Saturday, February 14, 2015

Michael Voris: To the Left of Me, the Church of Nice; to the Right, the Reactionaries

As told here, Michael Voris has used one of his live Mic'd Up programs to slam news and opinion outlets he considers to the "right" of Michael Voris.

What is this all about?

Here it is in a nutshell: Michael  Voris will expose, criticize and ridicule any bishop of the Catholic Church who fails to adhere to his own conservative sensibilities. That is mostly what his flagship program, The Vortex, does, day after day. Michael Voris cannot stand the "Church of Nice," (i.e. ordinary Novus Ordo parishes) nor the weak, compliant and corrupt bishops who lead them. However, Michael Voris can't bear to lay any mistake or misdeed at the feet of the Pope.

Hence we have Christine Niles of CMTV saying at least some forms of criticism of the Pope were "just unacceptable." Michael Voris interjects an "amen."

Michael Voris is the furthermost right of legitimate Catholicism. Everyone to the left is despised as the "Church of Nice," and everyone to the right is dismissed as reactionaries.

It is very narrow spectrum of opinion, if you think about it!

Now, Michael Voris and the rest at CMTV know the problems with Pope Francis as well as anyone. They admit (albeit in a sort of hypothetical way) all the problems we talk about concretely here at SCB. So it isn't that they are fans of Francis (as far as the Bear can tell), or do not cringe at his mistakes.

The ostensible reason for Michael Voris and his people to ignore Pope Francis is that if media powerhouses like CMTV, or The Remnant, start pecking at the Pope, in no time people will desert the Church for more appealing havens, such as SSPX, whom they dismiss as "schismatic."

Mr. Voris also characterized the Catholic blogosphere by putting both hands by his head and making rapid "talking gestures" while babbling -- apparently suggesting ill-informed chatter by hysterical malcontents.

Mr. Voris was quick to point out that the Pope could never err in doctrinal matters, other people do not understand infallibility, and the Pope can entertain and even express wrong ideas on a human level.

Fair enough. But the answer to that is: Mr. Voris, with all due respect, where have you been the last fifty years? Has it been changes in doctrine that have all but destroyed the Church? Or has it been everything but doctrine that has undermined our worship, polluted Catholic culture, and confused the faithful? The Pope does not have to infallibly change doctrine to do mischief! Indeed, why would he, when he can use "gradualism," and "compassion" to change the implications of existing doctrine until the same words mean the opposite?

The Bear isn't sure where Mr. Voris is coming from with regard to the Pope. The risk of driving people to SSPX seems small to the Bear.

But to pretend that the Pope cannot harm the Church so long as he does not exercise his infallibility is ludicrous. If adulterers are welcomed to the communion line, one may be sure it will not have been because any doctrine has been changed. Indeed, the Church will take pains to explain that nothing has really changed, but our times demand an enlargement of compassion, not following the letter of the law in some picky way that doesn't meet human needs.

One supposes Michael Voris and Church Militant TV will pass over all that in silence, unless they can blame the Bishop of Poughkeepsie, instead of the Bishop of Rome.

The irony of what you are reading right now is that the Bear isn't what you would call a "traditionalist," not in the way traditionalists would recognize, anyway. He doesn't think Francis is not really the Pope, and can personally take or leave the Latin Mass. He tells everyone at least once a week to "nail your foot to the floor in front of your favorite pew and die there."

But to adopt a policy of ignoring Pope Francis short of him infallibly declaring the Moon to be made of green cheese is unsupportable in a Western institution. If God wanted robots blindly obeying the big cheese in every tiny detail, no matter how ridiculous or harmful, He would have not a pope in Rome, but an imam, and there would be a great big mosque where St. Peter's sits, around which we would all deliriously orbit.

It is clear where the loyalties of Michael Voris and CMTV  lie. The Bear certainly doesn't fault them for being loyal, even if he thinks loyalty has its limits. It's the narrowness of their moral vision that is a bit surprising. Does Michael Voris really think that he occupies the narrow channel of truth, and anyone to the left or the right is running into the rocks? Why pick a fight with The Remnant now? (Although that has been bubbling for awhile now.) [Update: and why pick on a poor old Bear? See comments. Terry Carroll is a CMTV spokesman.]

Peter is not the Church. Peter is not the Bride of Christ. Peter is not Red Queen who cries, "Off with his head!" at the wrong word. Peter is a more or less flawed person with a great deal of authority and influence that he can use for good or evil. When he uses it (innocently or not) to the detriment of Church, God must judge between whose who side with Christ's Chuch, and those who side with the Pope. These are very unusual times, and may God be merciful to all persons of good will.

