VIDEO: Figuring out this pontificate

Here is a video from Michael Voris, who offers one point of view.

For your thoughtful, thought-filled, discussion.

Think before hitting that “Post” key.

Moderation queue is ON.

First comment: I wish they’d change the music at the end.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Francis, The Drill and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. polycarped says:

    I appreciate MV and CMT very much but I think, rather than banging the same point on and on, he would be better off a) restating his position concisely (not a whole Vortex going round in circles) b) taking on and discussing, intellectually, the actual issues that ‘some’ others are worried about vis-à-vis Pope Francis (NB he can do so charitably) and c) backing off his constant slating of other Bishops and leaders of the Church (which he does almost constantly). The only reason I mention c) is because they are also the point of visible unity and hold a singular office in their respective dioceses/local churches and so the same principle he applies to the Pope actually applies to them too (if he wants to talk about the effect it is having upon simple souls). In reality, I want him to continue holding Bishops and others to account (charitably) through his apostolate, including being less rigid when it comes to the Holy Father. There’s nothing to stop him doing it charitably, carefully distinguishing between the Pope’s own views and other more formal pronouncements etc, and showing ‘some’ others how to do it well. The key issue seems to be about tone and maintaining respect. But harshly slating everyone to within a millimetre of the Pope (when it’s absolutely obvious that there is a connection to the Pope) is, frankly, silly.

  2. Joseph-Mary says:

    Michael Voris has taken a lot of heat for drawing the line as to how far he will go with things. But he holds to it. Confusion at the very least is coming from Rome. The pope will say, sometimes, some absolutely true things that we can agree are the teachings of the Church. Then, on the other hand, his list of name calling is very very long; it seems he is always criticizing someone but often we cannot be totally sure just what group that is although almost always those more traditionally minded are the target. I think what bothers me most are the men he surrounds himself with and what they continue to vomit out to the world and he does not stop them or clarify things but lets the confusion reign. He seems to speak, when he does speak, out of both sides of his mouth. I rather wish he would be quieter! We do have to respect the office of pope. But never in my dreams did I imagine that one could foment confusion and division as is happening now. I have to try harder to keep my eye on the Good Shepherd, the Lord, and I do ask Him about this vicar.

  3. Rob in Maine says:

    As someone who reads a few blogs and, I feel, is more in tune with what is going in in the Church than the majority of Catholics I know, I find Voris’ piece is confusing. I find most of his videos confusing. He tosses accusations but never identifies the accused or quotes their words. Voris’ “vortex” always comes out to be a tempest in a teapot.

  4. rcg says:

    for this layman there is no confusion that the Holy Father supports the Law, but I am now confused about what should be done when those laws are broken. In the recent past it seemed that public scofflaws were allowed to continue, I.e. Catholic Politicians who support same sex unions, due to a sort of restraint during the public argument and proselytization. Now it seems that in some cases we may have been mistaken in our interpretation of the Law and what it means to break it. Now it appears that we should do nothing about the sins of others, cast no stone, not even acknowledgement and have a sort of honor system and personal interpretation of sin. If, as conservatives, we are making a mistake it may be to think that Liturgy or natural Law is playing any role at all in the current situation. Burke, e.g., would be dismissed for confronting the Pope even if he had been liberal; the topics were only a red herring. Liberal bishops are emboldened to put pressure on conservatives not because the Holy Father supports their reactionary positions, but because he does not think the fight is important and will take no position in them at all.

  5. JARay says:

    I have listened to Michael Voris and, although I agree with what he is saying, I rather think that he made his point long before he finished his piece.
    I have also read what Robert Moynihan writes in his letter from the Vatican and he has had a disturbing number of people cancelling their subscriptions to his Letter. I think that the sticking point for many on this matter was his confident affirmation that Cardinal Kasper said that “no doctrines were going to be changed”. It has been, for him, a matter of shooting the message-bearer. I really could read the hurt he was feeling at the reactions to his Letter.
    Also I have read Sandro Magister in an interview posted on Rorate Caeli and he claims that Pope Francis clearly stacked the reporters of the Synod with those who support the granting of Holy Communion to those who are in illicit relationships. He also reports on the Pope’s silence on several disturbing matters such as the case of Asia Bibi who is languishing in jail in Pakistan under sentence of death and his failure to make any comment on the couple who were burned to death in Pakistan by an anti-christian mob.
    There is no doubt that what is happening in Rome right now is very disturbing and unsettling to the average Catholic.
    I see Michael Voris’s claim that we should not jump to judgement and throw fits but we should indeed be very concerned about all that is going on there.
    Prayer, prayer and more prayers are urgently needed for holy Mother Church right now because the situation is only one which God can put right.

