In a blog post published on Saturday, I voiced my disagreement with those who said that Michael Voris, in light of his “Breaking News” video reporting on Cardinal Burke’s comments about “the pope harming the Church,” is in some way “seeing the light.”
Well, I hate to say I… nah, to hell with the formalities, I told ya so.
As some of you have already noticed, the above referenced CMTV video has since been deleted. The question is, why has it been removed? There aren’t all that many possible answers…
Could it be that Michael has decided that Cardinal Burke’s comments aren’t really newsworthy, or perhaps even true, and much less newsworthy enough to have merited leaving the dinner table in order to file a report from St. Peter’s Square at midnight Rome time?
No, that doesn’t make any sense. Any time a highly placed Cardinal speaks thus of the pope, and even publicly calls on him to reaffirm doctrine, it’s newsworthy. Furthermore, everyone with a pulse knows that Cardinal Burke’s comments are true.
Did Cardinal Burke ask for it to be removed?
Not a chance; His Eminence’s comments have been widely reported and are irretrievably part of the public record. Beyond that, let’s be honest, CMTV isn’t that influential.
In all likelihood, the video was removed because the operation’s “quasi-internal menace” (mentioned in my post on Saturday) decided that doing so is more palatable than manning up and admitting to his mistakes.
How so?
Apparently he came to realize that the chickens that he hatched earlier this year when he penned the infamous “CMTV Manifesto” (the same that he subsequently managed to compel Michael Voris to adopt) bashing so-called “traditionalists” like Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt and John Vennari by name (for the high crime of directly addressing the pope’s assaults against our Holy Catholic faith) had come home to roost thanks to that video, and those chickens were backing him into a corner.
You see, in order to be consistent, the menace who tells Michael what he can report (not to mention who his friends are) would have to insist that Cardinal Burke himself be branded a “spiritual pornographer,” and therefore CMTV would have no choice but to advise ordinary Catholics to avoid reading Cardinal Burke in order to protect their faith.
Well, that wouldn’t do, of course. Cardinal Burke doesn’t deserve such calumnous treatment as this.
What to do then?
Delete the video, embrace the hypocrisy, and hope for the best!
And just to make sure everyone knows how high the road upon which CMTV travels (read, in order to confirm the sheer magnanimity of the menace in his own mind) make sure Michael issues a new statement strictly condemning any commentary “denigrating the Vicar of Christ;” you know, like the entirely factual comments made by Cardinal Burke.
Oh well, the CMTV brain trust has every right to morph their entire operation into a circus act that no one can take seriously if they so choose, but I for one think it’s a damned shame to witness what was once a hard hitting defender of the Catholic faith; one that put truth before everything else, being castrated by thousands of paper cuts (green paper, that is).
It could be that true defender of the Faith once again, but in order for this to happen the resident menace would have to dig deep in order to find the wherewithal to apologize to Michael (and others) for having been such a tremendous horse’s ass by, among other things, presuming to tie strings to his support of CMTV. He would then perhaps find it in his heart to willingly take on the only role he is truly qualified to play in the operation; not that of content writer or “executive producer,” but of check writer alone. PERIOD.
Michael, having been duly relieved of said strings, might just decide to step up at long last to issue the apology that he still owes a number of good people; the same that I called on him to extend in a video that I made last March; a video that, for the record, will not be deleted.
Louie, tell us who the check writer is. I have a pretty good idea who it is, but I want to hear it from you who the quasi-internal menace check writer really is.
Voris’ behavior is baffling, sounds like he has become a puppet of someone.
BTW, Mikey is doing damage control in today’s Vortex. Pathetic.
Today’s Vortex is not pathetic. In fact I think it’s pretty darned good. Can’t we get over the fact that someone does not want to personally criticize the Pope? And maybe move on?
—
I think Louie should do what HE does best: write terrific, well-thought out posts hammering everyone who’s a liar and a menace to our beloved Church. But to keep trashing someone else, who is really providing a service to Americans by exposing their wolves in sheep’s clothing, is not very edifying or productive.
—
Voris in today’s Vortex comes as close as he feels he can to laying it all out there – the worst case scenario – and to his credit he provides the proper response: prayer, staying close to Our Lord as Head of His Mystical Body, and keeping on keeping on. I like that message even if it’s not what some here THINK Voris SHOULD be saying.
—
As to the fact that he’s got someone else he answers to, the mysterious cheque-writer – well good for him. Loyalty is a good quality to have. And who knows what the future brings – after all as Pope Francis never stops telling us: there might be something NEW!?!?!?!?! coming along.
Maybe he later questioned the integrity of “buzzfeed”?
Barbara, Voris is attacking those of us who want the whole story told as “spiritual pornographers.” The Pope, by his actions, have proved he’s one of the wolves in sheep’s clothing. If I were the general of an army, and I deliberately ignored a part of the enemy army during combat, I would be defeated, and probably killed by men on my side for betraying them. Voris doesn’t “write posts that hammers everyone who is a menace to our beloved Church”. He’s neglecting the one man who’s responsible for these bad priests and bishops in the first place. He raised them to their posts, they didn’t pop up in a cabbage patch overnight. Nope, the man at the top must be criticized and rebuked for his part in this ongoing tragedy.
I don’t think it was hypocrisy, perhaps it was honesty. They might have realized that the report wasn’t accurate. Here’s the transcript of the interview, which was posted on buzzfeed on Oct. 18. Voris thid his report on Oct. 17, so he couldn’t really know what the exact words of Cardinal Burke were. He probably just trusted the information of the main article http://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/conservative-cardinal-who-clashed-with-pope-francis-confirms#pbmag1
Burke’s words were “I can’t speak for the pope and I can’t say what his position is on this, but the lack of clarity about the matter has certainly done a lot of harm.” not that “the Pope had done a lot of harm” as Michael Voris repeated from buzzfeed. Anyway CMTV said to me that they believe that the video helped to influene the Synod possitively, so it might have been a desperate move.
Sorry, here’s the full interview transcript I was talking about: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/interview-with-cardinal-raymond-burke-the-full-transcript#pbmag1
@Barbara : very well said. I thought today’s edition of the Vortex was very good.
I like Michael Voris and, despite what he has said or what he did not say, in the past, I think CMTV provides some excellent insights generally.
I also like Harvestingthefruit.com and I hope that Louie will continue to raise questions about the church. We need folk like Michael and Louie to put the arguments out there. Remember we’re a broad church!
Barbara-
Voris is excellent at telling us what’s wrong (excluding Francis, of course!), but he offers no real solutions. We already know what’s wrong–and the problem right now IS Francis. I think he’s more worried about who’s buttering his bread. In the past, he stayed close to people like Vennari, Matt and Ferrara so that he could get solid information for his broadcasts, but then he blew his cover. Voris has been very vocal about Cardinal Dolan and rightly so. However, if Dolan is elected Pope (Please God, No!!!), will he retract everything negative he ever said about him and become an obedient lap dog? I certainly hope that day never comes. Cardinal Buffoon is bad enough. Just imagine Pope Buffoon II!!
Sorry Barbara, I can’t agree. According to M.V.,” the ONLY response” (“for FAITHFUL Catholics”), “is to remain in full and complete communion with the Church and the Holy Father”. I know what’s meant by “full and complete” with the Church, but what does he mean regarding the Holy Father? Do we look the other way when adulterous concubines receive the Body and Blood of our Lord? Do we go around kissing the Koran? Do we influence our pastors to bring in a menorah and invite the local rabbi to help celebrate our Holy Thursday rite? There may be a lot of ecclesiastical porn around, but Michael V. is still spewing placid propaganda when he talks about the Papacy of Nice.
Dear Raderich,
Thank you very much for this link. We read it through a couple of times and think you’re on to something. The video Mike Voris did bears little resemblance to this. It’s no wonder he pulled it. It was at the very least highly exaggerated regarding the criticism of the Pope, making it sound as though Burke came right out and named him as the mastermind behind a plot to disrupt the Church. (Which we still think he is due to all the other evidence, but that’s another issue).
___
We remember being shocked that Burke would abandon his usual careful language, but thought since Voris had broken his own rules in reporting it, and it was that critical, surely he would have first verified the words. Apparently not.
The harshest two lines we found in the actual interview were:
1. Question to Burke:
“… presumably the pope was the one who asked Cardinal Kasper to frame the synod. Are you saying that [the pope] is the one who is manipulating these proceedings?”
Burke’s answer :
“The pope has never said openly what his position is on the matter and people conjecture that because of the fact that he asked Cardinal Kasper — who was well known to have these views for many, many years. — to speak to the cardinals and has permitted Cardinal Kasper to publish…and to travel around advancing his position..– even recently to publicly claim that he’s speaking for the pope and there’s no correction of this. ” “I can’t speak for the pope and I can’t say what his position is on this, but the lack of clarity about the matter has certainly done a lot of harm. ”
2.—Question to Burke: ” Would it be inappropriate for the pope to do that? To structure the conversation in such a way that it is consistent with his thinking?”
–Burke’s answer: : According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no it wouldn’t be correct.”
=====
This sounds a whole lot more like the Burke we’ve been hearing for the past few months. It doesn’t explain why Voris would run with the story, but it certainly gives evidence of why he would have pulled it.
======
We had a lot of respect for him as a sincere Catholic willing to stand up for the Faith, and beyond that, willing to work very hard to establish an organization to support it. We still think he’s trying to do what he believes is right, but we’ve lost our trust in his ability to think straight where the Papacy is concerned, and that’s a very important factor when you’re talking about a journalist.
___
We can’t fathom him, and can only hope Louie is wrong about the money angle, because then he’s just another sell-out. We continue to pray for him daily, but it doesn’t look good.
___
And people who get upset with his critics should think this through a bit more,rather than just remaining emotionally loyal to him. He’s hurting souls by presenting a one-sided view of the Pope-repeating only the nice-sounding Catholic sounding things he says, and not doing his usual job on the dangerous errors he continues to promote–even today making the outrageous, harmful list into a hypothetical, and then acting as if there is nothing that can be done about it, except prayer. That’s the “silence” St. Catherine condemned.
. He claims he’s saving people from doubting the Papacy, but he’s doing nothing of the kind. They still doubt, they just don’t have his guidance..
Dear James,
We’re pretty sure you’re right. (our comment #7 below explains why)
I also agree with Barbara. Today’s Vortex was excellent and in line with CMTV’s manifesto, which I’ve read today.
It seems Mr. Voris is rightly concerned about encouraging schisms and and the consequences of separating, even apparently only so, from the Bishop of Rome. Voris’ example of Noah and his three sons is excellent. If I may also humbly add and remind us all of the example of what happended to the 10 tribes of Israel separating from the two southern tribes, namely Judah and Benjamin. Unlike the Assyrians who more quickly conquered the 10 northern tribes of Israel, it would take a few more hundred years, and further corruption, before the Babylonians could conquer the remaining two southern tribes of Israel. Notwithstanding that history, our faith teaches us that salvation did inevitably come from the Jews, i.e. the tribe of Judah.
It was also a shared sentiment among Renaissance Italians that Constantinople had been conquered by the muslim Turks because of the ‘schism’ which had occurred 500 years before that time. (I know…I know…and am well aware of the Eastern Christians’ claim that the 4th ‘latin’ Crusade was the cause of the fall of Constantinople. I will not broach further that difficult subject.)
But the commonly understood principle was there, namely that separation from the Bishop of Rome, whose office has special protection by ‘the Holy Advocate’, would inevitably, sooner or later, result in disaster. And Voris and his seem to stick to that principle, which is well worth keeping.
If I may speak provincially — and, yes, less ‘universally’ than other more wiser commentators in this blog — to Mr. Verrecchio, what appears to have been happening in the last 50 years is the utter political/cultural/military collapse of ‘latin’ civilization, be it in Italy, Quebec…or Argentina. On the spiritual side (the other side of the coin), the collapsing Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, calvinists organized religions…etc.. having separated from the Bishop of Rome and in the throes of utter inevitable ruination are attempting enviously to drag down Roman Catholicism with them, lock, stock and barrel.
(My apologies to all for being a bit too worldly. Of course, I ask you all for your indulgences and prayers.)
my2cents,
Do you need some Listerine? https://akacatholic.com/dejavu/#comment-25631
Mike, I think he explained it. Remaining loyal to the Church and Holy Father is accepting the legitimacy of the Papacy as tenet of our Faith. No matter how bad or scandalous or no matter what heartache the Papacy or bad Bishops brings. All the while attempting to be the best possible Catholic you can be. I think he described the posters on these boards, no?
He didn’t explain anything: he sidestepped the question entirely, just as you have done here. St. Paul “recognized the legitimacy” of St. Peter and still “rebuked him to his face”, publicly, for the good of the faithful.
James<, taking your last point first, I have no problem saying most, if not all, on these boards are trying to be the best Catholics they can, (even though I lag far behind where I should be). And all, even the SV, accept the legitimacy of the Papacy. It is interesting, however, that reading the script of the Vortex, "and the Holy Father" was not in there. Was that an ad lib by Michael? I didn't go back to listen to the whole thing again, but neither did the script mention the Pope when speaking of the response to the Arian heresy. All faithful Catholics are in communion with each other through our Lord Jesus Christ. But to say to remain in communion with the Holy Father, ( or "loyal to" as you stated), does not bring to my mind the august Papacy, but "call me Father" Pope Francis with a bobble head doll of Fr. Rosica nodding and nodding and nodding…
You are all (with a few exceptions) defending someone who essentially is a liar and a deceiver.
It’s called controlled opposition, and does immensely more harm than good.
By keeping his followers satisfied but ultimately unaware of the main problem (and therefore unable to act effectively) what he achieves is de facto aiding the “enemy”.
I don’t know if he’s doing this by mere chance, or he’s an active pawn from their camp, nonetheless he cannot be excused.
Any concern about “schism” over the type of legitimate public correction of prelates that the faithful are called to is either a confused musing or an attempt at fear-mongering and slander.
—–
Is this really so difficult? Are so many people really taken in by such a siren song? If Voris had initially reported Paul’s rebuke of Peter would he have deleted that too? Would he have removed the account from Sacred Scripture? Would he have silenced the legion of theologians, doctors, and popes who have virtually unanimously told the Church that this is exactly how the faithful are supposed to react to a pope who is error or who damages the faith?