48 comments:

  1. Wonderful analysis Bear! You hit the nail on the head. I do believe CMTV is hiding behind the 'infallibility' of the Pope. They ignore, glaringly and obviously the potential harm done to the Church through 'teaching moments' that are not necessarily 'officially from the Chair'. It's beyond my understanding the 'why' of it. The potential harm can come in many ways, first to souls in general that are not all that well catechized, or that may 'disagree' with Church teaching. The Pope seems to give these people 'justification' in their error. This applies to clergy as well which is even more dangerous. Secondly to the media that have an 'agenda' to steer the Church into the direction of their choice. They now have free reign and can use the words and actions of the Holy Father himself. You cannot tell me Michael Voris or his staff do not know this. Of course they do, but they are hiding behind the flimsy excuse of 'infallibility' in order to ignore some of the irregularities coming from Rome. After all he has not made a pronouncement 'From the Chair' so according to CMTV, everything's A OK. I don't know how his conscience is not bothering him. Maybe he thinks there are enough others sounding the alarm, so he doesn't have to. For what reason? An interesting thought to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you mean like the ahrm the sspx has done? how many sspx priest have become sedevacantists? how many have found the courage to start false churches since these bishops Ran from the fight? Did St Padre Pio curse the church when he was wrongly accused? or St gerard of Majella? Or Bl mother Teresa of Calcutta? hhhmmm ohhh but williamson was perfect, no wait? Pride is not a sin. we are not responsible of the influence we may have given others to leave the church it's the church's fault not ours! Luther said the same thing, My will be done!

      Delete
    2. The examples you have cited are fine, however, in Padre Pio's day there was a Pope in St. Peter's Chair who at least publicly taught perennial Catholic Truth (we can't know anyone's inner thoughts). Same with the others. These holy people could count on Truth coming out eventually. Now?

      Delete
  2. Well, there goes your guest appearance on a future Mic'd Up. I was counting on you to be one of the bloggers on a show featuring bloggers who write on topics like you write, including the Pope. You know, the GOOD GUYS! It is intended to show what proper and healthy criticism of the state of the Church, including the Pope, looks like. Perhaps you're having a bearish day. And perhaps you're just not aware of how vitriolic are the responses of the SSPX to any kind of criticism, the intellectual and spiritual blindness of their supporters, and the seriousness of their sin against the unity of the Church.

    We're pretty much taking as our models in all this St. Mary Mackillop, Cardinal Burke, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, none of whom respond or responded to the crisis in the Church as The Remnant, Catholic Family News and the SSPX do.

    Australian Mary MacKillop became St. Mary of the Cross in circumstances astonishingly similar to what is perceived as happening with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI) and feared by the SSPX if they reconcile with the Church. She founded a religious order, was replaced as Mother Superior by her local bishop, served for many years under her replacement before being restored as Mother Superior, and was even unjustly excommunicated by her bishop. But she became a Saint through all that. She showed respect for her local bishop, submitted to his authority and, during the time she was excommunicated, didn't seek to start an alternative order to preserve the integrity of what she had started. She was obedient, humble, trusted God, and she became a Saint. Archbishop Lefebvre was offered the same opportunity to participate in the Passion of Our Lord, and he rejected it.

    OF COURSE the Church can be (and has been) hurt by other than infallible papal statements, and it's disingenuous to characterize what we say in that way. We are being "silent" in the exact same way that Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider are being "silent." Truly faithful Catholic souls are NOT confused or misled by Catholic foolishness, even by the Pope. Faithful Catholic souls already know how to recognize foolishness when they see and hear it, and they already know how to respond. All that's accomplished by campaigns of public criticism of the Pope is what's accomplished by unhappy spouses in bars: it's nice to get sympathy while not doing what you COULD be doing at home, and it's a way to reinforce that you are helpless and can't be happy unless other people change.

    The SSPX is a form of ecclesiastical divorce, and it is increasingly attractive to people who are increasingly unhappy with the Pope and the rest of the visible Church. Would you tell a man who can't stop talking about how bad his wife is that he should divorce her, or would you tell him to stop whining about it and do something AT HOME and risk becoming a Saint in the process? The Remnant and Catholic Family News are enablers and facilitators of ecclesiastical divorce. Under the appearance of saving and protecting the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre gave evidence that he had lost his. Our Lord told him "Here. Carry this cross." And Archbishop Lefebvre responded "Sorry. I don't trust you."

    I'm personally disappointed here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Bear would have made a terrible guest, anyway. None of the chairs would have fit and I would have eaten all the food.

      The way I see it, no one is going to listen to me telling them to nail their foot to the floor in front of their favorite pew and die there (no matter what antics Pope Francis may pull) unless I acknowledge the reality. Because, no matter how much we complain -- your program included -- the little Novus Ordo parish of the Church of Nice is where 99% of us (those of us who can't afford private chapels for our TLMs) meet God. The Bear, at least, has never told people to leave their parish, much less their Church. He may have written about the SSPX in passing two or three times, but has never devoted so much as a short paragraph to it, because this blog is all about sticking to your Church, and your parish. Heck, Michael advocates abandoning your parish if you don't like it and "punishing it" by your lack of support.