  6. JBS says:

    Voris is emerging as a true prophet through all of this, which I would not have expected. It takes lay prophets to address this crisis because priests can’t guide the faithful through it without seeming to take one side or another, or being dismissed as naïve.

  7. The Egyptian says:

    For the most part I agree, very even handed,
    If I have “who am I to judge” thrown in my face on more time by our 80’s holdover Deacon, I may go off on him and anyone else who does the same, talk about poor timing and delivery

  8. Sid Cundiff in NC says:

    Good point of view from Voris – to attack the extremes: (1) Those venomous, vitriolic, Traditionalists who “offer the wrong cure”, who damage the faith of “simple”, who join schismatic groups, and (I add) who do palpable damage to the sustenance of the EF Mass; and (2) and the ostensible “Church of Nice”, many of whom are hardly nice, and who drive others into schismatic groups.

  9. jacobi says:

    This video is good, but then Voris usually is.

    As one of the simple souls trying to keep my balance on the tight rope that he refers to, I must admit, (but, but for Heaven’s sake don’t tell anyone!), I sometimes feel a bit puzzled.

    Fr Hunwicke has come up with the idea that before the second Synod on the Family, a serious, considered, well thought out encyclical would be, shall we say, appropriate.

    I tend to agree with that.

  10. Brian K says:

    In large part the trad blogs and sites have been prescient in their commentary over the last 18 months but they would do well to read today’s first reading in the Novus Ordo mass: “I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves Apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors. Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”

  11. Traductora says:

    Actually, I think Voris was wrong when he identified only two groups: there are three, because there is the extreme “progressive” group, which is right now high-fiving each other and praising the Pope to the skies for finally getting rid of those meanies and preparing the triumph of the Spirit of Vatican II. So somebody appears to be pretty sure of what the Pope’s saying, at least.

    Is he saying what they are hearing? I don’t know, because he is frequently self-contradictory and confusing. But he certainly wouldn’t be the first Pope who hadn’t quite measured up, and, for those who consider him a bad Pope, he wouldn’t be the first bad one, either. And the Church has survived.

    The danger this time around, of course, is that one of the things that enabled the Church to survive in the past, tradition, has been ruthlessly persecuted for these last 50 years, and its influence is greatly weakened. Even so, no matter how much the Pope and his advisers dislike anything that happened, was written or thought before 1965, it still remains and because it is true, it will ultimately (although not easily) triumph.

    While the first part of the video was interesting, I thought Voris’ words on infallibility needed more development, because I think this is a worry at the back of people’s minds. Newman thought that infallibility as defined was a disaster in waiting, and I think the concept needs serious modern examination. Technically, for example, I have read that the Pope cannot say just any old thing, but it must be something that is already part of the deposit of faith. Having a bad or confusing Pope whose relationship to tradition and the Church is confusing, if nothing else, should give us reason to really study all of these concepts and attempt to understand them – the concept of the Church, of tradition, of the Papacy, of the role of Peter, etc. Vatican II in many ways undermined our ecclesial understanding, and I think if conservative thinkers focus on this (rather than on alarmed reactions to every silly thing the Pope says) they will be doing a great service to the faithful in the pews, since I think this concern over the Church is really one of the things that is motivating such fear and alarm among us.

    (Discussion of the Church is very important – I don’t think the Pope is likely to try to make any radical statement affecting faith or morals that could be considered infallible and universal, because I think that some of his dangerous advisers, such as Kasper and other German bishops, may really be seeking a limitation of universality, a defacto dissolution of the Church, and the emergence of Orthodox-style “autocephalous” national church conferences that would set their own practices and even doctrines although loosely remaining in touch with Rome. )

  12. yatzer says:

    I tend to think of Jeremiah. He wasn’t too popular with higher-ups either, but he had some good points to make.

  13. Robbie says:

    These are extremely difficult times, but I don’t think the proper course of action is to simply dismiss what a pope says so long as a pope is not speaking with infallibility. To my ear, that is essentially what Voris is arguing. He’s saying popes can say all sorts of “unique” things, but so long as the comments aren’t formal, we can disregard or ignore them.

    Well, that sounds good in theory, but that’s not how things work in practice. The “who am I to judge” comment is a perfect example. That was not an official comment, but it has become a defacto official comment. The media treats it as such, the average Catholic who doesn’t read blogs like this believes it, and now bishops around the world are reassessing previous positions.