—–
Voris’ analogy of Noah and his sons is nonsensical, as was addressed long ago. Noah’s sons were covering up nothing but a private shortcoming, a private sin that did no harm whatsoever to the Church (of the time). The situation of a pontiff scandalizing and confusing the faithful – which undoubtedly includes *leading people into mortal sin and thus into Hell* – is not just different, it’s about the polar opposite. It is a crime and sin to remain silent, for he that remains silent in the face of sin participates in it, and furthermore it is a spiritual work of mercy to admonish the sinner – even a cleric/superior.
There were multiple interviews with multiple sources, all saying essentially the same thing.
Uh-oh – I agree with Bert.
… and maybe St. Jerome too: “To know the Truth and remain silent is to call down the Wrath of God!”
Who are you comparing to St. Paul?? Voris? Yourself? Certainly not me!
🙂 🙂
Hey Louie, you just got high praise from Mundabor on his
” CHOOSE YOUR BLOGS CAREFULLY “post today:
“In short: whilst Rome was in great danger of burning, “institutional” Catholic sites were telling us fire is very modern, or what the church always had anyway, or awfully overrated as a danger.”
___
These are, my friends, the best allies of Satan; because whilst obvious enemies of Catholics are heavily discounted by everyone who cares, these people deceive – to a point, of course – those who, at least in principle, care for their Salvation….
___
*****”IN RATHER STRIKING CONTRAST…, let me mention the blogs which – besides your humble correspondent – I have seen with immense consolation shooting from all cannons before the extent of the bishop’s rebellion was known: in no particular order John Smeaton, Rorate Caeli, the “Remnant”, “Harvesting the Fruit of the V II”, and the Traditionalist Catholic Priest were shooting like it’s The Alamo with no regard whatsoever for what the world was saying, how the media would have reacted, whether the bishops would have caved in to Pope Allende, and whether we would have woken up the day after a planet of happy heretics.”
___
“What a joy, to see these brave men and women of God running to the ramparts without knowing or caring how many Uruk-Hai are below, and without knowing whether reinforcement would ever arrive; ready ten thousand times to be called bigots by a stupid world, than sellouts by Christ.”
____
There were, certainly, many more blogs who had these kind of reaction, though I cannot read or even mention them all. But certainly what could be noticed is that the simple laymen, the “one man and one laptop” efforts were, together with the established voices of Tradition, light years in front of the cowardly commercial, “allegedly-middle-of-the-way”, “look-how-cool-Catholicism-is” blogs a la “Patheos”, and utterly prostituted outlets a la “Catholic Herald”.
==============
Thanks for all you do Louie, and fellow Catholic commenters…
I guess you’re taking more from the Voris playbook: One must be a saint in order to call out error. Unfortunately, the Church has never taught any such thing – it is nonsense; it is another example of the pervasive modern confusion of the subjective with the objective.
—–
And, by the way, you’ve taken about every side there is to take regarding Voris here in the past several months.
Mike, you built straw men arguments in your first post and used them to discredit Voris. Where did Mike say that you CAN’T say the Pope is bad? And where did he say you had to kiss the Koran, etc. Fact is, he didn’t. And the argument is ridiculous. The Pope is only infallible in certain conditions. So we don’t have to follow his scandalous actions.
Or, for that matter, Dante: “The lowest place of Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in a time of moral crisis.”
Dear Alarico,
When we criticize what Michael Voris is doing, it’s not with the idea that the choice is “separating” from the Vatican or the Papacy ala the tribes of Israel, but in being honest and open about what he says and does that is wrong i.e. contrary to Church teaching, or leading souls further astray / telling them they’re fine as they are…etc. There’s a big difference between schism and honest speech. Michael Voris has drawn a line that harms his work and those who trust in him, in our opinion.
Blah blah blah… personal attack. Yeah, I’m used to how you operate.
Of course, St. Paul was an apostle and Bishop but hey.. if you feel called to rebuke Francis to his face then God bless!
Links please. The main source was buzzfeed.
The ole Peter/Paul strawman again.
There was no personal attack there. It is a fact that you once told me that I was right in stating that Voris’ refusal to criticize the Bishop of Rome (while he simultaneously offers biting criticism to virtually every bishop) was nonsensical and harmful. So, I stated a fact regarding your posting here.
—–
As for the matter at hand – you’ve said nothing. Why don’t we move the discussion back to the objective. Is it your contention that, as Voris asserts, only “saints” should ever criticize a pope? If so, how do you respond to the theologians who have stated otherwise (with no conditionals on the subjective)? Do you believe that Paul saw himself as a saint when he did publicly rebuke Peter – at around the time he was “working out [his] salvation in fear in trembling”?
—–
I have to go ahead with a couple other follow-up questions: Were the faithful who rebelled at John XXII’s heretical teaching that the faithful departed will not see the Beatific Vision until the end of time wrong to do so? If so, would it then have been better to let this pope die in his error rather than repent beforehand?
—–
It’s my contention that it’s you here who has made a personal attack with your comment on “how I operate”. I challenge you to both answer my questions above and also elaborate on what you mean by that comment. I am always in search of personal improvement – honestly.
Yes, because fraternal correction is not approaching that person in private, and if they don’t listen, taking it to the Church.. but telling him through blogs and social media. LOL!
This is the truth. And it is NEVER in aid of the Church or individual souls to ignore or appear to acquiesce to public objective evil.
And this is a strawman, how? How about the laymen & theologians who publicly corrected John XXII? How about what Aquinas said regarding resisting a pope spreading error?
—–
Here is Voris vs. the greatest theologians in Church history:
—–
St. Thomas says: “To resist openly and in public goes beyond the measure of fraternal correction. St. Paul would not have done it towards St. Peter if he had not in some way been his equal… We must realize, however, that if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked by their inferiors, even in public.”
–
And also: “It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”
–
And: “There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, ***even publicly, by their subjects***. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith.”
–
(All quotes are from somewhere in the Summa.)
–
St. Bellarmine: “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’: therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.”
–
Bellarmine again: “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore,were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.
–
“By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. By doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism…. He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy”
–
Augustine: “[St. Paul] showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defense of truth.”
–
Bellarmine: “Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”
–
Suarez: “If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3449/cardinal_burke_to_cwr_confirms_transfer_praises_pushback_addresses_controversy_over_remarks_by_cardinal_kasper.aspx
—–
“I wholeheartedly agree with what Cardinal George Pell and Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier have stated regarding the manipulation of the Synod Fathers by means of the Relatio post disceptationem. It is clear that whoever wrote the Relatio has an agenda and simply used the authority of a solemn meeting of Cardinals and Bishops to advance his agenda without respect for the discussion which took place during the first week of the Synod.” And, “There was an attempt not to publish the reports and to have Father Lombardi once again filter their contents, but the Synod Fathers… insisted that the reports be published. It was critical that the public know, through the publication of the reports, that the Relatio is a gravely flawed document and does not express adequately the teaching and discipline of the Church and, in some aspects, propagates doctrinal error and a false pastoral approach.”
I didn’t know Mike had a “playbook”. Of course, that is a veiled personal attack on me that insinuates that I can’t think for myself. It also seems to indicate that you believe that, like Mike, I am headed for hell because somehow me thinking Voris made some good points equates to me being just like him and remaining silent against evil.
As far as being a Saint to rebuke a Pope, I never said that. Nor is me posting a comment on a blog equivalent to rebuking Peter to his face.
What was initially reported, is in my view, reflective of what Cardinal Burke said. And who is this person that wields so much power over CMTV from the background. If someone does have such editorial power in respect of the CMTV output, the public ought to be informed of this, and who he is, by CMTV, as a matter of fundamental honesty.
And JamesTL, do you Honestly believe that Louie didn’t attempt a friendly, brotherly chat with MV? I’ve had a not-so-brotherly response or two from them, and I’ll bet Louie has as well…
It’s a strawman to ask if how Voris would act in a biblical scene or if he would leave the account out of the bible.
Too much of the self-identified Catholic Media has compromised the truth, the Deposit of Faith and the Natural Moral Law, for money, for human respect, or the cooperation of enemies of the Faith.
Now I’m just plain confused. Of course I hold no opinion regarding whether you are “headed for Hell”; to do so would be quite inappropriate. (It would be about as bad as Pope Francis’ constant subjective attacks on traditionalists.)
—–
If you do not agree with Voris that only “saints” should dare ever point out a pope’s blunders, errors, etc., then I made a bad inference – it certainly looked to me like you had implied that.
—-
I now wonder if you had meant to reply to Mike earlier, but, you replied to my post.
—-
You & I had been closer to allies than enemies in these environs before & so I was surprised by the comments. I’m quite willing to chalk it all up to “Internet Misunderstanding”.
—-
Let’s all try to remain at least a bit more charitable here than our supreme pontiff is to his enemies. 😉
James, as all the theologians taught, *public* errors require public correction, for the sake of the faithful.
—–
No orthodox Catholic could fail to understand that Pope Francis’ words & actions put *souls in danger*. Some of us really believe that stuff – sorry.
This article does not address the matter.
Yes, Michael Voris is doing great damage to souls by purporting to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the widespread evil opposition to the Faith and morals by the leaders of the Church, whilst pretending that there is no problem with the continual attacks on Faith and morals by the Pope, who has power over all the cardinals and bishops, and is responsible for their increase in and obstinacy in opposition to the Faith and morality. It’s just mind boggling in its dishonesty.
I wasn’t referring to Louie correcting Voris. I was referring Voris correcting Francis, which ACT expects of him.
Public correction by whom?
Dear James,
We notice you’ve been asking folks to show why they think Mike Voris expects people to not- react to the damaging things the Pope says and does. Are you defending him on the grounds he doesn’t insist on that kind of silence? If so,. what about the example he has been giving in doing exactly that for the last 8 months? And the fact that he insists on it in his manifesto, by trashing those who don’t agree with him and bravely speak out–without any schism?
Berto, what you say is clearly objectively true. Without going into Michael Voris’s subjective culpability.
Amen.
By *any Catholic*, James – though, ideally, first & foremost, in the case of a supreme pontiff, by the upper hierarchy and the theologians, such as occurred in the case of John XXII. (By the way, Catholic Family News recently had an excellent series of articles on that sequence of events.)
—–
Of course, his narrow, specific error was far, far less harmful to the Faith than the crisis of modernism we are living in.
I would ask mainly that Mr. Voris refrain from disparaging those Catholics who do actually speak truth regarding the pope’s words & deeds – usually with less bite & hubris than he himself exerts regarding virtually every other bishop in the Church.
—–
If he wants to adopt the nonsensical, un-Catholic position that – despite what every major theologian who’s spoken on the issue and several popes as well have said – we should all nod and smile nervously when the pope makes unclear, erroneous, or otherwise harmful statements, he should at least refrain from castigating those who have either more courage or more sense than him.
—–
Is that really too much to ask?
Huh? The article has more quotes from Cardinal Burke saying essentially the same thing.
—–
Were you looking for the exact same questions and answers in another, separate interview?
—–
For that matter, do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your implicit, serious charge that Buzzfeed printed false statements? If that is the case, we should expect a fierce denial from the Cardinal – some time early yesterday, I think.
Did you read the full transcript? The initial report was cut and spliced to be more sensational. And probably why Voris pulled it. Remember, the original source were no friends of Catholicism.
I’m sorry, James, but you’re making little sense.
Then ask him. You could probably call, email, Twitter, Facebook or even drop in to his studio.
Dear James<, It seems you're seeing straw men as Quixote saw giants. I did not say that M.V. said "you CAN’T say the Pope is bad", (of course what was the point of his manifesto again?) Also, I was trying to understand what he meant by full and complete communion with the Holy Father. That sounds a bit more than respecting the Papacy, and more like accepting what he says and follow what he does. I would like to see Voris come out and start ranting about how wrong it is for others to talk about the pope kissing the Koran, allowing an adulteress to receive communion, how the pope said that the Old Covenant is still in effect. If he did that, continually, he could keep faith with his manifesto while teaching that the errors the popes allow are ERRORS.
https://twitter.com/Michael_Voris
———–
Email : Contact@ChurchMilitant.TV
———–
Telephone : 248-545-5716
———-
Mail :
2900 Hilton Road
Ferndale MI 48220
———
Here… tell Mike how is damaging souls, like one poster said.
I told him that when I canceled my subscription when he first began his screed attacking traditionalists. So did many others. And it continues. Obviously, he knows. He’s either confused (and this is ‘understandable’, I say) and/or – something else.
NOT the same as first account, that Voris pulled.
If Buzzfeed put words in Cardinal Burke’s mouth there would have been a fierce denial of the interview and, in all likelihood, some kind of litigation. There’s been nothing of the sort, so this line of argumentation would seem to have little merit.
—–
Also, FWIW, the enemies of Catholicism all love Pope Francis and everything he is doing. That is a fact.
Google is your friend. As Mr. V. notes in the OP here, Burke’s comments “have been widely reported and are irretrievably part of the public record.”
James The Less, this site has readers who tend to be rather well-informed. We can argue for hours about the quirks in CMTV’s representation of the happenings during the last couple of days. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that the cards were stacked in favor of, and against, Catholicism in this Synod…no need to go into details if it is not already evident.
As many have already mentioned here, and as many saints have been quoted as saying, we have the right and the duty to complain if the reigning pope ‘or an angel’ were to differ. Go back to the premise: Francis is favoring the ‘bad guys’. Burke and others are resisting. (I would have capitalized those last two sentences if I knew how to do it on my new tablet…) What do CMTV, and MV, think they are doing by obscuring the grave danger to Holy Church by trying to sideline this, fretting over the wording when it means the same thing? Their broadcasts will only serve to pacify those who are indecisive—the very people one would think CMTV was hoping to draw. This is why I cancelled my subscription.
I meant to say…’in favor of Kasper’s novelty, and against…’…I wish this site would allow me to see what I’ve written. But I think the meaning is evident…
Absolutely superb contributions, Catholic Thinker. In point of fact, the refusal to respectfully criticize Pope Francis when such criticism is warranted does not serve Pope Francis or the Church. Moreover, it treats the person of the Holy Father as many wrong-headed Protestants wrongly believe about Papal Infallibility.
How long will it take for people to wake up and smell the axis of evil that is the Vatican II organisation and its fetid fake-popes? How the Voris’ of the world sleep at night with the enemy in bed, who can say.