      I don't mind being shot at too much, as long as I'm being shot at for a Bear and not a squirrel. Our correspondence has been cordial in the past, apparently when we agreed. It will remain so from this end, even if we don't.-- Your Pal, the Bear.

      Delete
    2. You said: "The way I see it, no one is going to listen to me telling them to nail their foot to the floor in front of their favorite pew and die there (no matter what antics Pope Francis may pull) unless I acknowledge the reality."

      If you were talking about your wife and your marriage instead of the Pope, what you are saying is that "no one is going to listen to me telling them to nail their foot to their marriage and die there (stay in the marriage) unless I acknowledge the reality," which means telling anyone and everyone who will listen that you are "married to a perfectly awful woman with whom a good marriage is all but impossible but, dammit, I'm sticking it out! No divorce for me!" So you start a blog and, with increasing regularity, you write about how awful your wife is, get affirming comments from others who are also in unhappy marriages, and you all start to sound like a barroom on weekend evenings where you all support each other in your shared misery and, unintentionally, make yourselves vulnerable to the kinds of things that happen in such "support settings." You all pat yourselves on the back for being such martyrs to marital fidelity. And this accomplishes ... what?

      Archbishop Lefebvre and his supporters represent those barroom buddies who finally went all Howard Beale, screaming "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it any more," finally divorcing their wives, marrying another, and showing by the "fruits" of their new "marriage" how right they were to divorce their spouse, then proceeding to advertise their new lives as examples of what a good marriage could and should be like, and continuing to trash their former wives as justification for their decision to divorce. This is the SSPX in a nutshell: adulterous spouses celebrating their adultery, marching under the banner of "traditional marriage" while justifying their adultery "for the good of souls."

      No one doubts the good intentions, even the overall direction that initially motivated Archbishop Lefebvre to start the SSPX. He wandered off the reservation into schism, however, when he deliberately, publicly and with full knowledge rejected the universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope in matters that are undeniably and irrefutably within his authority.

      Staying with my marriage analogy, has it ever occurred to you that The Remnant and Catholic Family News might be more "sober" in their criticisms of the Pope if they didn't see the SSPX as an available and thinkable "divorce" option? It should be obvious that if divorce is neither available nor thinkable, one approaches difficulties within one's marriage in a different way than they would if divorce is both available and thinkable. If you have no choice but to live with your spouse and become a Saint in the process, it's not likely that you would think it wise, prudent or charitable to engage in regular and very public excoriations of your spouse. Perhaps the SSPX fear they will be crushed by an unsympathetic hierarchy and Pope. Perhaps they are justified in such fearful apprehensions. But there is precedent in the history of the Church, in the lives of the Saints, in the life of Our Lord Himself, for risking or allowing oneself to be crushed by obedience.

      Apparently you don't feel "married" to the Pope in the way that you are "married" to your wife. But the Church is, and you are part of the Church. If you wouldn't subject your wife to the kind of public critique that you subject the Pope, then maybe you should reconsider whether you are accomplishing, in your blog postings about the Pope, anything more than therapy for yourself and your readers, and destructive therapy at that. Yes, we all need good friends with whom we can share things but, just in marriage, you don't (or shouldn't) share everything with everyone.

      Delete
    3. The only person the Church is married to is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

      Although the analogy has probably grown tiresome, any marriage is private. The actions of the Pope concern everyone. While SCB may seem like a bar full off complaining men to you, why not a marriage therapy group? Then would it not seem strange to say, "Okay, guys. You can talk about anything but your wife." In any case, analogies aren't arguments. And, frankly, comparing this blog and its readers to malcontents complaining over their beer is a bit insulting to the Bear's readers.

      As for the SSPX, the Bear doesn't think much about them, and writes even less, so I'm a bit confused. It's like you've come loaded for the wrong fight.

      So we get it. CMTV won't criticize the Pope, no matter what. (Otherwise we're just arguing over what the tripwire is.) That is not the Bear's policy.

      Delete
    4. If Cardinal Burke is one of your favorable examples of true Catholic stature and behavior, why did MV practically trip over himself apologizing to the"Church of Nice"( your term, not mine) for actually reporting what Cardinal Burke said- that "The Pope is doing the Church harm", after the SIN-OD ? Why can't CMTV report the facts unless they are censored to your liking? Is Cardinal Burke still considered a "good guy" in your opinion? Do you make these judgements?( Who are you to judge?lol) Are you Chairman of the Board, because it seems like that's how you run your operation- and it is just that- an operation.

      Delete
    5. Bishop Schneider visits USA seminary
      February 14, 2015 District of the USA

      A brief report outlining the events and purpose of the recent SSPX seminary visits made by Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Brandmuller.

      On February 11, 2015, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana in Kazakhstan, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX Superior General, and also with several priests of the Society, at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona (United States).

      This was the second visit by Bishop Schneider to one of our seminaries. On January 16, 2015, he had visited the St. Cure d'Ars Seminary in Flavigny (France). Both meetings pertained to the question of the liturgical reform of Paul VI and the doctrinal presuppositions of the Novus Ordo Missae.