    It’s one thing to launch diatribes against the current pope, but it’s another to stand up and be heard. In my view, our devotion should be to the Church and it’s timeless teachings and not to the current occupant in the Vatican. If the comments of any pope contradict teaching, muddle teaching, and cause confusion, I believe it’s the duty of Catholics to defend God’s Church and its teachings.

    Again, combing through every single comment of a pope looking for mistakes to use as a bludgeon is not the way to go at all. Still, we now live in the instant media age. As soon as something is said, the world knows it. In view of that, it’s even more important for popes to choose their words cautiously and wisely. It may soothe our minds to simply ignore crazy comments, but the vast majority of the world doesn’t know that a pope’s comments may be just his own personal musings.

    Again, pope bashing is a wasted effort, but even popes need to be corrected from time to time. And to take an eyes wide shut approach to comments we might prefer not to hear seems to be the wrong course of action. Every word a pope says is important and they need to be treated as such, regardless of whether they’re made with infallibility or not.

  14. Eliane says:

    Michael Voris, along with Robert Moynihan and a few others, have made it their lifes’ work to communicate faithful Catholicism to all who will listen. Their lay participation in church leadership is a gift to us all, and while they may not have vast circulation, I believe they are often carefully monitored as bellwethers of Catholic thought.
    The current papacy has made their work very difficult, which is unfair to them. But they should not allow themselves to fall into traps. When Pope Francis speaks with a lack of clarity, or remains completely silent on crucial issues of faith, or allows his message to be co-opted by such communications outlets as The Advocate, faithful Catholic communicators should not attempt to decode his strange conduct, let alone fantasize about what they wish he would say, then attack people who don’t discern the same message, as Voris does.
    Let the man speak for himself, or not speak, and conduct himself as he sees fit, as he is going to anyway. Those of us who are critical are not rejecting the papacy and we aren’t going away , but are forced to conclude that the current occupant is a poor choice to lead the Catholic world. Voris’ shaking a finger in people’s faces will not change that.
    The pope has famously said that he wants “a mess.” Well, he has one on his hands and Voris’ disturbed, almost frantic videos are evidence of the hurt and sense of betrayal many are feeling as a result.

  15. Kathleen10 says:

    If I want to find out what is going on, really going on, I turn to Michael Voris and CM now. In my opinion he is frank, candid, concise, and when appropriate, apparently unafraid to be refreshingly direct about the who and the what. What an excellent counterpoint to the endless blathering we often hear when clergy are discussing these matters. It has become hard to listen to. I mean, I get it, in this sense the church operates like any other secular institution. If the boss has made it clear heads will roll if you don’t support X then you better start supporting X, at least in print or if someone sticks a microphone in your face. I think it seems pretty clear that is how it is now. That means we (the laity) are going to get lots of “happy talk”, which I find intolerable and for which MV’s videos are a welcome relief, because of his ability to be point-blank direct in matters with which I happen to agree with him. I do not find him overly critical of anyone. Geez Louise, do people honestly watch a video of his and head to the nearest bridge? Hysterics are always with us and feedback should not deter the truth as it is seen. I would hate it to deter Michael Voris. If he starts clamming up, that would be a shame. If there are conservatives who are really bashing the Pope, that is a shame, and wrong, but extremists always exist and their existence does not mean the truth needs to be modulated down so nobody acts out. That would be absurd. Speaking for myself it is much more anxiety producing when you can’t find out what is going on and nobody talks about it!
    Michael Voris is going to have to expect, and I’m sure he does, that he is going to be criticized either way he goes. Keep giving it to us straight, Mr. Voris, your reports inform and actually console me, because while even I can see there are many things wrong at the Vatican, I am consoled because sunlight is the best disinfectant and you bring some sunlight.
    At the end of every video I always pray “God bless him”.

  16. Kathleen10 says:

    In the above “conservatives” = “traditionalists”.

  17. Charlie Cahill says:

    “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.”
    Meantime let’s have a really good shouting match about what should or should not be said while on this rock. The Apostles did.

  18. brotherfee says:

    One item that stuck with me is to respect the Office, be respectful of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. A bit of advice upon entering the working world that I was given years ago is to respect the position, not necessarily the person. One may not like a particular person, may not agree with them, may not understand them; but they are in a position of leadership for a reason; and that position needs to be respected.

  19. donato2 says:

    Brian K’s citation to the first reading is on point as to the trads’ attitude and as to my own, to be honest. it is hard to avoid bitterness about this whole situation.