PS. Meanwhile the allies of truth continue to be maligned by the sleeping with the enemy types.
PPS. And the maligners/antichrists continue to be supported by ‘good Catholics’.
Dear Alarico,
Thank you for your very good post. I can honestly say that I enjoyed reading it.
___
Furthermore, you write:
“On the spiritual side (the other side of the coin), the collapsing Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, calvinists organized religions…etc.. having separated from the Bishop of Rome and in the throes of utter inevitable ruination are attempting enviously to drag down Roman Catholicism with them, lock, stock and barrel.”
____
You are absolutely correct that the problems of the protestants is that they separated from the Catholic Church. I would go further and say that the new religions that they created were not religions per se, but rather protest movements. Anti-religions if you will. These anti-religions are very analogous to the relationship of the anti-thesis to the thesis in the classical Hegelian dialectic. One of the “unintended consequences” of VII was that by “protestantizing” Catholicism, it removed the raison d’etre underlying the protest. Using our Hegelian analogy, the anti-thesis can not exist without the thesis… anymore than the parasite can exist without the host. And some of these protestants, (outside of the new world order types) are realizing this, and are actually horrified by what Francis is doing. And the reason that they are horrified is that they realize that without a proper Catholic church, their religions are irrelevant.
_____
If you don’t believe me… check out this link: https://akacatholic.com/cmtvhypo/?replytocom=25770#respond
_____
Now, this is a video produced by the Lutherans. 🙂
I’ve listened to Mr. Voris’ latest “let’s just say” and not a single commenter in this thread has mentioned the fact that he was standing before a statue of St. Catherine of Sienna.
–
Before you criticize the spoken message of his latest video, keep in mind that it is not by accident that he is standing before the statue of St. Catherine – this is obviously a hidden message. He is suggesting that St. Catherine is a good model for dealing with the current crisis. A quick review of St. Catherine’s life indicates that she advocated reform of the clergy and she also was involved in the beginning of the great western schism.
–
Notably, she defended the true Pope who triggered the schism Urban VI. What
was Pope Urban VI like? Read here:
–
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15216a.htm
–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VI
–
I like the wiki description:
–
“Immediately following his election, Urban began preaching intemperately to the cardinals (some of whom thought the delirium of power had made Urban mad and unfit for rule),[8] insisting that the business of the Curia should be carried on without gratuities and gifts, forbidding the cardinals to accept annuities from rulers and other lay persons, condemning the luxury of their lives and retinues, and the multiplication of benefices and bishoprics in their hands. Nor would he remove again to Avignon, thus alienating King Charles V of France.
–
The cardinals were mortally offended. Five months after his election, the French cardinals met at Anagni, inviting Urban, who realized that he would be seized and perhaps slain. In his absence they issued a manifesto of grievances on 9 August that declared his election invalid since they had been cowed by the mob into electing an Italian. Letters to the missing Italian cardinals followed on 20 August declaring the papal throne vacant (sede vacante). Then at Fondi, secretly supported by the king of France,[9] the French cardinals proceeded to elect Robert of Geneva as Pope on 20 September. Robert, a militant cleric who had succeeded Albornoz as commander of the papal troops, took the title of Clement VII, beginning the Western Schism, which divided Catholic Christendom until 1417.”
–
While defending Urban at the beginning of the schism St. Catherine called the cardinals opposing him “devils”.
–
I take Mr. Voris’ historical allusion as a warning to fellow Catholics that there is no simple solution to the present crisis, and it might get more confusing than it is now. How would rival papal claimants make things less confusing than they are now?
–
Perhaps St. Catherine is another saint whose intercession we should ask for in this time of great confusion.
–
Also, St. Vincent Ferrer during the schism supported an antipope! If a saint of the church can be mistaken about such a weighty matter as the legitimacy of a pope, what chance do we have?
–
Do you fellow reader, think that St. Catherine is an appropriate model to follow in the current crisis? Apparently, none of the rival claimants during the schism were advocating heresy, so were her times like ours? Or are our times more like those of St. Athanasius since many of the leaders of the church appear not to hold the faith? Is St. Athanasius a better model as a result?
..ahhh, the smoke of Satan is infiltrating the comment box of Mr. V.
🙁
I meant the above to ge a general comment.
I think we know which side Mundabor is on. 🙂
_____
“The End Of The Beginning”
_____
Link here: http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/the-end-of-the-beginning/
______
Mundabor writes:
Also reflect on this: that at this synod, modern-times taboos were broken. For the first time, a V II Pope was if not explicitly, certainly evidently questioned in his very doctrinal integrity or at least competence by many sources, his Cardinals not excluded. The floodgates are open. The age of the V II Pope who is believed to be remote-controlled by the Holy Spirit has ended. Countless Pollyannas have seen the Pope attacked not for his orthodoxy – this is an old sport by now – but for his lack of it, by his very people; by people, in fact, he has himself just made Cardinals, or called in the circle of his closest ally.
+++Also reflect on this: that at this synod, modern-times taboos were broken. For the first time, a V II Pope was if not explicitly, certainly evidently questioned in his very doctrinal integrity or at least competence by many sources, his Cardinals not excluded. The floodgates are open. The age of the V II Pope who is believed to be remote-controlled by the Holy Spirit has ended. Countless Pollyannas have seen the Pope attacked not for his orthodoxy – this is an old sport by now – but for his lack of it, by his very people; by people, in fact, he has himself just made Cardinals, or called in the circle of his closest ally. Also reflect on this: that at this synod, modern-times taboos were broken. For the first time, a V II Pope was if not explicitly, certainly evidently questioned in his very doctrinal integrity or at least competence by many sources, his Cardinals not excluded. The floodgates are open. The age of the V II Pope who is believed to be remote-controlled by the Holy Spirit has ended. Countless Pollyannas have seen the Pope attacked not for his orthodoxy – this is an old sport by now – but for his lack of it, by his very people; by people, in fact, he has himself just made Cardinals, or called in the circle of his closest ally.
+
” I do not think our Argentinian Hitler will win this war. I actually think this Synod marks the end of his triumphal march, and his papacy is now fairly near to becoming damaged goods. But this Hitler here is not the one to stop the fight and content himself with wearing red noses and embracing wheelchairs. He has hated Catholicism all his life. Those who have stopped him last week are exactly the people he has been insulting since the start of his Pontificate. He will continue the fight in the only way he knows: shameless hypocrisy on one side, reckless bullying on the other.”
______
Damaged goods, indeed!
_____
IMHO, the dynamic driving the disorder is the factions created by VII. Vatican II tried to break with the Magisterium and Tradition. What it did is create micro magisteriums and traditions. Over the last year, what we witness is fratricide between the magisterium of BXVI and the magisterium of Bergoglio. At the Secret Synod, the Bergoglio’s magisterium attacked the magisterium of JPII. And the Poles (along with the Benedictines) are pissed. And I think it is dawning on all, that the problem is the “spirit of VII” beast. If it is not “slain”, each subsequent magisterium will need to attack it’s predecessors, just like VII attacked Catholicism, and Bergoglio attacked BXVI and JPII.
.
Going further, the reasons that the internecine “magisterium attacks” WILL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE is due to the fact that the VII sect is constructed on NOVELTY. Once the sect takes the homo novelty onboard on novelty, it will not be novelty any longer. And the sect will need to move on and identify and bring onboard the next one.
____
On an aside, we see the next novelty waiting in the wings: legalization of incest.
____
Think about how much “luv” subsists in a relationship between brother and sister and subsists in relationships between two complete strangers. 😉
The first paragraph of Mundabor’s that I quote should read as follows:
_____
Also reflect on this: that at this synod, modern-times taboos were broken. For the first time, a V II Pope was if not explicitly, certainly evidently questioned in his very doctrinal integrity or at least competence by many sources, his Cardinals not excluded. The floodgates are open. The age of the V II Pope who is believed to be remote-controlled by the Holy Spirit has ended. Countless Pollyannas have seen the Pope attacked not for his orthodoxy – this is an old sport by now – but for his lack of it, by his very people; by people, in fact, he has himself just made Cardinals, or called in the circle of his closest ally.
_____
Sorry for the repetition of the above… but hey, maybe the “spirit of VII” …or the “spirit of JPII”… or better yet, the “spirit of Mundabor” … made me do it. 🙂
You got some ‘splainin to do boy”! 🙂
_____
Homo promoting bishop try to explain what happened at the Secret Synod.
____
Link here:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/10/disappointed-synodalists-complain.html
____
EF:
“Cardinal Schönborn credited the Kasper-line, which he supported, with a “massive wave of attacks” against Pope Francis. The simple-minded explanations of the Austrian Cardinal weaves on a myth: evil “conservative” church officials who had been “afraid” of change, prevented the right thing by “massive attacks” on the good Pope.”
_____
Got it1
_____
Simple…. or rather simplistic. 😉
Francis had a “mensis horriblis”
_____
” Bergoglio’s Disenchantment in a “mensis horribilis”? — Pope Tirade Against Critics.”
_____
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/10/bergoglios-disenchantment-in-mensis.html
____
EF writes:
“For Pope Francis the month of October 2014 was a mensis horribilis (Messa in Latino). Although the Synod of Bishops on the family went according to plan in terms of support from the mass media, it did not in terms of the Cardinals and Bishops who exercise their pastoral office and take responsibility in the Church.”
+
“The papal note in the sermon for the beatification of Paul VI., God “has no fear of new things” was looking back at the Synod, (had a) pale smack (of) one of those cartoon balloons with big words, but theologically modest or out of place content.”
_____
A MUST READ.
_____
Takeaway and best paragraph:
“The Pope had… Sviatoslav Shevchuk, (the) Grand Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church opened the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the General Congregation. A harrowing situation, at least for more recent Church history, (one) of unprecedented embarrassment. A Metropolitan and Synod father, who isn’t instructing the believers in the Catechism, but the Pope himself. Literally speaking, Shevchuk spoke of the need “to send the faithful and the Pope a clear message” that “the family is a solid and sacramental bond between a man and a woman,” as Il Foglio reported. 😉 😉 😉 😉
From above EF blog post, the following are key information points to understand the situation in Rome at present:
____
1) It also seems that the last church members have realized that Francis, despite his demonstrable show about expressions of collegiality and freedom of speech, does not shrink from manipulation and the oppression of opinion to enforce its objectives.
.
2) The Synod were so outraged that they themselves rejected the long-held custom in the Church and not only out of respect and courtesy, attacked the material executors, when they meant the Pope, but those directly underlying the Pope.
.
3) The synod accused the Pope of having done “great damage” to the Church “great damage” inflicted, as Cardinal Raymond Burke formulated.
.
4) Major Archbishop Shevchuk (told) the Pope frankly, to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
.
5) Leading Cardinals like Prefect Gerhard Müller, Camillo Ruini or Raymond Burke even denied the Pope a greeting.
.
6) nd how different then is a pointed criticism of the Pope in the patience of the Synod Working Group is to be read in Italicus B. “We’re not looking for the cheap populism lulling everything and packed in cotton wool.”
.
7) We will see whether the Pope will dare after this synod to dismiss the cardinal as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. Even if this should be the case, and Burke’s room for maneuver and information access would be restricted, the Pope has found his challenger and who has the courage is no small thing, in the face of religious practice and education to oppose the Pope publicly.
.
8) “Pope Francis has been undermined by a serious mistake,” said Messa in Latino in attacking the family, the central theme of the pontificate of John Paul II., who has significantly influenced the Catholics living today, and the pontificate of Benedict XVI. with the “non-negotiable values”.
.
9) “The lukewarm may be satisfied by moral laxity,” but not the really faithful who consciously or unconsciously understand that this hand should be applied to substance. There would probably have been less resistance if the Pope had launched his attack in the area ecumenism, which is more personally distant to most. (It’s become personal to the Poles 😉 )
.
10) According to La Repubblica several cardinals contacted Pope Benedict XVI in the course of the Synod of Bishops . and asked him to slow down Pope Francis. Benedict XVI. is supposed to have answered them: “I’m not the Pope, do not turn to me.” Nevertheless, he sent a friendly embassy to Pope Francis, in which he again offered his theological help. An aid that has not been used to date. (So much for the BXVI “cunning plan” theory.
.
11) Who with Pope Francis leaned too far out of the window? An aging 68s clergy and the “German Church”, as they say from Rome considers with a view to the north and the entire German-speaking world. That rich, but inwardly rotten church, having special regard for the church tax, although it is a huge machine that mainly manages itself and the faith more clearly undermines than it supports. A Church that also does not shrink, thanks to their money, in negatively affecting poorer churches and destroying their clergy through scholarships to their schools and universities. The “German Church” stands for “aberrosexual-understanding” and the “gradation of relations” which is more naked than ever before in Cardinals Reinhard Marx and Christoph Schönborn.
.
11) The Rhenish alliance is solely fused into a nationwide German-Austrian-Swiss. Not even the French wanted to participate any more. The Latin Americans, made sickly by the aid of the “German Church” and undermined by decades of liberation theology menace, were in Rome for Bergoglio, but the North Americans who are used to the struggle over the family in policy, and the Africans along with the majority of Asians, have a healthy attitude on the subject, and vigorously opposed the Pope.
.
12) A special role in Europe is still played by the Polish Church, which primarily has substantive reasons. But the Poles were also filed with outrage, who viewed Bergoglio’s anti-Wojtyla position, whose relationship to Marxism is quite unclear. These days, the 30th anniversary of the death of a priest kidnapped and murdered by the Communists, Jerzy Popieluszko. Catholics in Poland are sensitive as they resist the former communists positions represented by Pope Francis in their gender agenda, abortion, “gay marriage” and the legalization of incest.
_____
12) In the same speech, Francis suddenly discovered he is not only the Bishop of Rome, as he otherwise demonstratively refers to himself, but the Pope. He was suddenly attentive to his prerogatives as “supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful”, which is equipped with the “highest power in the universal Church”. A clear message to remember who’s in charge. (I’m the big boss man… after all.)
.
13) “Pope Francis now his Williamson case, which Benedict XVI had the consequence of open rebellion in further parts of the Church, “said Messa in Latino . For Francis, it’s not about one person, but an assembly, which is a stumbling block and brings this pontificate to the ground of reality, as always, Pope Bergoglio will now react to it, possibly even with a still frenetic activism.
