Another profound influence on me was the writings of E. Michael Jones
"Culture Wars" Magazine, as well as "Radio Roman Catholic" broadcasts (these broadcasts may be hard to find, but were excellent.)
E. Michael Jones on Pope Benedict XVI's Light of the World: Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
(November/December 2010)h
ttp://www.culturewars.com/cwradio/Day%201%20Segment%201%20Light%20of%20the%20World%20Discussion.mp3http://www.culturewars.com/Podcasts.htmlThis was one of the first times when i initially heard this in 2010 that I understood what Benedict's problems were.
Up until that point, I found him confusing, endorsing traditional faith and praxis, while at the same time, not entirely "practicing what he preaches" as far as actually ever celebrating the old mass publicly in any instance, which about 5 years ago partly baffled me. It essentially proves that he himself is a symptom of the role confusion/theological inconsistency that was let lose in the 20th century.
He was a man of Vatican II, he wanted, as I understand it, to be in some sense of the world and not of the world at the same time, something no Pope had ever attempted to do before the '60's. To be "Ratzinger" the non-fallible theologian at the same time as being infallible Holy Lord Pope Benedict XVI. These two things can not coexist, he thought they could. This is a profound symptom of the modernist ethos. I can only like benedict, because at least he wore beautiful vestments frequently, but I certainly find him to be flawed, though much less so than , His Holiness Francis. But role confusion over what it is to be Pope, Their Holiness JP II, Francis and Benedixt XVI all share this same problem, one can produce a flow chart proving this, and someday I will, if no one else does. Ultimately they have more in common than differences. Though I do not think Benedict or JP II would have ever said something as dumb as "Who am I to judge"which Francis said. This was probably the worst statement a Pope has made in my lifetime.
Once again, Mr. Jones and a few of his friends, though not all, have had some hostility to the SSPX, despite the fact that Mr. Jones, once kindly allowed Bishop Williamson to once stay at his house, for reasons I cant remember. So even if officially he doesnt endorse them, he understands the situation and is not necessarily against them. (whatever that means...)
I would mention, the writings of
Fr. Gommar de Paw, I like him partly because I have encountered the working class liberalism and in it's inferiority complex which is prevalent in the archdiocese of baltimore. I have walked through the classroom he taught at for ten years before the vatican council ended, being intimately familiar with Mt. St. Mary's seminary (which is where I coincidently bought the "Battle for the American Church" book from it's used seminarian booksale.) I understand well that if you couldnt make it at Mt. St. mary's you couldnt make it anywhere, heretical ideas were impossible toe escape from in Roman Catholic Seminaries of the USA during the 60's and 70's, the tyranny of liberalism forced many good saint priests and religious to "GET OUT" ..
[Fr. Gommar A. DePauw is arguably the founder of the Traditional Roman Catholic Movement. He was a peritus at Vatican II, so he knew first-hand what was going on. In 1964, already seeing what the consequences of Vatican II would be, he left his position as professor of Canon Law and Dean of Admissions at Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, moved to New York City, and founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) there. He publicly offered the Traditional Latin Mass in the Pan American Building there without the "permission" of the archbishop of New York, whom he claimed had no authority in the matter, citing Sacred Tradition and Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum.
I especially recommend:
In Memoriam: Francis Cardinal Spellman, 1889-1967, Protector of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement Cardinal Spellman, is often forgotten as being very pro-tradition, since he died in 1967, he didnt live long enough to receive the respect that others did, and we dont know for certain what would have happened if he had lived into the 1970s, but the evidence is strong that he would have not gone along with the new theology and new mass. Cardinal Spellman, was not perfect, and has legitimate criticisms (his treatment of eastern catholics for example), but for the most part he was a well loved man. The fact that he kept things going in the tridentine way until he died was impressive. This is a man who carried weight, the fact that he did not like key decisions and outcomes from vatican II is deeply meaningful.
"Counciliar or Catholic"
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/depauw67.txtLastly, I would mention:
The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican IIby Bro. Michael Dimond & Bro. Peter Dimond
These two are obviously controversial and don't quite agree with any bishop or group consistently, and being sedevacantists, this is inevitable, but their book is quite good, it presents the truth in a unique way, it worth aquiring.