    Somewhat along the lines of Traductora’s points, what is happening now has led me to believe that there is a need for another ecumenical council at some point — perhaps as soon as sometime in the next few decades. The Church still has not come to full grips with the question of what its relation to the modern world should be, and there remains a lot of uncertainty it seems concerning ecclesiology.

  20. Arele says:

    I agree with Traductora that there are really three groups because Voris completely left out the progressive groups which, in a touch of irony to his video, has the effect of sugar coating them and the danger they are to the faith.

    I also agree that, once you get beyond his circling around and around about the danger of the two extremes he talks about, his points about infallibility are kind of the meat of the dilemma, at least for many Catholics, myself included.

    Lastly, who is the cardinal seen speaking with the pope whilst Voris is talking about venomous radicals? I don’t recognize him, but I am concerned that he might be one of the rational ones and not one of the venomous ones. If so, this would be very problematic.

  21. Arele says:

    Okay, I looked again. I don’t recognize the tall cardinal talking to the pope while Voris is making his point about venomous attackers, but isn’t that Cardinal Burke walking through that scene???

  22. Landless Laborer says:

    There is no question that public criticism of the Church and her earthly head is at times necessary, and these are those times. But I don’t envy the souls who are called to do it; it is, as Voris says, an extremely fine line to walk, in order not damage simple souls, and in order not to damage one’s own soul. He has probably agonized over this, and in the end made his choice with sincerity. His apostolate will continue to bear good fruit.

  23. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    The war is over. The apostates won years ago. The Extraordinary Synod, and the Synod next year, are just mopping-up operations.

    In 2004, the American bishops voted themselves the right to commit mortal sin. I.e., in “Catholics in Political Life,” they said that a bishop may “legitimately” decide to give Communion to Catholics who publicly promote abortion and other grave evils.

    In so voting, the American bishops accepted, IN PRINCIPLE, giving Communion to ANY person who approaches for it–out gay couples, the illicitly married, shack-ups, and, of course, vicious persecutors of the Church like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, etc., etc., etc.

    As a matter of fact, Cardinal Wuerl declared in public several years ago, at Little Flower Church in Bethesda, Md., that “I will never deny Communion to anyone who has not been formally excommunicated.”

    A long string of popes have appointed a horde of termites to the episcopacy. All the blogging about what the Pope, or Cardinal So-and-So, said last Thursday or might say next Monday is just so much noise.

  24. KateD says:

    Ignore the secular media, their mistranslations and whisperings of schism. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted from what we have been asked to do.

    Our Pope has asked us to pray for him. Let’s start there.

    We have been called to speak up and act.

    How can we do this most effectively and obediently? A pilgrimage to Rome specifically for next years synod? An on your knees in Saint Peter’s square for our church, our Pope, and the sanctity of marriage type of pilgrimage with banners of the Holy Face?

    If we can’t make it to Rome, how about coordinated kneel-ins at our parish churches and diocesan cathedrals leading up to and for the duration of the Synod next year?

    Our pastors, bishops, cardinals and Pope need to know they are not in this alone. And they need our prayers to bolster their courage as they march into battle against the Powers and Principalities.

    “Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered: and let them that hate Him flee from before His Face.”

  25. Imrahil says:

    Dear Traductora,

    correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Cardinal Newman thought infallibility as proposed by some was a disaster in waiting, but not infallibility as it eventually was defined.

    That said, the question “is this really already a deposit of faith” does belong to the Pope’s job in deciding whether to define, but not to us as a sort of afterwards-correction (otherwise the instrument would be rendered mute).

    Yet, what does remain to us is make out the conditions of infallibility. These are, w.r.t. what Vatican I was about:
    1. the Pope
    2. as Visible Head of the whole Church (not in addressing his own diocese of Rome, or speaking as head of the Latin tradition, chief of Vatican State, or what not)
    3. defines (makes clear he does define)
    4. something concerning faith and/or morals.

    Note: this does not include Catholic truths (technical term), because Vatican I was not about them, but it’s believed nonetheless that the Pope can decide infallibly on Catholic truths too.

    Hint: For all practical purposes, Vatican-I-style infallibility has nothing to do with the daily job of the Pope at all, and Catholic-truth infallibility only w.r.t. “person X is right now heaven” (this, and not anything more, is the infallible part of canonizations).

    When he’s going to define a dogma, we’ll know it.