______
To paraphrase an old American saying: It looks like the bishops went to the fights, and a Synod broke out. 😉
Eye candy.. from Ireland.
_____
“Finally, something good to report from Ireland”
____
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/finally-something-good-to-report-from.html
____
Brick by brick. 🙂
Lynda,
Pending matter on the truth.
So there are two lines of thought within the SSPX. One of them is wrong.
Lynda October 19, 2014
God has revealed all that is necessary for our salvation, all that is the Church’s mission. The Pope’s idea of “surprises” is his own nasty modernist agenda that he has the hubris and wickedness to ascribe to Our Lord God. Reparation. Reparation. Reparation.
Lionel
Lynda
God has revealed all that is necessary for our salvation, all that is the Church’s mission.
Lionel:
All ? Was Fr.Leonard Feeney wrong about exclusive salvation in the Church and is the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 correct to infer that there are known exceptions ?
The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 says there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus while the last Communque of Bishop Fellay to Friends and Benefactors infers there are known exceptions.
So there are two lines of thought within the SSPX. One of them is wrong.
Which one is it for you?
https://akacatholic.com/vorislight/#comments
So there are two lines of thought within the SSPX. One of them is wrong.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/so-there-are-two-lines-of-thought.html#links
Truth.What is the truth? The same mistake is being made by so many in the Church.
All Catholics in Florence are being asked to intepret Vatican Council II and magisterial documents in an unethical manner
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/all-catholics-in-florence-are-being.html
May be it’s difficult for Michael at this time. Let’s give him some time.Secondly his standing before the statue of St.Catherine of Siena is significant.He is speaking the truth as he understands it and so is Louie Verrecchio.
There are some things which even Louie finds difficult and I do not criticize him for it. Let’s wait I say..
I asked Louie Verrecchio, blogger and speaker, who attends Holy Mass at an SSPX chapel to answer TWO QUESTIONS 1.If Louie Verrechio answers those two questions frankly, he will be out of step with John Vennari and Christopher Ferrera and the rest of the SSPX.Doctrine is a political issue.Theology has become political.
Neither will Verrecchio or any of the SSPX priests answer the two questions. Cardinal George Pell refuses to answer them.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson ,priests and John Martigioni, a lay apologist have answered those two questions.2.
1.
TWO QUESTIONS
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states ‘all’ need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation ?
2.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links
And now from the Remanant. a new beatification initiative.
______
Saint Annibale Bugnini, pray for us!
______
Link here: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/1173-saint-annibale-bugnini-pray-for-us
______
Michael Matt writes:
“We’re absolutely confident that those millions and…and… billions and…and…even quadrillions of nameless and faceless devotees of Paul VI who today made it impossible—just impossible!—for the Vatican not to beatify him, will eventually get around to proving the obvious—that Archbishop Bugnini, despite his freemasonry, died in the odor of sanctity and now enjoys the beatific vision.”
_____
Yes folks. The church of Francis. Where reality subsists in parody. 😉
You can speculate all you want, but you are in a state of denial. The fact is, Burke did not say Francis was doing damage to the Church. He said IF he were manipulating the synod then he would be doing damaging. He also said he did not know nor could he speak for the Pope. Buzzfeed saved their own butts by releasing the entire transcript.
The problem is that you are speculating. Burke never said Francis was favoring the side that wanted to do damage. Even if we can all agree that he was, there is no concrete proof. Voris seemed to think he had a story that implied so, that turned out to be manipulated. It would’ve been poor journalism on his part if he didn’t retract an interview that was spliced out of context to further days division between Catholics.
Further *cause* division. Stupid auto correct!
Cardinal Burke said the Pope’s not speaking out clearly [in defence of the doctrines in issue] was harming the Church.
IF, you are the king/queen of the and/or argument. Someone compliments Voris and suddenly they believe we can’t say anything about the Pope. Silly argument.
You’re still not being intellectually honest.
At least Michael Voris is consistent. He has a policy of not criticizing the pope, a policy that I don’t agree with. But what about the SSPX? There’s absolutely nothing critical mentioned at all about Pope Francis on Dici (I checked again this morning). This is not consistent with the SSPX of the past. We have the scariest and worst Pope sitting on the throne of Peter since the Council, and the SSPX says NOTHING about the Pope at all in relation to the synod. This concerns me far more than Michael Voris. What would Archbishop Lefebvre have said about the scandalous and heretical views of the current Pope? He had strong words for the Popes whom he dealt with, and they weren’t nearly as bad as Francis.
Whatever, James. You arbitrarily and completely illogically decide that the original source the interview is *lying* and then ignore other interviews where Burke said virtually identical things. All kinds of other sources are citing the Buzzfeed interview, as Google would demonstrate to you. Since you seem disinclined to look, here’s one more:
—–
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/18/cardinal-burke-yes-im-out/
So Michael Voris is “damaging souls”, “in bed with the enemy” an “Antichrist”, “a self described Catholic”, a “liar”, a “deceiver”, “controlled opposition”, “a puppet”, “spewing propaganda” .
—-
Wow… Smoke of Satan indeed.
It’s amusing, despite being very sad, to see Catholics bickering with one another along the lines “I’m more Catholic than you because………………….” online.
The falling out between friends and family – and we’re all members of the Catholic family, we are a very broad church – is sad.
Pathetic even.
Time to leave the petty vendettas and agendas aside.
You’re quite right, James the lesser.
To which I would like to again affirm that I don’t understand the harsh stance against Voris, when the SSPX is guilty of doing the same thing. In fact, the SSPX didn’t even post, even for a short time, the video of Cardinal Burke. Apparently, the SSPX now has the same policy that Michael Voris has: the Pope is off limits when it comes to criticism. Why is no one concerned about this?
James:
You forgot… or maybe “simply an entertainer”. 😉
@Armaticus : I attend Harrington Street when I can. And the Mass there is very well attended every Sunday.
Paul:
Very well said.
_____
I think people take responsibility for how they work out “there salvation in fear and trembling”. As I tell my young sons: “I can’t do it for you”.
_____
Therefore, IMHO we need to let MV work out his salvation as he sees fit.
_____
And my final word on this matter, quoting the immemorial Rodney King: ” Yeh, why can’t we all get along?”.
It needs also to be mentioned that slander is a mortal sin.
It is indeed sad. You’re right about it being time to leave petty vendettas and agendas aside.
Dear Roman Watcher,
I agree that Micheal Voris looks like someone’s puppet. His most recent CMTV report has the obvious tone that we should all just “chill out” because after all the Church has always been through trials and tribulations and has always prevailed. His “let’s just say” gives me the impression that he wants us to all of a sudden consider that the Pope might not be to blame and that what we are seeing and hearing from this Synod just might not be what you think it is, a rotten mess.
Everything is so very much coming to light during this Synod. It really appears that everything has been decided by the progressives and all we really have left is to pray, fast , abstain and do pennance as we watch our Church burn
or be crucified all over again.
I doubt that S. Armaticus cares much about mortal sin in relation to slander.
Dear Denise:
I would just point out that Fr. Z didn’t either.
___
I think it is different for clerics.
__
Having said the above, I would just remind you that the SSPX had a page up about Francis being a modernist since last June. And for clerics, that is ‘large caliber’.
Dear Denise:
In that case, please say an Ave Maria for me.
In all seriousness.
God bless,
S.A.
I would like to remind you that Bp. Fellay took back his words about Pope Francis being a genuine modernist. I know about the page being up about Francis modernist stance. So….. if the SSPX truly believes that Francis is a modernist, then why do they say NOTHING about the reprehensible situation at the synod regarding the scandalous actions and words of the Pope? It’s because the Pope is now off-limits when it comes to criticism. Why that is, I have no idea.
Where did he take back his words?
–
[ http://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/transcript-bishop-fellays-11-2013-interview-2894 ,after stating the Pope is a modernist. ]
[-]
A modernist pope?
[-]
I used the word “modernist;” I think that it was not understood by everybody. Perhaps I should have said a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist. There are lines, for example, the evolutionary line, which is precisely connected with action. When the pope says that he wants a haziness in doctrine, when doubt is introduced, and not just haziness, but doubt, going so far as to say that even the great leaders of the faith, like Moses, allowed room for doubt…. I know of only one doubt of Moses: the time when he doubted and struck the rock! Because of that the Good Lord punished him and he was not able to enter the Promised Land. Well then! I do not think that this doubt is to Moses’s credit; the rest of the time he was rather forceful in his assertions… without a doubt.
[-]
It is really surprising, this idea that there must be doubts about everything; it is very peculiar! I will not say that this is reminiscent of Descartes, but… it creates an atmosphere. And what is really dangerous is that they leave it at that in the newspapers and the media… He is to some extent the darling of the media, he is well regarded, they praise him, they showcase him, but that does not get to the bottom of the matter.
Michael Voris went to Ireland early this year, and interviewed two young Irish brothers named Niall and Cathal Bergin. These two fine men were inspired by Voris to learn the true teachings of the Church, and to leave behind their Protestant views and revert back to the Church of their youth. Their testimony is awe-inspiring, truly. As a result, Cathal Bergin has started his own work in interviewing traditionalists in Ireland, who are standing up for the Catholic faith. Most of those whom he interviews are affiliated with the SSPX. But at least this is an example of someone DOING something about the horrible situation in Ireland, as a direct result of Voris’ work. Voris has failings, but his work is not without merit.
Dear Denise,
For what it’s worth, the link below is to the last SSPX statement from the 14th of October. If you remember, that was the day after Relation Monday. Please review it at your leisure.
.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/we-blame-council-synods-problems-5239
The key word in the above passage is coherence. I don’t think anyone can accuse Francis of being coherent.
I agree with what Catholic Thinker is saying here. I want to thank him for his time and contributions on this.
Dear Denise:
I think you put your finger exactly on the true issue. It’s about the Faith. You either have the Faith or you don’t. And that is what separates, or rather should separate the Catholics from the modernists. As far as those the two young men, they should be congratulated since they obviously figured out that we are all on the same side.
Cathal Bergin has started a new traditional website in Ireland, which is a direct result of the influence of Michael Voris’ work. I don’t think that Voris would have expected that Cathal Bergin would become a supporter of the SSPX, though. In any case, here’s the website. It’s called, “Love the Faith.”
http://www.lovethefaith.com/
Bishop Fellay had previously stated that Pope Francis is a “Genuine Modernist.” Then he comes back with saying that Pope Francis is not a modernist in the absolute. So, a genuine modernist is not a modernist in the absolute? Yeah…..right.
What’s being implied here is not true.
—–
You are aware that Bishop Fellay not long ago referred to Francis as “*a true modernist*”? How much more frank in one’s criticism of the holy father could one be? In fact, Fellay’s criticisms have been many and accurate. And, right now, there is plenty on the site regarding the Synod.
—–
One cannot draw conclusions regarding a position from the *lack* of a statement, etc., at a single point in time; that is logically equivalent to proving a negative.
—–
Archbhishop Lefebvre didn’t go through life with a scowl on his face, constantly negative; he criticized, devastatingly, at times, when appropriate, but he was serenely peaceful most of the time, going about his work. And, he never failed to meet with the Vicar of Christ or his representative when invited. To do refuse that would be to imbibe a schismatic spirit.
Bishop Fellay was making proper Catholic distinctions between material and formal error. “The Church does not judge internals” – and neither do we.
So Pope Francis is only a material modernist? Not a formal one? Gee….that’s good to know. What a relief! (Not)
He comes back stating that his criticism is not understood in the context he actually intended it:
–
‘Perhaps I should have said a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist.’
–
Your understanding and his understanding of what clarifies an Absolute Modernist and a Genuine Modernist maybe in disagreement with Fellay. Fellay is still calling His Holiness Modernist by action because of the lack of coherence on His Holiness’ part, but in no way is the entirety of the accusation rescinded.
Lionel, on the contrary, I am quite sure that there is nary an SSPX priest – or intelligent layman – incapable of responding to Feeneyism, or exactly whatever it is you’re here suggesting is the plain truth.
—–
I also am not able to see your questions as sensible. “1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?” What, exactly, are you trying to ask, or assert? You are correct that we don’t generally “see dead people”, physically, saved or not. I have no idea what you’re suggesting here.
—–
The Church has always – since Apostolic times – taught that baptism is necessary for salvation, that water baptism is the necessary means of baptism, and that two other forms exist: that of blood and that of desire.
So Michael Voris is criticized for pulling that video interview of Cardinal Burke, but it’s okay for the SSPX to not say anything at all about the Pope in relation to the synod, because Bp. Fellay once said that the Pope is a modernist. Got it.
So Michael Voris is criticized for pulling that video Cardinal Burke, but it’s okay for the SSPX to not say anything at all about the Pope in relation to the synod, because Bp. Fellay said twice that the Pope is a modernist, and that’s good enough. The SSPX is now exonerated from ever saying anything negative about the Pope in the future. Got it.
I’m sorry but that is pure nonsense.
Compromising the Faith in order to “keep the peace”, so to speak, is clearly a tool of the Devil.
So is “the end justifies the means” mentality.
If I got a dollar for everytime a NeoCatholic told me to “be charitable” and silent (which is an euphemism for lieing and accepting error) to achieve a “Greater good” ….
Compromise is the quintessential instrumentum corruptionis the Vatican II minions used so effectively to derail and dismantle the Church.
As if She was a petty political party trying to win some election, and not the incorruptible beacon of Truth!
Shameful.
That’s not what I said. Also, I posted my response mistakenly to the wrong post.
What’s being implied here is not true.
—–
You are aware that Bishop Fellay not long ago referred to Francis as “*a true modernist*”? How much more frank in one’s criticism of the holy father could one be? In fact, Fellay’s criticisms have been many and accurate. And, right now, there is plenty on the site regarding the Synod.
—–
One cannot draw conclusions regarding a position from the *lack* of a statement, etc., at a single point in time; that is logically-equivalent to proving a negative.
—–
Archbhishop Lefebvre didn’t go through life with a scowl on his face, constantly negative; he criticized, devastatingly, at times, when appropriate, but he was serenely peaceful most of the time, going about his work. And, he never failed to meet with the Vicar of Christ or his representative when invited. To do refuse that would be to imbibe a schismatic spirit.