      On December 5, 2014, Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, had visited Sacred Heart Seminary in Zaitzkofen (Germany), where the discussion focused on the magisterial authority of Vatican Council II.

      These meetings are a way of continuing the doctrinal discussions between the Society of St. Pius X and the Roman authorities, "in a larger and less formal context than that of the preceding meetings," according to the decision made during the meeting of Bishop Fellay with Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 23, 2014.

      These meetings are also an opportunity for the visitors to become better acquainted with the Society of St. Pius X, and also to learn more about what has been accomplished by the works of Tradition.

      The visit in Winona coincided with the annual meeting of priests, during which 80 priests of the United States District met at the seminary for a week of studies.



      Looks like Bishop Athenasius isn't exactly silent either...who will fit into your square peg now?

      Delete
    6. "Any marriage is private."

      No, it's not. That's why it takes place before witnesses, both of the State and the Church. The intimate details of a marriage relationship are, of course, private, but the relationship itself is very public. Why else do homosexuals lobby to be able to "marry"? They want public recognition of their relationship. So, no, marriage is not private.

      "Why not a marriage therapy group? Then would it not seem strange to say, "Okay, guys. You can talk about anything but your wife."

      What kind of marriage therapy group encourages participants to complain endlessly about their wives? The goal is to make marriages work. If your wife is difficult, the task becomes "How do I be a good husband to a difficult wife in a very difficult marriage?" not "Keep giving me opportunities to complain about my wife and difficult marriage." Marriage therapy groups which encourage participants to embrace their status as victims of something they cannot change -- their awful spouses -- are destructive. The call to holiness for all Catholics does not change because this or that Pope may make things difficult You still have to be faithfully Catholic in the ways Catholics have always pursued that. Ecclesiastical divorce is not an option, just like marital divorce shouldn't be an option.

      "analogies aren't arguments"

      You're right. They're not. Neither are music, poetry, fiction, art ... and parables. But each communicates truth not able to be communicated (at least not easily) via syllogisms and arguments, which have their own proper domain within human discourse.

      "comparing this blog and its readers to malcontents complaining over their beer is a bit insulting to the Bear's readers"

      So what? Call in the Tolerance Police to protect all whose feelings we hurt.

      "loaded for the wrong fight."

      Our criticism of The Remnant and Catholic Family News was because of their support of the SSPX. We applauded their accurate analysis and diagnoses of problems in the Church today, but we can't (and don't) recommend them because of their support of the SSPX and the kind of papal criticism such support enables and invites. That's why reference to the SSPX needs to be included in this discussion and, if you check out the frenzied and emotional responses of those we offended, they very much get that point.

      Delete
    7. Michael Voris did not apologize for reporting what Cardinal Burke said. He apologized for having given the impression that, in reporting the story, he, and CMTV, were criticizing the Pope. What he said in his apology was (and I'm quoting directly from the script here):

      "Given that some people may think we were criticizing the Pope, it was wrong to air the story. I was approaching this from a journalism aspect, and not enough, or at all, from an apostolate standpoint. Other media outlets who cover Catholic things can run with the story as a newsworthy story, but this apostolate has an additional filter. What we do at ChurchMilitant.TV is use the tools of the new media to further the cause of the Church. Period. We don't use them as an end in themselves. ... To have to consider that I did something that brought some harm to Her makes me heart sick. ... Shifting to the harm to the Church question, again, the harm has come in that some individuals have interpreted this report as being a criticism of the Pope, and by extension the Papacy, and by further extension the Church."

      Cardinal Burke had said on that occasion that Pope Francis needed to step in and bring clarity to a very confusing and damaging situation, that his failure to do so was "harming the Church." That Cardinal Burke said this is a matter of public record and could, therefore, be reported by any news organization whatsoever, whether Catholic or secular. Michael Voris was apologizing that he, CMTV, had been perceived as jumping on the bandwagon of public criticism of the Pope when, as an apostolate and not just a news organization, we are publicly committed not to engage in public criticism of the Pope because we don't see it as furthering "the cause of the Church" (the "additional fillter"). Personal counselors to the Pope, which Cardinals are, are the ones most responsible for counseling the Pope. We, as laity, should have a much more reserved role in this arena and, as we do, follow the lead, tone and style of men like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider and others. We will report things that they say, but we will not engage in criticism of the Pope ourselves. A complete statement of our reasons for this can be read at http://www.churchmilitant.tv/faq/papalcriticism.pdf. Be sure to watch all the videos and listen to all the sermons linked within that document, else you can't really understand why we have embraced the policy that we have.

      "Looks like Bishop Athenasius isn't exactly silent either...who will fit into your square peg now?"

      I have no idea what you are talking about or even implying here. We've interviewed Bishop Schneiders on our network and cover him all the time. He is a hero of ours. What does his visit to the SSPX seminary in Winona have to do with anything we've been talking about here?