  26. Unwilling says:

    I have gone through stages with Francis:
    1. Used fancy hermeneutics to show that he really meant something else.
    2. Blamed media for trying to make policy/predictions out of a few gaffes.
    3. Complained that the Holy Father was taking too long to get up to speed.
    4. Admitted that the Pope was saying/allowing things that are just wrong.
    5. Critiquing his individual statements daily to make clear what is wrong, why.
    6. Calling the Pope nasty disrespectful names. [Not on line, obviously.]
    I felt justly rebuked by Voris’ rant. I will watch my mouth. But I cannot envision a behavioural norm for a new #6 that would capture what I see. I fear I’m silenced now.

  27. Gerard Plourde says:

    I think that first of all we have to acknowledge that all times are times of crisis for the Church and the faithful. In fact, perhaps the times of greatest crisis are those when it appears that everything is fine and people are lulled into placing themselves on autopilot, becoming entrenched in the customs and mores of their societies and therefore deaf to the call to conversion of all of us sinners that Our Lord announced and echoed by the Apostles, by St. Paul and through the ages by the Church.

    The latest controversy concerning the worthy reception of the Eucharist is not new. Here is what St. Pius X wrote about the issue almost a century ago in his Decree, Sacra Tridentia:

    “[D]isputes began to arise concerning the dispositions with which one ought to receive frequent and daily Communion; and writers vied with one another in demanding more and more stringent conditions as necessary to be fulfilled. The result of such disputes was that very few were considered worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist daily, and to derive from this most health-giving Sacrament its more abundant fruits; the others were content to partake of it once a year, or once a month, or at most once a week. To such a degree, indeed, was rigorism carried that whole classes of persons were excluded from a frequent approach to the Holy Table, for instance, merchants or those who were married.

    Some, however, went over to the opposite view. They held that daily Communion was prescribed by divine law and that no day should pass without communicating, and besides other practices not in accord with the approved usage of the Church, they determined that the Eucharist must be received even on Good Friday and in fact so administered it.”

    Sounds pretty familiar, doesn’t it?

    St. Pius goes on to decree:

    “1. Frequent and daily Communion, as a practice most earnestly desired by Christ our Lord and by the Catholic Church, should be open to all the faithful, of whatever rank and condition of life; so that no one who is in the state of grace, and who approaches the Holy Table with a right and devout intention (recta piaque mente) can be prohibited therefrom.

    2. A right intention consists in this: that he who approaches the Holy Table should do so, not out of routine, or vain glory, or human respect, but that he wish to please God, to be more closely united with Him by charity, and to have recourse to this divine remedy for his weakness and defects.

    3. Although it is especially fitting that those who receive Communion frequently or daily should be free from venial sins, at least from such as are fully deliberate, and from any affection thereto, nevertheless, it is sufficient that they be free from mortal sin, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; and if they have this sincere purpose, it is impossible by that daily communicants should gradually free themselves even from venial sins, and from all affection thereto.

    4. Since, however, the Sacraments of the New Law, though they produce their effect ex opere operato, nevertheless, produce a great effect in proportion as the dispositions of the recipient are better, therefore, one should take care that Holy Communion be preceded by careful preparation, and followed by an appropriate thanksgiving, according to each one’s strength, circumstances and duties.

    5. That the practice of frequent and daily Communion may be carried out with greater prudence and more fruitful merit, the confessor’s advice should be asked. Confessors, however, must take care not to dissuade anyone from frequent or daily Communion, provided he is found to be in a state of grace and approaches with a right intention.”

    We can trace the current controversy recently on display at the Synod to the attempt to adhere to the meaning of this Decree and to apply it today.

  28. Fr_Sotelo says:

    Fr. Fitzpatrick:

    While it is true that many bishops lack the courage that is needed to refuse Communion to the pro-aborts, I would not call them termites, apostates, or mortal sinners. Only God can know if their lack of courage reaches to the level of mortal sin in their souls. Objectively scandalous? Yes. Excessive indulgence toward the public sinner? Yes. But let God judge whether they are guilty of mortal sin.

    If I believed that the Catholic Church were the equivalent of her clergy, I might despair at times. But neither Our Lord, or St. Paul, nor Catholic Tradition, would grant that hope for the Mystical Body of Christ depends on the antics of the clergy. The Church’s good laity, not to mention those clergy and religious who are true to the Faith, will always assure that the Faith once delivered to the Saints is not extinguished. God is not stingy with His rescue efforts. Do not discount that “where sin abounded, grace did more abound” (Romans 5:20).