Because what you’re saying isn’t true. The SSPX have offered plenty of criticism of this pope, as appropriate. The SSPX are constantly, consistently instructing the faithful regarding the horrid errors of the root causes of this crisis, with complete truth and charitable frankness. My guess is that you do not attend a Society chapel – if you did you would be aware of this.
—–
I would suggest to you a tactic and an attitude other than constantly checking the SSPX website hoping to find an aggressive response to the latest papal bombshell. The Society are in this for the long-haul, and have no interest in popularity contests, regarding neo-Catholics or anyone else.
What an absurd joke.
Even Satan would be judged as a mere material heretic by your standards.
After all, the Church doesn’t judge the internal forum, so who’s to say he’s just erring in good faith.
Neither the bishops of the Society nor any other individual has the capability to judge Francis a formal heretic. And, despite what you appear to be longing for, drawing attention to the statements themselves as materially modernist is sufficient for the good of the faithful. One needn’t be out for blood; just live the Faith and avoid his errors.
Slandering someone, like all the insults hurled at Voris that question his motive and Catholicity, is not defending the Truth.
Dear JamesTheLesser,
You’re not making a whole lot of sense here. We didn’t use the that phrase- “and/or” even once. . We simply asked you a question to determine what you were actually thinking, and to make it easier to answer us said, “if so” meaning if we got your meaning right,–then that led to our second question. Why are you being so insulting and “touchy” with everyone who disagrees with you?
___
We’ve said this a few times before. Michael Voris has done a lot of good things, but in our opinion his choice of reporting only good about the Pope has ruined his credibility and objectivity as a journalist. That’s our opinion, and he has clearly chosen to do that based on his manifesto and his inaction in the past 8 months since he published it. We’re entitled to that opinion just as you’re entitled to yours. God Bless you.
___
Whatever some theologian asserted, it does not mean the Church taught it.
And Baptism of Blood is not a certainty, as expressely stated in Cantate Domino:
““The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, *no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ*, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Also I was under the impression BOD, even when taught (even by Doctors of the Church), was limited to Catechumens, not infidels or whomever.
Hi Berto,
—–
Since you believe, apparently, that the Church – and us individuals – do (or should) judge internals, please provide the Church doctrine (or statements from theologians or popes, etc.) supporting that. You must be able to produce teachings to that effect. Note that such teachings would not speak about practical matters such as whom to avoid, etc., but about being able to know the state of another’s soul.
—–
Note that I don’t mean we don’t take practical actions based on our observations; we are to avoid dangers to the faith whether or not the souls creating them knowingly and obstinately hold to heresy.
—–
As for satan, the Church teaches that he is damned and thus entirely without any theological virtue, including Faith. Thus he is a heretic because supernatural Faith is required to believe any Catholic doctrine. So, we do know that one. But we are not able to know with moral certainty whether any soul on Earth possesses Faith, as material error does not divest one of it.
—–
Regarding Pope Francis, I personally have a very difficult time believing he is a sincere Christian in a state of grace. I can’t get my mind around that. But I can’t and don’t need to declare that with moral certainty, bind others to it, etc. And I don’t dwell on it, because it is irrelevant.
Right, because canon law and Vatican I says we are allowed to judge the Pope. Oh wait…. No they don’t.
Dear Denise,
“At least Michael Voris is consistent?”
-First he declares fellow Catholics ecclesiastic porn peddlers for publishing negative reports about the Pope, saying HE and his organization never will.
-Then he waits 8 months till his hero, Cardinal Burke, reportedly blisters the Pope, accusing him of masterminding the disruption of the Church–and that is what he believed the report to say, or he wouldn’t have made the video.
—Next he pulls the video.
–Then he goes back to talking as though he would never do anything like that, without explaining what just happened here.
Sorry, that does not resemble consistency. Impulsivity, maybe?
Catholic Thinker,
no, what I mean is not judging internals is all well and good, but what is a joke is distorting the principle to the twisted, sick, relativist extreme of nothing being “formal” or “public”.
The idea is absurd, and as I said, even Satan (obviously in disguise!) could be chalked up to a material heretic.
It is clear to me Siscoe&co tailored their interpretation of doctrine on the matter perfectly to fit their own position (and save face in the eyes of traditionalism): i.e. no matter what the “Holy Father” says and does, shucks! we cannot judge internals!
Of course they conveniently forget their own grundnorm when talking about hedious cases such as Pelosi&similia, for whatever reason.
James, it’s a chicken or the egg thing, they wouldn’t be Popes therefore we might judge them and avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, heresiarchs, (as Cum Ex Apostolatis Officio says).
Also Canon 188.4 does say they automatically lose office, does it not?
Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus:
4.o A fide catholica publice defecerit;
Ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione= by the very fact and without any other declaration.
Of course one can always say “publice defecerit” doesn’t apply to anything else except from one saying the following:
“I renounce to the Catholic religion” or “I am a heretic”.
I bet if Francis said instead “I am not catholic, I’m simply christian” or something along those lines (reminiscent of his “there’s no catholic God) somehow that wouldn’t count, either… of course.
@ James and Denise and anyone accusing S.Armaticus and others who post here of slander: Please be aware of the meaning of such a serious term, and refrain from judging the interior dispositions of others, as we refrain always from judging yours and Michael Voris’s.:
___
Slander (Cath.Encyc.) is the attributing to another of a fault of which one knows him to be innocent. It involves a two-fold malice, that which grows out of damage unjustly done to our neighbor’s good name, and that of lying as well. (Lying necessetates thinking one thing while speaking another in order to deceive)
____
The opinions of posters here regarding the Pope and Michael Voris don’t qualify under either of those stipulations, as sinful, as long as they believe they are speaking the truth, and don’t intend to harm him unjustly with falsehoods..
___
We can only hope the same despite appearances for what Michael Voris wrote in his Manifesto- about the work of his fellow Catholics–Christ Ferrara and John Vennari (to name two good Catholics he may have slandered) amounting to “ecclecsiastical porn”, when he should have known very well that they intend only to serve God by discoursing in Truth in all they print, and don’t encourage others to schism or even disloyalty to the papacy, yet he falsely accused them of contributing to both. If you’re honestly concerned with looking for indications of slander, why not start with that, and warn him?
Dear James,
Please see the definition of slander in our response #23 above, in case you missed it. It seems you apply it without due caution.
I see we have a tag team caged death match going on.:)
____
Slight digression. This question is directed at Denise and James.
____
A few months ago, a gentlemen named Jim Carroll (?) appeared in the comment box. He claimed he worked for M.V. What I remember of his comments was that he appeared to have two “fixations”, namely “not criticizing the pope” and the SSPX.
____
Which brings me to my question.
After reading through the posts of you two, it appears that you two exhibit those same .. how shall I say this… “proclivities”. Is there any change that you guys are from the same “parish”?
_____
Just wondering?
Dear Indignus:
I also had to go to the Catholic dictionary and look up the term “slander” when I go caught up in the crossfire.
____
They say that great minds think alike. 😉
Dear Bert:
____
Bert, Bert, Bert.
____
I am attaching a link to the LMS blog. It is one of three posts on this subject matter. Joseph Shaw has three great posts about “why. liberals are united while conservatives are divided.
_____
Please read at your leisure. It might give you some insight into my “Rodney King” quote.
_____
http://www.lmschairman.org/2014/10/why-liberals-are-united-and.html
Michel Voris profoundly MISUNDERSTANDS the faith. Our Holy Catholic Faith is the only 1 true religion, revealed by God, taught by His own Son with His own lips….it never changes alters or mutates….
In this religion, there is an order to be observed, God first of all, the Apostles second, and the Magisterium of the Church, which is constant, immutable, perennial, always teaching the same truths in the same sense and understsanding.
Thus if the Pope leave that order, our obedience does not oblige us to remain subject, faithful, or in communion with him, because if we did, we would follow him into rebellion.
Voris is a papolater, or at least is teaching the religion of Papolatry, just another form of idolatry…
Not the Catholic Faith….
He might be militant, but not for or in favor of Christ Jesus.
He has been coopted into the ranks of the Antichrist….
You’re fit to cast the first stone, any stone?
An awful lot of pharisees are posting here of late.
Aramaticus,
I had already read the article last time you linked it (sorry for not responding sooner).
I completely disagree both with the premise (which is in my opinion a gross oversimplification) and with the reasoning in the article itself.
The lesser of two evils is evil just the same.
And just think of what the Church would have been like if She acted on that principle especially in the early centuries.
This must be repeated: please visit the SSPX site personally and read the many, many articles about what is happening NOW in the Church. Bishop Fellay does NOT issue public statements, and does not respond to everything that is reported in the media, or on blogs. But it’s not the case that he doesn’t respond.
—
Go to the source and read.
S.Armaticus,
Jim, Denise and I are all funded by Opus Dei. We worship together in a Masonic lodge, that has a very wonderful pancake breakfast on weekends. Sometimes we all sell tootsie rolls together at intersections to fund the NWO. We’re here to stifle any criticism of the Pope and to discredit the SSPX. Jim is very busy as he is also a spy for the Jesuits, who are attempting to track all Traditional Catholics and process them into a super computer.
Where is Charity in all this? We judge actions yes, but motives and intentions, no. All this name calling on someone who has stated his intentions, intentions we don’t seem to like, is not Charity is it?
—
This is getting out of hand.
We don’t need all these definitions and subtleties really. Helpful they can be, but to be charitable and silent is not the message. The message is be charitable but shout from the rooftops – when necessary.
—
And there is always someone who pipes up and says: well yeah, but I’m right so I don’t need to be charitable!
Dear Denise:
With all the events that have been transpiring in Rome over the course of the last 9 months, I think we all have be able to “reacquaint” ourselves with several key concepts promoted at VII.
____
One of these is “collegiality”. And we seen how a false understanding of collegiality has led to a whole host of problems for the bishop of Rome. He called a Synod to appear “collegial” yet tried to steer the proceedings without any input from the bishops. A right that he has as an absolute sovereign. This was evidently an example of how bad logic creates “unintended consequences” which pop up and ruin the best laid plans of us mere mortals.
____
The second concept is ecumenism, which was joined by graduality recently. If the conciliar church claims that truth subsists in all religions, and that people are guided by a process of graduality, then the example of the two young men and Cathal Bergin can easily be explained as a situation whereby after being exposed to a “partial truth”, graduality took over and through a process of natural progression led those individuals to the full Truth.
Berto, the Church is a hierarchical structure, with laws and procedures in place for just these things. So for one to be a SEDE-VUH-CAN’T-IST…is to assign to themselves a power they just don’t have. You don’t even play a canon lawyer on TV.
Where is it referenced, in the link you provided, where the SSPX speaks about the Pope at all? I can’t find it.
Here’s some good old fashioned talk from St. Francis de Sales:
—
“Our Lord never cease to exhort, to promise, to threaten, to forbid, to command and to inspire in the interior of our souls, in order to turn our wills away from sin; and He leaves nothing undone for this end short of depriving us of our liberty”. (Imagine Our Lord threatening, forbidding, and commanding!!!)
—
This from Holy Abandonment by Dom Vitalis Lehodey after the above quote:
—
“The Divine WIll has been manifested to us times beyond number, and in different ways. With a perfectly clear knowledge of what it requires from us in a matter of capital importance, indifference on our part would be criminal. We must consequently make up our minds to carry on the combat without truce or quarter, and to expect no other assistance than the grace promised to prayer and fidelity.”
—
Now that’s what we should have expected from the Synod. Each priest and bishop, cardinal, and of course the pope must, by now, have a clear knowledge of what is required for salvation. They want Holy Mother Church to abandon the old ways, the old language (oh so clear!!) and take us down an evil path.
—
Cling to the old books, the old saints, the old holy writers. Pretend Vatican II never existed. Preach and teach the old Faith. It’s the only Faith.
—
Someone said above that Michael Voris doesn’t say what faithful Catholics should do…whatever…but we do indeed know what to do. Don’t let the enemy co-opt the language, and the agenda. Constantly use words that have meaning, and use them exclusively. Don’t use the horrible humanist, clap-trap psychology jargon that everyone else uses. Don’t keep repeating what they say. Say what’s right, and keep on saying it.
—
I think what we are doing is navel gazing. I’m saddened by the he-said/she-said in a lot of comments here. We fall into the trap that way. Speak the Truth, always be charitable especially to other faithful Catholics, and pray for an increase of the virtues, and the Gifts of The Holy Ghost.
Dear Bert:
Fair enough.
_____
But that doesn’t get us anywhere either.
_____
Don’t misunderstand me, I am not appealing to emotions here, but I still vividly remember a time trying to find a TLM in Chicago or London and couldn’t for the life of me.
_____
And now look at the landscape? Check out this link: http://honneurs.free.fr/Wikini/wakka.php?wiki=PagePrincipalEn
_____
And the recurring nightmare that I have is a guy like Francis succeeds in putting us back into the dark ages of the 1960’s. Yuck!
_____
Anyways, wouldn’t want that to happen.
_____
Don’t want to relive that.
At my SSPX Church on Sunday, we had the second of three sermons on the Sacrament of Marriage, requested by the US superior for all chapels. We also had an adult catechism class which discussed point by point the errors of the Relatio, and discussed the truly Catholic way of handling ‘difficult situations’ in a charitable but Catholic manner. Just prior to the Synod, we were asked to say a novena of Rosaries to pray for those involved in the Synod. The SSPX continues to plod along with the same purpose it has had since its inception, and honoring its dear founder ++Marcel Lefebvre, which is the formation of priests.
I was delighted to see Michael Voris’ presentation with the young men from Ireland, and am especially happy to hear about the new website of one of the brothers. My question at the end of the program was, ‘Where do they go next’, since I knew MV would certainly not encourage the SSPX.
Louie’s fine post here shows clearly that there is a defined boundary at CMTV, which no one may cross—rather like looking behind the curtains at Oz. He could easily have made another video with details on the Buzzfeed report, and clarifying what he believes the situation is. Instead, he is made to act as if the video never ‘happened’. That is what many thinking Catholics have a problem with…it is not slander to say so.
Well, if the SSPX isn’t interested in commenting about the latest papal bombshell, then why should Michael Voris be interested?