      Delete
    8. Michael mentioned that one would listen to authority *when it was inline with the Magisterium*. That's the whole point of argument with SSPX, The Remnant, and CFN - being inline with the Magisterium. Michael likes to point out the bishops errors, but who's the boss, where does the buck stop, using other analogies. Who were the leaders of the modernists that want to value sodomy and provide Holy Communion to adulterers? Francis' hand-picked prelates.Cardinal Kasper, the lying point man for Francis, is the "pope's theologian." What does it take for you to wake up and smell the coffee? Recall that silence is implicit consent. Pope Leo XIII "7. Next, we must heal those who have erred in this respect out of faint- heartedness, that is, those who, not because of a debased nature but because of weakness of spirit and lack of discretion, have allowed themselves to be drawn into supporting the Masonic enterprises. Sufficiently weighty are the words of Our predecessor Felix III in this regard. "An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.... He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity." By reminding them of the examples of their forefathers, the broken spirits of these men must be reanimated with that courage which is the guardian of duty and dignity alike, so that they may be ashamed and regret their cowardly actions. For surely our whole life is involved in a constant battle in which our salvation itself is at stake; nothing is more disgraceful for a Christian than cowardice." (Inimica Vis)

      Delete
  3. Remember before Pope Francis when Michael Voris, The Remnant, Catholic Family News and Harvesting the Fruit of VII were all in the same web "basket"? All of them seemed to cover the same things. There was no big difference in all of them.
    I actually like MV, but I don't think he is realistic about where he stands and hiring Christine Niles doesn't really change his history.
    I wonder how many of his Vortex episodes have gone in the same Memory hole as the fired up Mother Angelica episodes?

    ReplyDelete
  4. NEW
    KIDS
    ON
    THE
    BLOCK

    Such names they call us
    That’s not what we are
    We are Roman Catholics
    At the front of the war.

    First into battle
    First to protect
    Copying our stance
    Then say we’re a sect.

    A lot like in England
    Saint John Fisher’s day
    When his brothers said, “Yes”
    This Saint replied, “Nay”.

    All alone in the Fort
    St. John Fisher stood
    Preserving, defending
    For the whole all that’s good.

    Not just for himself
    But for young and for old
    And those on rich cruises
    Pretending they’re bold.

    We’re simply preserving,
    Once again the True Fort
    As new kids on the block
    Relax at each port.

    You know the truth –
    But must please men in power
    Who allow you your silver
    To buy an Internet hour

    Where they know they’ll be bashed
    And their reputations tainted –
    Just destroy the Priesthood
    SSPX – all sainted!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The "intellectual and spiritual blindness" of CMTV is truly astounding at this point in the most severe crisis of the Church and papacy ever. The pope is leading people away from God and His Holy Commandments. I'm seeing this all around me. Diabolical disorientation has come to CMTV. It cannot pretend the evil gushing continually from the Holy See is not happening whilst rightly attacking the evil doings of the bishops, cardinals, priests who have been given free reign to do that evil. And the silence about the persecution of the faithful by the Holy See is also evil (diabolical closing of the mouth in the face of persecution, injustice). To ignore evil that is putting so many people's souls in jeopardy, is to be culpable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Silence in the face of such grave evil, constant, gross opposition to the Faith and fundamental morals, by the Pope, influencing hundreds of millions to the detriment of their eternal souls - is evil.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "We're pretty much taking as our models in all this St. Mary Mackillop, Cardinal Burke, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, none of whom respond or responded to the crisis in the Church as The Remnant, Catholic Family News and the SSPX do."

    I was responding to your quote- Bishop Schneider is no enemy of the SSPX , and I would surmise he did not visit what he would considered a "schismatic" group as the CMTV frequently states. Your explanation about the retraction of Cardinal Burke's statement is nonsensical.MV originally reported what the Cardinal said - can the truth be told? Was the retraction for error's sake? No, sorry.Your examples ( and they are truly great saints and churchmen) fly in the face of your actions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In the Wednesday Mic'd Up episode wherein Michael Voris trashed the traditional websites, Christine Niles and company made a clear point to explain how narrow the infallibility of the pope really is, and then skirted over the egregi9ous and outrageous utterances of the Bishop of Rome, which flow from his humanness. If the infallibility of Pope Francis is so limited in scope why is it so forbidden to criticize his blatant errors? The fact that Mr. Carroll is becoming so vociferous since the self-inflicted wound of CMTV via the latest Mic'd Up debacle, indicates he is really feeling the heat. Truly he does protest too much. Shame on CMTV for their vicious attacks on those loyal to the Church. Shame on them for rewarding the arrogance and condescension of the very young and inexperienced Christine Niles. To present such a public diatribe against the good guys and then 'go on retreat' is sickening and perverse. Truly, shame on them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the SPPX are living out side of the church. they are not in communion with Rome so he is right. All of your confessions to a SSPX priest are invalid. That is from a former SSPX priest not FSSP.

