & he specifically meant the Orthodox with the Catholics, not the protestants, only when we meaning us catholics returned to what he saw as the true faith. This should have been our position. It was not!

        2. At another meeting to “celebrate” the World Council of Churches, there were Catholics, Orthodox (from serbia) and Swiss Reformed present. The Swiss as well as the orthodox Priest who was their representative on the said WCC talked at length at how wonderful the WCC was, ´what great things it had achieved etc. After some 2 hours of this I could stand it no more, and asked what exactly the WCC had so wonderfully achieved? Apart from issueing documents denying essential dogmas of the Catholic (and one would have thought, Orthodox), faith. That priest could not respond, and so I answered, – so really you have achieved nothing of a positive nature at all. Perhaps it is time that the “Churches” saved some money by closing down your time wasting WCC.
        He was shocked and went straight to the next questioner. Afterwards, I was grabbed by the only Catholic Bishop present who straightaway tried to convince me of the “greatness” of the WCC and why it is such a pity that we are not also full members!

        To sum up; The so-called ecumenical movement has produced nothing. The other “churches” have no wish to become catholic, and indeed have over the last 50 / 60 years become less Christian than they were. Time to put a stop to this charade.

    • All that so-called ‘equality-fraternity-liberty’ crap among people and then than so-called the need for the ‘unity’ with all less, or more devilish religions, under the name of ecumenism, is of course a very cunning product of the False Spirit.
      The True Spirit, which is from the God Father and God Son, shall come, however. How earlier we (Church) proclaim the fifth Marian dogma, how sooner the True Holy Spirit will be send by the our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, through the Mary, to all people, of all nation, – so they all may receive the True Spirit and his grace in their hearts.
      All people have right to be saved for eternity, as we who are baptized in the true Faith of Christ have, but that can be achieved only by God. And that’s for sure a wish of our Lord, and that’s for sure a big wish of His Mother, our Lady, and our Mother. Who IS the Mother of all people, Mother of all Nations. The Mother who will be seen and called with that name by everyone. The Church leaders, especially those of these days, since a few decades ago, with so many apostates among them, is today everything but able to lead the faithful ones on that already known right path to the Christ, let alone they can convert the heretics or any other wrong religion believer or non believers.
      There is no other way for saving so many souls, than by God Himself and yes, again through the Mary, as that was the wish of God the Father the first time, when He choose Mary for Mother of His Son, and our Mother too. So is now too wish of our God to proclaim the fifth dogma: – Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate.
      Our Lady of All Nations – pray for us!

      • Well hello Mike, what a very Christian comment. Thank you so much. Do you pray to God in such a condescending and demeaning way? Would you like me to just go away since I have nothing to contribute that is worthy or how did you put it “nutty things” I’ll pray that you have a change of heart and my God show you how to think twice before making such troll-like comments. Peace.

        • I don’t follow your logic in your posts, that’s all. You probably have a good heart, but your thinking’s all over the shop. You might want to study the Faith a bit more and straighten some things out. Sorry for the “nutty” thing. I take it back.

        • There is something very endearing about the use of an adjective where there should be an adverb.
          Grammatically, it should be “play nicely everyone…” but I understand what you mean!

  6. The clarity, honesty and fortitude exhibited by Dr. de Matteo are always a welcome relief from the saccharine shallow self-congratulatory heterodox Catholic shtick that is lathered out on a daily basis.
    The patient is grievously wounded, and Dr. De Mateo says so.
    His “Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story” is groundbreaking. It proved to be the rescue boat for me – it confirmed with concrete reportage all that I suspected but could not bring myself to believe for decades – and it is not hyperbolic. Read in conjunction with Romano Amerio’s “Iota Unum,” H.J.A. Sire’s “Phoenix from the Ashes,” and Christopher Ferrara’s “The Great Façade” it is the therapeutic intervention for the opioid of denial on which so many are dependent.

    • Dr. de Matteo is one of the most important Catholics on the planet, far more important than 90% of her bishops. He’s a brilliant man and a treasure to us all.
      He qualifies for election to the Chair of Peter. Perhaps we should begin a movement demanding that he be elevated by the wishes of the masses. It worked for St. Ambrose in Milan.

  7. Saw this guy in DC, thanks to the heads up from One Peter. Amaaaaazing.But I just tore through his amazing VII book. One of the best books I’ve ever read.

  8. “There are plenty of European leaders and bishops who emphasize the ‘Christian response’ when they stand behind the receptive migrant policy.”

    Isn’t it handy to reference the ‘Christian response’ when bullying people to conform to benighted immigration policies, but when Christians ask for their faith to be noted as foundational to Europe, the charlatans revert to multiculturalists who insist there is no prevailing ethic.

    • The “Christian response” is nothing but sheer cynicism, since anyone who disagrees is, by definition, an unchristian pariah. And even Pope Francis has, in effect, stated as much on numerous occasions. If there is such a thing as reincarnation, Neville Chamberlain will probably come back as a Catholic bishop.

        • Yes, I do know that. I was merely being facetious. Maybe the name Neville Chamberlain means nothing to you?

          • P.S. According to ‘legend’, after Chamberlain returned to London, Hitler joked that, “He was such a nice old man that I thought I’d give him my autograph.” I have no doubt that muslim clerics have a similar contemptuous and dismissive attitude towards those Catholic bishops and priests who publicly espouse the preposterous notion of peaceful coexistence with Islam. They will learn, of course, but they will be forced to learn the hard way, and not just them, but all of us. Islam is destined to fall, and be returned to the place from whence it came. But when Islam does fail, it will do so very, very violently.