And for those who think I’m affiliated somehow with Voris, I’m not. I’m not affiliated with anyone here, or on any other blog or website, and I don’t have a parish that I regularly attend. I’m pointing that it’s wrong to accuse Voris of something that the SSPX doesn’t do either. That’s my contention, and I’m sticking to it. I don’t believe that Archbishop Lefebvre would have allowed Pope Francis to say and do such terrible things without pointing them out. Bishop Fellay called the Pope a modernist, and that’s supposed to suffice from now on, appararently.
Dear James:
Thanks for the info.
In that case, I will need to keep an eye out for you. 😉
Dear Denise:
How do you know what Archbishop Lefebvre would do?
I’m sorry, Barbara, that you think it’s all just navel gazing. I’ll take a break from this blog, since pointing out the obvious apparently means that I’m a troll (to at least one person here). I’m a trad, but I don’t really understand trads at times. Sometimes the logic is just missing.
With all this online internecine Catholic infighting, this allows the far more virulent threats to the church to flourish unhindered.
I’m referring to the secularists, abortionists, the SSM advocates and their enablers within the college of cardinals.
The “I’m more Catholic than you because……..” crowd appear to be far more interested in trying to pick fights with their fellow Catholics rather than taking the fight to the factions mentioned above.
James,
you sound pretty irritated and spiteful towards “SEDE-VUH-CAN’T-IST” or idiots like me who haven’t even had the honour of pretending to be Canon Lawyers on tv.
Here’s John Salza’s “powerful” refutation of SEDE-VUH-CAN’T-ISM, which will no doubt give you the means of expressing your disdain in civil terms the next time:
http://scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
Now that we are going to take a break from our tag team caged death match, who’s up for checking out what our “young clericesses” on the bus are up to?
______
Why their “Harnessing the political power of “Nuns on a Bus”
______
Story here: http://kalw.org/post/harnessing-political-power-nuns-bus
______
According to the website:
“As head of the Catholic Social Justice group network, Sister Simone Campbell, who is a nun, worked for immigration reform, healthcare, and economic justice.
______
Isn’t that precious?
______
And we’ve had a “result” like the English would say. 🙂
“In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was being debated in Congress, she wrote a letter in support of the bill, and was able to get 60 signatures from religious orders in the US on it.
_______
Wow. They got 60 signatures from religious orders in the US alone.
______
Didn’t know there were 60 still left.
______
No wonder they are on the bus. There isn’t enough of them to occupy a convent. But if the Francis effect kick in, there is a nice property that they could purchase for the price of the bus. 😉
Link here: http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/18584385/110-Notre-Dame-Street-Mount-Calvary-WI/
And only $650,000.
Such a deal;)
_______
Living on the road does take it’s toll.
Ah, abuse of John 8.7 and accusations of being Pharisees, I missed those.
Welcome (back I assume?) Paul.
Thank you Aramaticus for the link, very helpful.
Of course it is a very complex issue, and ought to be judged on a case by case basis.
My reflection was in principle, and abstract, I wasn’t saying there can be absolutely no collaboration with anyone ever, there can be, as long as we call a spade a spade and we resort to truth and clarity, avoiding mischievous tactics.
For instance, let’s say we have a very influential Cardinal or an organisation, which upholds (or tries to) the Faith pure and sound, except for one article, let’s say for instance, Sodomy not being a sin or Universal salvation being a real thing, what should we do?
Incense him/them and support them no matter what (like many have done with Benedict and now are accusing Voris of doing for Francis!) or coadjuvate him/them on specific issues, making it clear however they are wrong in holding this or that view on the other hand?
Or avoid them altogether?
For what purpose also? What is “our” goal? Have the possible best compromise or uphold the Faith no matter what?
What is required of us?
“because of their stance on abortion and contraception”
So these nuns advocate the practice of abortion and use of contraceptives in addition to “immigration reform” (uncontrolled invasion and destruction of nation-states I suppose?) and “economic justice” (eroding the right to private property?) ?
Spot on Paul.
We need to drop the petty squabbles and look at the important stuff.
I know the modernists are.
.
But regardless of our situation, I’m still glad that it is 2014 and not 1984. And I am not referring to Orwell but rather the Indult Mass. If you could find one, that is.
.
B/t/w, did you catch the new Catholic website that Denise put up in a comment box? If now, here it is.:http://www.lovethefaith.com/
That’s correct Bert.
Dear Bert:
Case by case is the only way forward.
____
What I’ve noticed is that people react to solid “Catholicity”. If you surf the net, you will quickly come up with stories of priests who introduced Latin Masses and started noticing themselves ‘celebrating’ the Novus Ordo more reverently. Next thing you know, they have to add more TLM because their congregations are outgrowing their existing mass schedule. Think of the situation in the FFI. Fr. Manelli founded his order as a Novus Ordo charism and “graduated” ( as in graduality) to the TLM. It was so successful that the bishop of Rome had to shut them down. Wouldn’t want the TLM to spread to other religious orders, now would we? So what that tells you is that Catholicism works, you “just have to go with it”.
.
With respect to graduality, and I am refering to the proper definition here, it works. The reason it works is because the conciliar church completely abrogated its responsibility to teach the Catholic catechism. What seems to be the case is that Latin Masses create a demand for catechisis. And I am referring to proper catechisis, not this luv and joy crap. So a person who is N.O starts out being attracted to the Latin Mass because of the novelty. And novelty in the good sense of the word. Then they start following the mass in their missal. Next thing you know, they start memorizing the prayers. And then the next thing you know, they sign up for the choir.
.
I’ve been watching it happen for 25 years now. And on two continents. It’s amazing.
.
And when you are looking at it from that perspective, the “more advanced” theological arguments don’t enter the picture.
.
I will qualify the last statement by saying “at the level I’ve described above”.
And yet theoretically they *should* be considered catholic nuns!
On the subject of misplaced optimism, just yesterday I was reading a newspaper article by some sort of Vatican insider boffin, where it was said the Synod is the beginning of a Bergoglian “informal” Vatican III council (like Card. Martini and Milingo were asking for) aimed at reconciling the differences between the “Church” (obviously outdated and in need of further reform!) and the modern world (meaning the decadent neopagan West I suppose…).
If we look at what Martini was asking for, we might find he wanted:
a)divorce+eucharist liberalisation
b)euthanasia
c)women-pastors or anyway a “greater role for womyn in the Church today”
Milingo goes further and evokes Hans Kung as a visionary and model to follow for the Church “to remain relevant in the XXI century”, with married priests and all.
Now that Benedict is out of the way (yes yes, even though he was no Saint either) there’s nothing stopping these agents of chaos at least ATTEMPTING to make these insanity a reality.
JamesTheLesser:’Right, because canon law and Vatican I says we are allowed to judge the Pope. Oh wait…. No they don’t.’
–
Then say St. Catherine of Siena or St. Paul was wrong to rebuke their superiors, and say St. Thomas Aquinas was in error to state that the inferior can rebuke the superior.
‘Pretend Vatican II never existed. ‘
–
You cannot be serious, a lot of the mess is often justified by Vatican II which people use as a form of authority even though it’s not authoritative. Modernists have fortified themselves with Vatican II, storm the fortifications, and show what the documents of Vatican II really are. Let it be a lesson upon the faithful, to learn their Faith.
Bert,
With respect to “misplaced optimism”, there is a great post over at Rorate Caeli.
.
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/its-essential-to-understand-stakes-no.html
.
The post goes into the ‘inter connectivity”, for the lack of a better word, between the sacraments and the authority of the papacy and the bishops.
.
Now, Francis might be thick. All indications are that he is. It is also highly probable that he is insane. At least that is what the Argentinians who had dealing with him think. He definitely is irresponsible. But…
.
And you knew there would be a but. The cardinals and bishops are neither thick, insane, Argentinians nor irresponsible. They know that once they allow Francis to take them down this primrose path, their finished. Exactly for the reasons outlined in the post.
.
They also realize that Francis is not going to be with us for to much longer.
.
As for Francis, he really does not care about the Church. Francis is a narcissist. He is in it for the public adulation and the resulting legacy. He is also petty. So it could be settling old scores against the institution (Church, Jesuit Order, FFI, diocese Ciudad del Este, you name it) that he perceives slighted him. Bear in mind that for many years, the Jesuits were embarrassed of him. And he definitely is a man that holds grudges. He definitely has a personality disorder. This could be due to a combination of latent Latin machismo with insanity. The kind of a guy who could commit a what in South America is called a “crime of passion”.
.
But the bishops, some of these folks are still young men. They have half a life time of prestige and privilege that they can look forward to. And if they are Catholic, then they have eternity to look forward to.
.
And if you look at what transpired over the last couple of weeks, what you saw is a small band of opportunists. Grech from Malta could be the poster boys for this crowd. That boy will go far.
.
But for the most part, the bishops that I call realists dominated. Here I am thinking about Gadecki from Poznan, Poland. The Poles have a very bad situation at present. The Soros people and the EU are flooding the country with money pushing the homo agenda. The bishops are being hung out to dry for sticking to Catholic teaching. If Bergoglio gets his revolution, the ex-communist media will drown them in the proverbial spoon (Polish expression). The ex-communist will hammer at why for all these years the bishops would not let the new spring time ( communion for the divorced, abortion, homo-unions, incest etc.) bloom when everyone knew that they could do it all along. And papa Bergoglio will be their hero. And once the Bergoglio revolution happens, it will be pay back time. Remember, the Church orchestrated the fall of Communism in Europe. And the ex- communists and their next generation are waiting to exact revenge. Anyways, when I read the RC post, I saw the ‘stick’ with which the Polish Church will be clubbed.
.
The reason that I went into the above is to illustrate how dire the situation is for ‘rational’ bishops. And it’s not just in Poland. Analogies can be drawn for the Africans, Asians and the Eastern Europeans. And you can include the normal part of the US church also. Therefore, this will be a life and death struggle for these folks. And I don’t think they will go down without a fight. Their livelihood, if not their lives will be riding on this Synod.
____
Summa Summarum. Optimism is in order. But of the cautious variety.
Then you say that you agree with Berto that we can judge interior motives of individuals.
That’s a beautiful poignant article Aramaticus.
However it has what I call the “sane man” flawed premise:
it assumes the players are rational and/or not willing to destroy themselves in the process.
I never even said that.
Btw, since now you’ve come out of the closet and went as far as, apparently, denying the possibility for us to criticise/rebuke “the superior”, I have to ask, are you even a Traditionalist, in any sense of the word?
I’m confused.
Prove that the rebuking of the exterior in anyway is a criticism of an interior motive. St. Paul and St. Catherine of Siena rebuked what was said and done by the Popes, not criticising them for unknown interior motives. No one has said that the judging of a Pope means to judge interior motives, only the exterior acts.
You didn’t draw a distinction between material and formal heresy. And made some analogy to judging Satan?!?!
I never said that! I agree with you. I just don’t believe we can ascribe evil motives, do you? Some seem to think so. Aren’t we to give the benefit of the doubt that their motive may be misguided or well intentioned, but can still be wrong?
Either you didn’t read my answer to A Catholic Thinker thoroughly or frustration blinded your judgement.
What I said is, while of course we can’t know the internal forum, that doesn’t mean NOTHING (except a very narrow-and convenient set of circumstances) constitutes a public, or external manifestation of heresy.
Not even Satan (or any demon, and that might not even be a theoretical case), in disguise, would never be judged as a heretic as long as he were not to explicitily say so himself, or claim to abandon Catholicism.
Moreover, since you now claim we cannot judge a Pope in ANY case, but only “proper structures within the Church hierarchy” can, what are you even arguing about? According to you, we could never ever know if Francis is a heretic, internal forum or not, only a Church pronuncement could tell us that.
Secondly, on the topic of simple resistance/correction of a Pontiff (and that is what I was referring to in my latest comment above), can we according to you, discern ourselves the legitimacy of his teachings or not?
In other words,
-continued:
In other words, do you agree with the basic Traditionalist stance at least, or not?
Because judging by what you answered to Christopher above, you don’t.
Hope this helps.
Berto, perhaps you are conflating criticize and judge?? I’ve criticized Francis ALOT! I can’t stand the man. But until a formal judgement is passed by the Church I cannot say he is not Pope. And I certainly can’t judge his heart. Do you understand now??
I think we mixed not 2, but 3 different issues together:
1) internal vs external forum for heresy (in general)
2) possibility to criticise a Pope/superior
3) heresy of a Pope and who can judge him, if any according to Canon Law
So, 1) is what I was speaking of to Catholic Thinker, as explained above.
2) is what Christopher was referring to when he responded, with his examples of St.Paulus and St. Caterina.
And finally 3) is what you were talking about, mixing it at times with 1), which has nothing to do with it properly, as they are two different issues.
Unless the interior motive is made explicit (formal) then the interior motive cannot be known. So the benefit of the doubt is applicable to that person who is being criticised not just because only God knows the hearts of men (1Kings 8:39, 1 Cor 2:11), but if it turns out that the criticism of the interior motive were to be false, Lying and False Witness will be accused of the accuser on the Day of Judgement.
Thank you, Cathal Bergin, for your work for God and the salvation of souls. Well done! May the Lord bless and protect your work.
Denise, what you have just said is an unsubstantiated unjust judgment of character. And a character that has shown himself to be upright and honest on this blog.
Dear Indignus Famulus, Very well said. To make such an accusation unjustly is itself slanderous and an attack on one’s character. People need to stick to the facts and what necessarily follows logically from those facts. Obviously, those in public life, whose work involves hard hitting necessary criticism of wrongdoing on the part of our bishops and priests, such as Michael Voris, will naturally come in for just criticism of what they do. It ought all be for the good of souls. God bless.
Of course, IF, slander refers to the spoken word, whereas libel is defamation in the more permanent form of writing or broadcasting.
It’s a matter of reason: in a particular case, the evidence can be so great that it is not only reasonable to infer bad faith but any other inference is not reasonable.
Christopher & Berto, thanks for the clarifications. I apologize for my frustration boiling over into being uncharitable.
This is a very good piece from some decades ago by Fr Calmel OP on the parameters of papal authority, and on papal duty: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.ie/2014/10/the-pope-is-just-vicar-on-footsteps-of.html?m=1
James,
no need to apologise at all.
However you should re-read upon the possibility of a Pontiff being judged and/or declared illegitimate by a Council or as you say “a formal judgement is passed by the Church”.
I’m quite sure that is the heresy of Conciliarism, and as you correctly stated at first, according to Vatican I (but also other predating dogmatic papal documents) a Pope can be judged by no one.