      Delete
    2. Barbara, BEAUTIFULLY stated! I had admired M. Voris for years and was a good contributor. He jumped the shark...badly. And you're also right that Mr Carroll is sounding unhinged. The Truth is tough to take for some.

      Delete
  9. Yes, the way is narrow. Few find it. But Voris didn't say that first, Our Lord did.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I give up on CMTV. The only thing I can figure is they are either incredibly out of touch or incredibly threatened by the prospect of a shutdown by the local bishop or, even worse from their perspective most likely, a shutdown from importance sources of funds (or buses). They blindly avoid criticizing a pope who is the "poster boy" for St. Bellarmine's call for resistance to a pope who promotes error in the Church (or at least pointing out the potential for error as an act of charity). They also ignore the consensus that if a pope has actually done so, he is no longer Catholic and, therefore, no longer the pope, and certainly can't be infallible.

    I'm not sure this pope has broached that threshold yet. I'm not sure he hasn't. My guess is we'll have to wait until October for that to happen; what will CMTV do then? Probably flip flop all over themselves trying to wriggle out of hot water like they did after their criticism of the interim report. After all, someone who didn't like the report was paying for that trip.

    Not sure how out of it CMTV and many others are on the issue of SSPX and the constant use of the bugaboo of schism to prevent people from understanding just how faithful to the true Church they are. They aren't in schism and never have been. Vatican Commission on Ecclesia Dei has consistently accepted attendance at SSPX Masses on Sunday. But, then again, come October I believe millions will recognize the prescience of Archbishop Lefevbre and, by the way, head quickly for the SSPX pews. It won't be CMTV or anyone else criticizing the pope that will drive catholics away and legitimize once and for all the faithfulness of SSPX as Catholic. It will be a pope himself. How will CMTV 'splain that all away.

    Now, think I'll check out Michael Matt's site to see if there's a new, REALLY GOOD video to view. By the way, they don't think SSPX is in schism and have said that repeatedly. They are consistently fair to SSPX and, increasingly, recognizing the archbishop's long-term contributions to the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why have you given up? have you believed the lies of Judas? will you fallow the crowed come down from the cross and we will believe? what Good can be done for the church from outside the church? St padre Pio would not have left the church for any reason! Lb Mother Teresa never faltered in her devotion for the church. I know oh they were only holy people. these bishops are holy than they! We the SSPX are the Martyrs of vatican 2. We who have brought have brought on such schisms as the sedevacantists. (many ex-SSPX) We are so much better and holly that we cannot sin! our bishops cannot be guilty of Pride to command the church! They are truly martyrs! all but williamson he was crazy? Luther said the same thing of John Calvin how you not leading souls to hell when they did? Yes, there is error in the church but running off and starting your own church is not the answer of christ of or of long suffering. remember that virtue? I guess that doesn't matter when we are the holly ones of truth SSPX! hhmmm I sounds alot like luther posting his discourses.

      Delete
  11. I think it infinitely more likely that someone might go all the way and leave the Church after hearing Michael Voris counsel them to run over to this Parish if they don't like theirs, and that one if the second doesn't work out, and, oh, the Church of Nice bishops are a miserable lot anyway. The Vortex spoons out more vitriol in a typical week than the Bear does in a month. The Bear talks about all sorts of things. The Vortex... Well, that's another topic. It wasn't criticism of the Pope that brought Mr. Carroll out, but criticism of CMTV. And that's fine. But I do hope to have a life after this article, so Mr. Carol is welcome to stay in the woods and eat the berries for as long as he pleases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "....so Mr. Carol is welcome to stay in the woods and eat the berries for as long as he pleases."

      That'd be great!...we need a weasel.

      Delete
  12. The Pope was explicitly responsible for the evil spewed by Kasper and his appointees at the Synod. He specifically authorised the evil "mid-term Relatio", clearly pre-arranged and having no relation to either Catholic teaching and objective moral truth, or the conclusions of the various bishop's groups. As Bishop Schneider says, it is an example of a Neo-pagan ideology. Bishop Schneider also said: This the first time in Church history that such a heterodox text was actually published as a document of an official meeting of Catholic bishops under the guidance of a pope, even though the text only had a preliminary character." How diabolical is that? But the Pope and many of the cardinals and bishops promote this evil Neo-pagan ideology on a constant basis, turning people to reject the true Faith and support and commit mortal sin. Blessed Michael, the Archangel defend us in battle . . .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Voris backpedals on everything. He's not a source with any authority, whether he likes that or not, presents himself as a defender of the faith, but backpedals the instant he is challenged.... in short, Voris is best dropped, ignored, sidelined. He doesn't have anything to contribute anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I can't say I am impressed with Mr. Carroll. How would he know what God has called another person do. He would stand judgement on what an archbishop of the Churches duty was. He should read up on St. Athanacious who was excommunicated several different times for not becoming an Arian. He carried on confirming and ordaining and running his diocese Mr. Carroll is a nasty piece of work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please refrain from being uncharitable. We can disagree on the merits while maintaining decorum.