  9. Let’s see. “I am not a Cubs fan, although I have cheered for that team all my life.” “The author of Mein Kampf is not anti-Semitic, even if the positions advanced in the text demonstrate this heinous bias.” “Terrorism isn’t Islamic, regardless of the fact that it is characteristically carried out by people shouting their allegiance to that particular belief system.” What exactly are we supposed to make of the notion that Pope Francis “isn’t Marxist,” even though “the rhetoric he applies” clearly is?

    • I think it means that Francis would never make a claim of being a Marxist and does not see himself as a Marxist, perhaps may even be opposed to Marxism… and yet, knowingly or unknowingly, he has been thoroughly steeped in Marxism and simply cannot escape it.

      • I suspect that throughout Latin America, liberation theology, which is thoroughly grounded in marxism, (thanks to the KGB), is in the air they breathe and the water they drink. Many of those who assimilate it are incapable of identifying it as a thoroughly politicised and corrupt parody of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, most of its adherents would never even think to identify themselves as ‘marxist’.

        • If you’re including Bergoglio in your generality, you do not give him credit for his jesuitical philosophical demeanor. He is an intelligent master of deceit. He is quite capable of knowing what he’s doing and thinking.

          • Maybe you’re right. I personally do not presume to know him well enough to make such a definitive judgement.

          • There is plenty of commentary on the internet from those who knew him in Argentina and I have followed closely his career as Pope. I’ve read much of what his colleagues have said, which is why I posted what I posted.

          • Yes, Winslow, I was not trying to be contentious. And of all the things that I have read about those who knew him in Buenos Aires, either personally or by reputation, I don’t recall ever reading anything that was complimentary. But I prefer to hold at arms length those suggestions that he is a card-carrying member of the Lodge, or that he is a doctrinaire marxist. He is certainly far more political than theological, and his are hardly the politics of conservatism. But I still pray for him, and leave the rest to God.

          • I understand, Stewart, but if we read what he says and does I think there is ample evidence to say he is both a Marxist and a Freemason. All we hear from him is a ‘brotherhood of man’ philosophy along with a consistent and strident condemnation of faithful Catholics and their Faith. That matches up perfectly with the masonic agenda. If it walks like a duck, etc.

      • Maybe there is something more nuanced.

        Maybe Mattei sees it as I do.

        Say what we will, but under the old Regime in Argie, it took guts to be a Marxist and guts to be a Liberationist. Jorge by all accounts at that time…was neither.

        So…why does he speak in those terms now?

        There is a lizard that changes its colors to match its background…

        • Excellent observation. Bergoglio is definitely a lizard, much too crafty and devious to get himself caught in a political snare.

          He speaks in those terms now because he styles himself now as the top dog. Well, he’s a dog for sure. And a lizard.

    • Agree with you, Helen. Pope Francis has a public love fest with the Castros and he isn’t Marxist? Isn’t he sidling up to that monster in Venezuela as well? That assessment by Professor Mattei left me perplexed.

      • I cannot get his comment regarding Emma Bonino out of my mind:
        “she is one of Italy’s forgotten greats”.
        If she is the best Italy has to offer, I’d hate to see the worst.

  10. Wow, truth and clarity coming from a professor! That’s good stuff. He needs to go on a worldwide speaking tour. Better have a body guard, though.

  11. The people’s ignorance about their roots, their country, their history is the main cause why they may be fooled so easily by the ideologies and the political leaders.
    I could once read this comment: “Religions are the main causes of wars in the world.”
    I replied : “You are right if you consider that nazism and communism are religions”.

  12. Pr de Mattel and I have a common feature: We have 5 kids.
    We are breeding like rabbits.
    It is nice to hear a Pope who so much encourages the catholics to keep the balance with the rising muslim demography.
    The Muslims are less self-hating than him when they declare: “We will overcome you with the wombs of our wives.”
    Probably the Pope never heard that sentence.
    Oh Lord, how long will You chastise your flock with shepherds of this kind?

  13. There is a great opportunity for the Catholic Church to lead and enlighten the world and demonstrate that Catholicism is the only
    solution to peace and happiness. Let us pray to Our Lady of Fatima that Pope Francis changes his stance from rejecting Catholic doctrine to affirming, proclaiming and manifesting it or that he replaced by someone who will.

  14. There is a great opportunity for the Catholic Church to lead and enlighten the world and demonstrate that Catholicism is the only solution to peace and happiness for mankind.

    Let us pray to Our Lady of Fatima that Pope Francis changes his stance from rejecting Catholic doctrine to affirming, proclaiming, and manifesting it or that he soon be replaced by someone who will.

  15. It is without doubt one of the great tragedies of history that at the very moment when an evil typhoon of revolution blew through the world, decimating all in its path that had worth (the family, institutions and traditions of a society, piety, respect for authority), when the world most needed a strong and unyielding Catholic Church to counter the forces of anarchy, the Church was at its weakest, and even worse, at its weakest through the willful dereliction of its Hierarchy and faithful.

    • Remember Our Lady of Fatima. All these things must come to pass, but in the end, her Immaculate Heart will triumph!


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...