For the record I would never have suspected you as being associated with Voris. 🙂
—–
1) The Society HAS commented – quite appropriately – on this pontiff and this Synod.
—–
2) The issue isn’t that Voris says nothing; it’s that he condemns (and that’s an accurate word) those who do and, more importantly, the logic he uses to justify that is far off. (And then he just made himself look silly by offering comments (actually, just *reporting* them) and then removing that from the public record (though what he reported on remains in the that record.) )
Berto, you should get up-to-speed on real arguments refuting dogmatic sede vacantism.
—–
It is true that a pontiff can be judged by no one (though you claim to do so), but the Church can *declare him judged* by his own actions. Until such judgement, no validly-elected pontiff loses his office publicly – THAT is what the theologians – including Bellarmine – taught. (Saurez & Bellarmine differ only regarding whether or not a formally heretical pontiff loses his office in the private domain – both agreed that such a pontiff retains his office unless & until deposed by the Church formally.)
—–
If things were otherwise, we’d have had anarchy in the Church from about Day One, with every individual Christian, often with dim wit and emotion-driven positions, deciding which pope was real and which was not – or from the day the first dogmatic sede vacantist declared Peter had lost his office for refusing communion with gentiles. (Fortunately, the Internet did not yet exist.)
I have an exciting announcement: I am organizing the First Semi-Annual Paintball Match For Louie Verrecchio Blog Commenters. Details to follow.
—–
And, I hope, if Berto’s paintball weapon would happen to jam while Christopher’s maintains a consistently high rate of fire, no one will dare accuse me of anything untoward. Shame on you for the thought.
Dear Bert,
In the economic science, the basis for all economic models is what’s known as the Rational Expectations Hypothesis. Now as you can imagine, the leftists have a huge problem with it. However, they have never been able to discern a competing Irrational Expectations Hypothesis that could be universally applicable. Therefore, you can argue that certain people act irrationally. However, you can’t take that irrationality and extend it onto a wider population. And if you watched the Synod closely, you would have seen the above described mechanism at work. No wonder leftist hate God. 🙂
Seriously, reading Siscoe’s nonsense (you’re obviously referring to his latest article “refuting” Sedevacantism are you not?) without yourself looking up the sources is unwise at best. He changed his stance three times already, after being corrected, you can easily look this up with a quick Google search.
Or, if this is fruit of your own personal study, please cite passages from De Romano Pontefice, or better yet, Codex Iuris Canonici canons.
Thank you.
And no I do not claim to judge a Pope, nobody does.
They were never valid pontiffs, as a manifest heretic cannot be validly elected,
Now you can stick to your (in my humble humble humble opinion, absurd) “no formal heresy unless a tiny improbable subset of specific events”, but that’s another matter altogether.
A thousand apologies,
I confused Siscoe with Salza (about changing his position 3 times).
The article you are likely referring to is from Siscoe though.
Siscoe is the author of that oldy marvelous article refuting Sedevacantism where he managed to make the following distinctions:
-material heresy
-formal heresy
-internal forum
-external forum
-Soul of the Church
-Body of the Church
-declared heresy
-undeclared heresy
-pertinacious heresy
-momentary heresy
His position (and yours) is the following: a person can be considered a heretic only when:
the Church passes a judgement on him (declared heresy), based on a pertinacious , formal heresy in the external forum which therefore severs him from the Body of the Church then and only then.
Or, he admits publicly to being a heretic.
Dont waist your time with Berto, who has confessed to being a Jew who does not believe in Christ.
The truth is that St Alphonsus says, in reference to the authority of a Council to depose him, “that a Pope be judged as a private individual on matters of faith, no one denies”, you can find it in his tract on the authority of the Roman Pontiff, in his Theologia Moralis.
A Catholic Thinker
Lionel, on the contrary, I am quite sure that there is nary an SSPX priest – or intelligent layman – incapable of responding to Feeneyism, or exactly whatever it is you’re here suggesting is the plain truth.
Lionel:
By Feeneyism I would refer to the Catholic traditional belief on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and that all adults on earth need to have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water with no exception, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities known only to God and are not known to us in the present times(2014) to be explict exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
_______________________________
I also am not able to see your questions as sensible.
“1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?” What, exactly, are you trying to ask, or assert? You are correct that we don’t generally “see dead people”, physically, saved or not.
Lionel:
Exactly. You have answered the question. I agree with you. We physically cannot see the dead.
I have no idea what you’re suggesting here.
Lionel: I am suggesting what you have correctly mentioned above.
___________________________________________
The Church has always – since Apostolic times – taught that baptism is necessary for salvation, that water baptism is the necessary means of baptism, and that two other forms exist: that of blood and that of desire
Lionel:True.
However this was the second question.
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states ‘all’ need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation ?
Let me elaborate.
You have said that we cannot see any one on earth physically saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.These cases do not exist in our reality.
To be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation there would have to be known cases, physically visible.Theoretical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma.
Yet in the last Communique to Friends and Benefactors Bishop Bernard Fellay has assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II.
The SSPX is also selling a book written by Fr.Francois Laisney in which he assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.In other words these cases are physically visible to us.
So if Louie answers the two questions frankly he would be at odds with others in the SSPX.
Berto:
Whatever some theologian asserted, it does not mean the Church taught it.
And Baptism of Blood is not a certainty, as expressely stated in Cantate Domino:
Lionel:
Cantate Domino does not state that the baptism of blood ( martrydom) is known in defacto cases, in the present time,s to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
In 2014 we do not know of any martyr who has died without the baptism of water and is now in Heaven. We cannot meet anyone on the streets who is going to be saved as a martry and without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.So these cases are not relevant to the dogma.
““The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, *no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ*, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
_____________________________________
Also I was under the impression BOD, even when taught (even by Doctors of the Church), was limited to Catechumens, not infidels or whomever.
Lionel:
None of the Doctors of the Church or the popes have said that these cases are known to us in the present times to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.It is the liberals who make this inference. This is modernism.
We accept the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of blood or desire but do not assume that they are explciit, to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
You got me! I thought he had realized his error as well. So unfortunate he has returned to being a tool.
I am a fan of Michael Voris…I still give a monthly contribution to his apostolate…yet….*sigh*
1) One of the main reasons I followed and admired MV was his insistence on TRUTH. It’s the only thing that sets us free and is the person of Christ Himself. But once he refused to speak the truth about the Pope…once he started promoting JPII and avoided the insanity of his papal reign…once he started attacking traditionalist heroes i.e. Louie, Chris F., John V. and the SSPX etc. I thought “something is VERY wrong here.” Cont’d…
2) It doesn’t surprise me that the young Irish lad converted by MV came to the obvious conclusion of the SSPX. Anyone following objective truth would recognize that the SSPX is the ONLY Catholic group of clergy who still follows the traditional i.e. true faith. Even the very few diocesan priests who bravely seek truth have to walk on egg shells to avoid being laicized. SSPX are public…they pray, believe and live the authentic faith…not even the FSSP (who have to sign saying they adhere to V2) can say that. It boggles my mind that MV is opposed vehemently to the SSPX who have taken the brunt of the modernist/heretical war for decades. Cont’d…
3) For the record I am not SSPX…never been to their chapels. But the ONLY difference between us and the SSPX is that we have not been brought in front of a Vatican official and forced to sign off on the errors and heresies of V2. Rome says the SSPX are not in “full communion”…well they retracted that statement at the last meeting…saying that the SSPX ARE in communion with Rome…their new modernist term is “incomplete reconciliation”. Of course the SSPX is not in communion/reconciliation with Rome…why would the true faith be one with Modernism? None of us are in true “communion” with Rome either…for as long as Rome remains modernist…we should be apart. Cont’d….
4) MV is a smart cookie…yet I still don’t see how he is blind to the reality of Rome being modernist and thus the SSPX (and any true Catholic) cannot be in true communion with them. It is ROME that must convert…must repent. The visible Church is utterly corrupted…but the invisible one is alive and well in the SSPX and all of us who follow the deposit of faith without fear or compromise. Let us pray that MV and whoever is poisoning his mind, see truth…have the courage to follow it…and help unite all traditional Catholics i.e. SSPX, FSSP, ICK, Indult, individual priests etc. so as to restore Our Lord’s visible bride. Cont’d…
Finally…TRUTH…objective truth…not what we want, think or feel. It’s the only way to get all of the cancer out of our own lives and more especially out of the visible Church. So that means speaking and accepting the hard truths about the Popes since John XXIII…about V2…about Francis etc. It also means fully surrendering to truth and allowing it to transform you into who you were born to be before the beginning of the world. It is my prayer that MV see truth…spiritual ones…and that he realize the true brothers he has in Louie, MM, Chris F etc. Let us all pray for his freedom and return…and may our Lord bless him and all those who fight for the restoration of His Bride. God bless~
Clarification -Michael Voris
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/clarification-michael-voris.html
Louie has proved to be spot on with regards to Voris given the recent clarification Voris released:
http://youtu.be/4m2O0DVex84
This was also why I was surprised to see the initial Voris video and also hesitant that it would remain up or prove that he’d changed his stance.
Once again, Voris’ reasons don’t quite make sense in light of his actions.
From what I understand, it seems Voris’ stance is that only those consecrated clerics, such as Bishops or Cardinals, like Burke, have the position of criticising the Pope. Never laypeople.
But this introduces a conundrum, as given Voris himself routinely criticizes bishops and cardinals, then how can laypeople criticize an office above them (bishop/cardinal) which has the power to criticize an office above them (Pope)? Doesn’t this then suggest that laypeople should also refrain from criticising bishops and cardinals too? And as Louie pointed out initially, don’t Michael’s own criticisms of various bishops positions clearly also publicly stand against those of the Pope, even if Michael’s videos were never aimed at the Holy Father?
Now we can understand if Voris’ apostolate, which seems to be primarily aimed at making converts will run into trouble if Voris has to also criticise the very office he is trying to promote (the Papacy), and new people being exposed to Catholicism for the first time will encounter difficulty trying to reconcile what Michael is trying to teach them versus what the Pope is openly doing in violation of the very things he wants to instill in them. Thus, for his audience, dealing with this particularly papacy may be too much for them to deal with at this immature stage of their understanding and study of Catholicism.
But Michael should understand that Pope Francis is making it difficult for all of us! Does he imagine that Louie and co. are also having to deal with the difficulties of converting others? Does Michael acknowledge the trouble I run into trying to convert Protestants and Atheists who will throw Pope Francis’ words and actions back at me to either show that the Pope himself denies what I’m saying or that the current Pope’s actions can’t be reconciled with the Papacy I’m trying to convince them about?
There are other disturbing issues that CMTV has displayed. Aside form this recent clarification that shows that Michael is even willing to censor journalism to avoid criticism of the Pope and even apologize for reporting something truthful; (he can claim that his primary motive of CMTV is to create converts, but let’s not pretend that CMTV doesn’t also cater to informed Catholics already who count on them for current news and commentary, and who are undoubtedly their subscriber base (as am I), that pays for their service because we want to promote the good work Voris is doing); but it looks like CMTV is also engaged in selectively quoting the Pope in cherry picking Protestant-fashion, as a recent CMTV news segment did that reported Francis’ words tot he effect of that “laws of the Church, if not obeyed, are obsolete”, but never provided the full context of Francis’ words that he spoke them in order to change the discipline on preventing communion for adulterers because he feels the discipline and law itself doesn’t work instead of the actuality that the discipline and laws have been ignored & disobeyed by the clerics who have made the situation worse. CMTV’s quick report just quotes the initial phrase, provides no context and just leaves it out there for people to interpret on their own, a true vague V-II style presentation!
So it seems that Voris or his team is also engaging in selective deception of its own to try and make Pope Francis look good, rather than just refraining from criticising Pope Francis.
Michael Voris earlier used the account of Noah & Ham and Noah’s sons covering up his nakedness as a way of defending his actions, but again this makes no sense. The famous account of Noah’s nakedness, has through much commentary been revealed to be a euphemism, where nakedness actually stands for sexual relations, such as that of Noah’s wife. As the OT Mosaic laws make mention that one should not lie with ones mother, for that is thy father’s ‘nakedness’ (the body of the woman belongs to her husband), and to ‘see’ someone’s ‘nakedness’ implies sexual relations, thus the account is actually about Ham sleeping with his mother, and conceiving a child, which is why Noah curses ‘Canaan’, the son of Ham, as it would make no sense why he would do so in any other context. And the Bible uses the offspring of immoral or illicit relations and marriages as a means to show the beginning of other nations such as that of Canaan, which would become the enemy of Israel and a sexually depraved nation. So technically, Noah’s other two sons attempted to ‘cover up’ the incident, and avoid looking upon Noah’s ‘nakedness’ (his wife, their mother) either by keeping it from Noah, which is unlikely and futile, but more accurately it means that they’d either consoled their mother by covering her or means they themselves refused to engage in Ham’s immoral lust when Ham told them about it perhaps being a euphemism to have them join him in his opportunistic sin, while their father, who may be a type of the Holy Father was asleep at the wheel, while his bride was taken advantage of.
That “clarification” video statement by Michael Voris is necessarily absurd. If a pope should oppose the Deposit of Faith or the Natural Moral Law (and, therefore, Christ, the Head of the One True Church), we are required by the Faith to oppose him in this. Not to do so is to oppose the Deposit of Faith ourselves and to cause scandal to those souls for whom we have a duty, or whom we may influence. Loyalty to an individual pope is necessarily bound by the proviso that he not say or do things, nor fail to say or do things that objectively oppose the doctrine of the Faith and the Law of God.
As important as it is to criticise public error in faith or morals by other bishops or cardinals (as Michael Voris does) it is even more important, necessary to point out public error by the pope whose influence over souls is greater. Needless to say, for instance, a priest has a duty to tell his flock that a specific statement or action by a pope is to be recognised as error and rejected, for to follow same endangers their souls. Ditto for parents, or teachers in respect of their children, pupils. And so, forth. Blessed Michael defend us, St John the Baptist pray for us.
MMC, A big AMEN!!
Dear Lynda,
Extremely well stated. Thank you.