      Delete
  15. Voris is right about the sspx they are cowards that ran from the fight. Our Lady stood at cross, st our saviors feet. The bishops of the sspx ran away when the fight started. They even ex one of their own williamson. I attend the FSSP and there are many ex-SSpx priest in the order. The is not church out side of Rome and the Pope. They are a schism that is from the holy office. Fssp seminaries are full also and doing very well under the Pope. you cannot effect the church from outside the faith. you are no better than luther. he started splits and heresies as has the SSPX. look at all the sedevacantists that have popped up. I know one here that was SSPX. Your confessions are invalid according to the church and you cannot make that so no more than St Padre Pio could. Oh but you are more than saints! Bl mother teresa did not have the pride of the bishops of SSPX. when they started allowing the communion in the hand she simply keep kneeling. She did not leave the church her mother. What will say to God? I left the church of rome because of Judas? Because a man said something evil? I did not want to do good within the church to save her? I fled to cause controversy and fallow proud bishops in the pit with luther? St Padre Pio took the command of the church when he was wrongly accused as the cross. These bishops are greater than our lord no cross for them. They long for the attention and accolades! The SSPX here is struggling to fill the church. soon they will split again like luther did. Pride is a sin that leads to death. you are fallowing Wolfs in sheeps clothing that curse the cross for the blood that they may have had to shed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good stuff Bear. You do good work. Please sign me up: dowd@comcast.net

    My comment on all this is that I pray for unity in our fight against the "smoke of Satan".

    Michael Dowd

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's like a lot of things in life, really. There's a right way and a wrong way to do it. A lot of the faithful choose the wrong way to either criticize the Holy Father, or downplay his responsibility. In all humility, I prefer neither.

    From March of last year ...

    man with black hat: "You're infallible. Don't blow it."

    "In any communication, the first responsibility is not that of the receiver, but the transmitter. If the transmitter is misguided, the disposition of the receiver is irrelevant; the message is wrong, and the onus is on the messenger. If the receiver is misguided, then the transmitter has nonetheless conveyed his message. Whenever someone has to begin an explanation with 'What the Holy Father actually meant was …' then it is not up to the faithful to try and figure it out, but up to the Holy Father to think twice before saying it even once. It is the least that is expected of any one of us, and thus is neither unreasonable, nor a personal attack."

    But hey, that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I used to like Michael Voris but he's gone down a hole. Nobody is right but him and his buddies. I used to like Christine Niles but this last video repulsed me. I won't be subscribing to CMTV programs and I've put their e-mails in my spam filter.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, in today's 'Vortex', Michael is again speaking with the latest cruise retreatants assembled in the background, but this time we observe them all busily scribbling away on something as Michael explains that he (or perhaps "we", I don't recall) told them all to write to Pope Francis. TOLD them. I can't say I find that a comforting choice of words, nor am I charmed by the most recent 'Vortex' episodes opening with Voris brandishing the ChurchMiliant sword. (Apart from coming across as more childish than manly, this was -- to me at least -- unpleasantly jarring given that he was doing it with the ISIS beheadings still in the headlines.)

    Even though he's starting to scare me just a little, I respect Michael Voris for the brave and pioneering work he has done. For me, the fact that he balks at direct criticism of Pope Francus isn't a deal-breaker, any more than the fact that EWTN features Fr. Barron somehow negates the aspirations and achievements of that great apostolate.

    Pride is stalking Voris ever more closely; with the burgeoning success of CMTV that was entirely predictable. I hope that he will proceed very, very carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jane Chantal,

    I've long been wary of the Corapi-esque personality cult that seems to be forming around Michael Voris. In these dreary days of feminized bishops and fainthearted hierarchs, I sympathize with those lay Catholics who are overjoyed to see someone professing the Faith in a forthright and direct way, but it appears that the situation in the Church is so bad that these personalities become way too highly esteemed: The Only Genuine Truth-Teller Left in the Church, or somesuch. Then, when they prove to have feet of clay, like poor Fr. Corapi, their followers are left devastated.

    So it's troubling that Voris seems to be encouraging this kind of fixation on his persona, and more troubling yet that he seems to have taken on the authority to pronounce anathemas on groups like the SSPX whose precise ecclesial status is far from resolved.

    Me, I've always been happily immune to Michael Voris's charms, finding him bombastic and abrasive. (Plus I honestly can't get over that toupee.) I did come to his defense on Facebook when one of our parish priests accused him of being a heretic, on the nonsensical grounds that Voris denies the indefectibility of the Church, but otherwise, I'd be happy to see CMTV take a hit for picking this entirely unnecessary fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bombastic and abrasive...yes, that neatly sums up Voris's style, I must admit :-D

      Delete
  21. Also, may I say that, as a veteran wall-o'-texter myself, I applaud Terry Carroll for going above and beyond the call of duty with those impenetrable War and Peace-length comments above. It certainly does seem like he's compensating for something ... perhaps the absence of a substantive argument, or actual evidence of his claims? The whole Beware of the Catholic Reactionaries! CMTV scare campaign seems to hinge on the SSPX being in schism, but that appears to be very far indeed from a settled claim, and Carroll adds far more heat than light to the discussion.

    Though I have to say, given the length of his comments, it's a cozy kind of heat, like a vast blanket of words, gently lulling me to sleep.

    Like the Bear, I am a Novus Ordo Catholic, though I fear that I will not match his admirable resolve to stick with the New Mass through thick and thin. But I have read SSPX communiques and articles intermittently since March 2013, and I have seen exactly none of the "vitriol" Carroll claims in their responses to criticism. None. To the contrary, I have often been impressed by how measured and well-argued their material is, so far from the fearsome caricatures painted by their critics. Since Carroll somehow forgot to provide links in all those many hundreds of words, I guess I'll just go with my own experience.

    So Terry, when will you guys be joining Mark and the gang over at Patheos?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done Murray.
      I'm also a NO Catholic with a sprinkling of Chaldean for good measure. I've also never seen "vitriol" from the SSPX or "trads".
      It reminds me of the "racist" tea party meme. It's only true in the playground of people's minds.

      Delete
    2. It's a Saul Alinski tactic...used widely in communist community organizing. Our current president is a master of it having sharpened his teeth with it on the streets of Chicago; we're seeing more and more of it in the media; and sadly, even within the Church.

      7-13 in Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

      Delete
  22. Agree with you and I continue to support his cause. I'm sure some of the saints would disappoint from time to time.

    Michael Dowd

    ReplyDelete
  23. Quite an interesting debate, analogies and all. I ask everyone here, and NOT rhetorically, what will you do when Francis, the apparent pope, will actually use the tool of infallibility to promulgate heresy? Recall also Cardinal Muller saying the divorce (pun intended) of doctrine and pastoral practice IS a subtle Christological heresy. Don't duck the question saying it will never happen.

    This discussion reminds me when Jesus was trying to convince those in the Temple that the Messiah was among them. They didn't get it. Same same today. The vast majority of Catholics don't recognize the Second Coming is within THIS GENERATION. This from an "extreme reactionary Catholic media".

    PS: Voris will wake up to the truth in the end. Just watch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, he would automatically no longer be pope, by purporting to so do, surely? I would continue practising the unchanging Faith. I do not follow the Pope in his constant attacks on the Faith and morals.

      Delete
  24. Joining SSPX would be a reasonable alternative I think. Any other ideas.

    Michael Dowd

    ReplyDelete
  25. The Supreme Court doesn't answer hypothetical questions, and the Bear will pass on "what would it take to bolt for the SSPX." First off, the Bear is not even sure the SSPX offers a safe haven. They do seem to offer all the right answers, but that doesn't necessarily answer the question. Right now, the Bear is not thinking of going anywhere. The Bear's thing is pretty much staying where he is and enduring the madcap hijinks among the upper echelons. There's a virtue in that, remember, and the Bear does not believe we will be punished for the faults of our duly-elected superiors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Great Father Hunwicke offers some calming words, as do those vitriolic quasi-schismatic reactionaries over at the Remnant.

      As TGFH summarizes:

      Catholic theologians are agreed that a heretic cannot be pope, but have differed about how this principle is to be given practical effect. Some have argued that a heretical pontiff ceases to be pope when he adopts his heresy, but that a direct intervention by the Church is needed to certify that the See of S Peter has thus become vacant. Others judge that the heretical pope does not ipso facto cease to be pope, but has to be deposed by a direct intervention by the Church. In either case, this is not an area for Do-it-yourself experts on heresy. Sedevacantism is not an option.

      The Remnant article goes into exhaustive detail on the same question.

      Delete
  26. "vitriolic quasi-schismatic reactionaries over at the Remnant."

    That's absolute calumny....they are no such thing. Shame on you Murray; you're better than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evidently I forgot the [sarc] tag! I was having a little fun riffing off Mr. Carroll's evidence-free assertions. Apologies for the confusion.

      Just to be clear, this papacy has made me into a repeat Remnant print subscriber and avid RemnantTV viewer. It has had the precise opposite effect on my (formerly avid) Catholic Answers listening and (very occasional) CMTV viewing habits.

      While I am just a little weirded out by some of the articles in the Remnant, the magazine is very good overall, and very helpful in understanding and contextualizing the crisis in which we find ourselves. I highly recommend supporting them.

      Delete
    2. Sorry for the misunderstanding...everybody's a little touchy these days. The Remnant is indeed one of the best media sources around today.

      Delete

Your comment will likely be posted after the Bear snuffles it. Please, no anonymous posts.

Featured Post

Judging Angels Chapter 1 Read by Author

Quick commercial for free, no-strings-attached gift of a professionally produced audio book of Judging Angels, Chapter 1: Last Things, read...