As we continue to pray for MV to come out of this blindness, it occurs to us that it may get harder and harder for him to denounce the errors of those in the hierarchy who echo the Pope’s thoughts, without seeing how hypocritical his stance is. If he continues refraining from any comment on Papal errors, and they do not, he will find himself either denouncing the Pope’s views indirectly, or forced into silence with them as well–which isn’t a recipe for good emotional or physical health.
This pope is dangerously close to the line of speaking outright heresy. I am wondering what MV will do when he crosses that line as he surely will do as soon as it is politically viable for him to proceed. One can clearly see him marching toward trashing the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith. The ‘synod on the family’ has set the stage, and the media and other corrupt cardinals and bishops are already poised to work with him to complete the destruction of Christ,’s beautiful Bride, the Catholic Church. We know the Church can never be destroyed because She is divine in origin, but she can go underground. Buildings do not make her. Truth does and Truth is not something but Someone. What will MV do when Francis tells us the Holy Eucharist is only a symbol? where will his loyalty be then.?
Dear Barbara Jensen, I think it is long past the point at which the only rational inference to be made from countless statements of the Pope, conflicting with the Faith (and the Natural Moral Law) is that he holds to heresy.
Dear Lynda, yes he does already hold to heresy, but he has not yet spoken ‘ex cathedra’, officially stating it. He is very cunning, and people mistake his ambiguity for being simple -minded. His ambiguity is a tool of deception, and, because it is difficult for many to face the fact of what he really is, and because they do not know Church doctrine as well as so many of us, he maneuvers around the actual heresy in a way that goes over the heads of those who want to believe everything in the Church is just fine.
I hope that insane opinion of me helps you sleep better at night, avoiding troubles of conscience (but I doubt it).
On the subject of a Council judging a Pontiff “as a private person” by St. Alfonso can you point us where specifically he said that in the Theologia Moralis?
It’s easy to point to (sometimes out of context, distorted) snippets of this or that fallible individual (be him as great and saintly as can be) to further one’s goals, what is hard is finding those notions in Papal infallible documents or Canon Law (both of which seem to contradict said notions).
Well said posts Lynda and Barbara. Spot on. God bless~
Barbare Jensen,
I think Francis nor any future dubious “pope” (more of them to come for sure) will ever speak “outright heresy”.
For many sets of reasons:
1)everyone will continue to deny what constitutes “outright heresy”, further minimising it to impossible, unheard of types of statements
2)conservatives will work their behind off trying to twist his/their words into normality
3)the people behind his, human and supernatural, are very smart and aware of what the “consensus” is on the matter, they will allow everything to be said, short of what would trigger a real, massive, reaction
4)failing all of that ( extremely improbable) there’s always a failsafe (one of many) built up for cases such as these: expect the “traditionalist” world over to hammer away saying no matter if the Pope says outright heretical things and almost surely is a heretic, only a council can judge him! (an impossible, possibly heretical, council, since the watchers are themselves in Agreement for the most part, if you catch my drift).
Having said that, what do you personally think constitutes “outright heresy”?
Is denying the validity of Scriptures heresy?
Is worshiping demons along with heathens heresy?
Is saying all religions are work of the Holy Ghost heresy?
Is saying the Old Covenant still valid heresy?
Is saying Christ is united to all men forever heresy?
etc. etc. (examples could fill a short book at very least)
Lionel, maybe you misunderstand me, what I’m trying to say and have attempted to in at least 2 comments directed at you or anyway part of a conversation you too were engaging in is the following:
NOT ONLY the cases are unknown to us, but also BOD,II,BOB as means of Salvation aren’t dogmas and it is dubious at best if they could ever exist.
In principle.
For practical purposes, you are right, since there are no know cases, or at least we can’t witness (be certain) of them today, everyone hammering down on them as salvific (for personal or ideological reasons, maybe they wanna believe their highschool sweethearth or that funny coworker or their granpa are saved.. bittersweet thing indeed) are in error.
Dear Lionel,
As we’ve said in the past, we’re in no way qualified to judge complicated theological matters such as the one you have evidently researched with a passion here. Reading your posts-including the above link, no objections to your reasoning come readily to mind. So we’re wondering whether you’ve gone beyond posting on-line, to actually contacting members of the hierarchy with your argument, and if so, can you tell us what their reactions are, on the whole?
It would seem beneficial to them, to investigate the concept that there is a “hermeneutic of continuity” at least in this particular matter, between the dogmatic teachings of the past, and VII. Why would they insist on retaining a false or misleading terminology, which causes such division in the Church?
I don’t think*
Mary and James,
Both of you have valid points here. CMTV’s policy is contrary to the good of the Church, even though MV and others in his organization refuse to accept that as fact. But it’s also true that the story MV reported on his video, was highly inaccurate. Look at Burke’s actual words, and you see that he deliberately refused to say that anyone knows what the Pope was trying to do or thinking, but that the “lack” off clarity on these issues, which comes from the Pope’s silence on them, HAS caused much harm.
So MaryK is right that there is harm acknowleged, and James is right that Voris had reason to pull his badly worded statements, which actually put far stronger words into Burke’s mouth, than he said. That’s why it was right to pull it.
But it would have been better if Voris had clarified that with another video reporting the actual words, instead of deciding his impulsive/overtired condition was the cause of making it at all, and he had to confess his “sin.”
These discussions can be fruitful for everyone, as they can lead to the truth, even though some get over-heated along the way.
Dear Cyprian,
We found the reminder about St. Vincent F. very pertinent. It’s how we personally feel about the issue the sedes raise, and why we think it’s best to go with the idea that until or unless a legitimate Church council declares the Pope in a state of Heresy which itself makes him “not” the real Pope, we continue to consider him -the real Pope. It’s not weakness or laziness or cowardice that hold us back in this matter-as some others have claimed- on the part of folks like us who really want to know the truth. It’s the sense that these matters are too involved for our brains to sort out that makes St. Paul’s advice about “things that are too sublime” come to mind. So thanks for the reminder.
Dear Lynda,
Agreed. It can so easily be overlooked that those who stand up for the truth in these times, risk their good names for the sake of Christ. And of course we in no way support those who do otherwise with personal malice at heart.
Dear Lynda,
Another good point. It got us to wondering – what do the courts consider today’s video’s, since they are so often publicly published releases of recordings of people speaking words about others?
Dear Berto,
You realize the chance you’re taking posting the above correction, with cut and paste around? 🙂 🙂
Scripturally speaking–an ear-tickling, pillow under the elbow sewer, specially liked by those who wish to remain in sin while considering themselves holy.
aka tool of the evil one.
Berto, first of all, I agree with you that he is already in heresy. I think that what many people do not understand is that all this ‘change’ being promulgated is very purposeful and that it has a definite direction. the ‘synod’, and its follow up in the fall of 2015, are strategic maneuvers in that purposeful walk towards the end goal. You are correct when you say that much heretical ground will be advanced without ever speaking ‘ex cathedra’ by Bergoglio. None the less, the time will come–and I do not believe it is far off–when denial of what is happening will be almost intolerable to maintain. Each of us will be confronted with a choice to follow the Church or follow the corrupt prelates who are leading many astray. The Curhc is where the full and true Faith is believed. Already there are outcries about the evil of the synod by bishops who are good: Muller, Pell, burke, and now Chaput who recently stated it was the synod work of the devil. The devil is at work and his end game is complete destruction of the true Catholic Church and replacing it with a ‘new church’., a humanistic church where man is the center. The sacraments will be either abolished or diluted to the point of full aberration, the Mass will be distorted to the point that it is no longer valid. It is clear that Bergoglio is the point man put in to get the job done. Whether or not he speaks ‘ex cathedra’, the deterioration of Christ’s Church within the institution will be so obvious that only the truly willfully blind will miss it. Michael Voris will have to choose loyalty to a corrupt pope or to Jesus Christ in His most beautiful Holy Eucharistic Presence.
Dear Barbara Jensen,
We’ve been living through what you outline here, for over 50 years now. We had to make the choice to follow Jesus and His teachings, decrying false ones and false clerics all the way–especially as we raised our family. The Sacraments won’t be abolished, and neither will the Mass, because they are at the center of the Church which Christ promised to be with till the end of time. They may go on being abused as they have already been, but this pendulum is already destined to swing back. We have our Lord and our Lady’s words on it.
There is no telling how far the Pope will go in trying to push his errors on us, but all we have to do is refuse to join in with anything evil, and speak up every chance we get, to explain why we think and act the way we do.
“All power in Heaven and Earth is given to Me, Jesus said” and “Go and teach all nations all that I have taught you.” We all know what that is, and the difference between it and what is being promoted by Modernists. Stick with the truth like St. John the Baptist did, even if it means martyrdom at some point.
Refuse to accept falsehood. Continue to correct, admonish, and love.
We win in the end. It is already fixed by One way more powerful than any Pope.
Michael Voris already knows how bad the Pope’s words and actions have been, and won’t be surprised if and when it get’s worse. His eyes need to be opened to the error of his ideas about public denunciation of falsehoods that come from the Pope. He may or may not change his mind when it gets worse, but don’t fool yourself about whether he knows what’s really happening in Rome and who’s behind it. He does.
The sacraments and the Mass will never be abolished because they are divine in origin, but it is quite possible that the true Church with the Holy Eucharist could go underground. The great apostasy in the Church, which is growing and getting more evident with every passing day, has been foretold by Our Blessed Mother in many Church-approved and credible Marian apparitions. Our Lady of LaSalette predicted that the antichrist would sit on the seat of Rome. Cardinal Ciappi, who was papal chaplain to three popes and who had read the third secret of Fatima, stated, ‘the third secret of Fatima is not about wars; it is about an apostasy in the Church which will begin at the top.’ Buildings do not make the Church. You are a faith-filled and courageous follower of Jesus, and your advice is correct. But each person will have to decide for or against Christ, and many are not prepared to go the distance for Him. Let us live in deep Faith and Trust, in union with the Holy Eucharist, and pray for all of us to stand with Jesus. This is the time of severe trial, and only those who are in deep, abiding union with Jesus and His Mother will weather what is coming and really is now here.
Dear Barbara J
Thanks for answering to clarify this-especially concerning the Sacraments. The first post sounded a bit more fatalistic and hopeless to us. Granted things are very bad right now, and the Church has had to go underground in many places around the globe already, as in China, which could spread.
Caution is best with the LaSalette prophecies though, because the Church forbade publications of them due to multiple false versions which began circulating, and which contradicted one another, so it’s hard to know which, if any, are real. But you’re right about Apostasy–it’s all around us, just as Jesus foretold in Matthew 24-5 and Our Lady of Akita-who also confirmed that the highest levels of the Church would be infiltrated by Satan.
We can go cross-eyed trying to judge the Pope’s “status”, though. Our hope is that choosing Christ -as we’ve already done-will require more the effort to hold on a while longer till He provides some Divine relief and maybe we’re more optimistic than most, but we honestly think that will happen before the visible Church “disappears” underground. We see a lot of hopeful signs emerging just now–actually because of the negatives. We also have contacts with some of the recently ordained priests in orders and dioceses, who are very much aware of the situation, and doing all they can to foster a counter revolution. That may be the cause of our optimism, in addition to all the years we’ve been praying.
Anyway, it doesn’t hurt to be prepared for whatever comes next, so may God Bless us all, as you said, with the Grace to weather it.
As I read over my post I see that I did not make a distinction between the institutional apparatus in Rome and the true Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, replete with the Mass and the Sacraments, etc. For many, there is misunderstanding as to where our fundamental allegiance must be. As Catholics we have been taught that all we have to do is obey the pope. That will not work now, due to the circumstances we are in at present. According to Thomas Aquinas and Dietrich von Hildebrand, our obedience is to the full Faith, and any prelate–be he priest, bishop, cardinal or pope– who teaches anything contrary to the Faith loses his authority. We must know our Faith, so I suggest anyone who does not have one, get a Catechism so as to monitor what is coming out of this particular pontificate.
If you are uneasy with the La Salette apparitions, there are others. Our Lady of Good Success and Catherine Emerich (I do not know if I have the name right here) are two. I believe it was Catherine Emerich who described a time of two popes, one good and one heretical. Wherever evil abounds, grace does more abound. Good priests need our prayers so much now. It is only through Faith and Trust in Christ and His Mother that will hold us through all that is happening. Faith and Trust are proven by staying in the present–one moment at a time–and looking at God. Sorry if I led you to think that I was being fatalistic. Hardly. I am really up for the fight. Let us pray for each other and all our brothers and sisters who are struggling through this time of confusion.
Indignus Familus, one more thing. Things are not only not fatalistic, we are assured of victory from our Queen and Mother Who has told us so many times that Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. Knowing this and believing it, makes it easy to say out loud just how bad things are at present. Also, I meant to name you above, but forgot, but my last post was in answer to you.
Very nice comments, MMC. God bless.
Dear IF, video being in a more “permanent” form, would come under the traditional category of “libel” in the common law, though “slander” and “libel” are not much used anymore in England & Wales or Ireland where recent defamation statutes do not use that terminology. I don’t know whether the traditional terms are still used in the US. Obviously, there remains the substantive difference in seriousness and damage between the once-off spoken defamation and that made available to a larger number of people and in a form that can be accessed again and again.
This is the truth, Barbara. What is most disturbing, frightening is the number of clergy and laity with a public platform who were rational in identifying and opposing attacks on the Deposit of Faith and morals before Pope Francis’s election, but have turned reason on its head in their sad attempts to ignore or even deny such continual attacks on the Faith and morals raining down on us from the Pope. This, for me, is the real sign of the Diabolical Disorientation that has taken over the Church. Saint John the Baptist, intercede for us, that we will not be overcome by the forces of evil.
Yes, Barbara, all true. It is a time of severe trial and tribulation and I tremble for fear of succumbing in the face of persecution, which I’ve already suffered in various areas of life, but which will become greater, if I am again in a position where I have to explicitly refuse to cooperate with certain grave evils (which is a situation almost everyone will be in very shortly). It’s ready the case for instance for priests in, say, Canada, who, if they are to do their duty as priests and preach against homosexualism, they are purportedly committing a criminal offence. God give us the graces we need not to deny the truth.
Thank you, Barbara. You expound the fundamental truths of the Faith, and of our natural moral reason, very clearly. I hope many people are benefitting from your knowledge and skills.
Barbara J? Michael Voris will blame it on a Bad Translation. Then he will excoriate Cardinal Dolan for SOMETHING.