  29. Sword40 says:

    Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick has hit the nail on the head. We are in for a real tough time. God promised us the victory but He didn’t promise us an easy fight.

  30. Imrahil says:

    Rev’d dear Fr Fitzgerald,

    there’s some (tiny, I agree) thing that is right about the bishops’ position.

    Which is the following: being in grave sin, per se, means you cannot Communicate yes, but there is no authority to enforce that in public. (can. 916) Withholding Communion for being in a public state of grave sin, whether or not subjectively, is something the Church has authority, and the duty, to enforce, but while that covers according to general practice invalid remarriages (shack-ups? gay couples [if not in a legal union and if not publicly sharing bodily affections immediately before communion]? I doubt it), and while it also covers the sort of politicians who stand there and pronounce “abortion is a sacrament”…

    for the majority of cases where the Church fights, and rightly fights, something where the opponents can claim some excuse (“abortion? I’m totally against doing so! but I believe it, and promote that belief, better policy to not punish it”), can. 915 which requires a manifest, undoubtable, and public stand is not the way to go, in my view.

    They got to have a trial (if they want to stand one), and be dealt with in a juridic way.

    Besides, can. 915 should not in my view be used as an excuse to not excommunicate.

  31. LA says:

    From 8:00 on, MV says exactly what the SSPX has always taught about not idolizing the Pope and treating everything out of the Pope’s mouth as infallible. Yet he condemns the SSPX as extreme. Methinks he needs to study the SSPX’s position a bit better before condemning them.

  32. Elizium23 says:

    It is chilling for me to come to terms with the fact that there might possibly be some problems with this pontificate. I had inklings from the very beginning, with the mozetta incident and traditionalists declaring open season. I myself was in complacent denial. I insisted that everything he said must have been taken out of context, magnified by liberals, twisted by the media. The FFI incident had great import to me but I maintained my sense of denial. The whole Burke thing now, with Kasper opposing, is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Francis does great things, and has an important voice in the Church, but he is not playing fair with Catholics of great faith. This is the first time I have disagreed with a sitting Pope. I really thought we were in for a whole line of true saints in the mold of St. John Paul the Great. Benedict I admired so much, and they both did such great things, but they were so very gentle , even timid, unwilling to quell dissent and opposing voices. Now comes along someone who is quite willing to quell these things, only the dissent and opposition is not to Church teaching, but to the Holy Father’s party line.

    I am currently suspended from Catholic Answers Forums for three weeks. The last straw there was a post that spoke reverently of St. JPG and Benedict, and was, in my estimation, quite complimentary of Francis, and yet it was tagged “Contempt of Catholic clergy” and my appeal was ignored/denied. I suppose it is fair if my overall track record is taken into account. I admit to being harsh on some members of the clergy who do not see eye-to-eye with me. I myself take a dim view of laity who presume to criticize the hierarchy as if it is our place to correct them. So perhaps it’s a fair cop. But if Catholic Answers wants to purge everyone who simply does not agree with the Pope, even if we are walking that razor’s edge, then perhaps they do not deserve my continued presence there.

    I am not going anywhere, my loyalty is to Christ and His Church, not merely to His Vicar. Nobody will succeed in driving me to SSPX or even regular EF attendance; I prefer to stay in my OF parish and champion the Reform of the Reform, and accept whatever blemishes I may find here. But I think it is extremely disturbing that the Francis Effect simultaneously draws liberals and accolades from The Advocate while at the same time pushing away traditionalists of faith, sending them into the arms of SSPX, SSPV, and friends. We need to expand and widen the role of traditionalists in today’s Vatican II Church, and we deserve a Holy Father who will support that mission.

  33. The Masked Chicken says:

    “The Church still has not come to full grips with the question of what its relation to the modern world should be, and there remains a lot of uncertainty it seems concerning ecclesiology.”

    There seems to be this notion of, “the modern world,” floating around that the Church has to have a relationship to. This is silly. The world is always on the edge of being, “modern.” The only fixed point in the topology of time is the Catholic Church. Will we have to have a new Council every fifty years for the new Modern World? This is not the Always Modern Church we are trying to build – that us the conceit of the Episcopalians – rather, it is the Eternal Catholic Church that we are trying to expose to a world full of death and the fear of the clock.

    “The war is over. The apostates won years ago. The Extraordinary Synod, and the Synod next year, are just mopping-up operations.”

    Dear Father, the war is over and Christ has won. The Extraordinary Synod and the Synod, next year, are just so much dust in the wind in the eye of eternity. One blink of the eyes of the Body of Christ and it could be as if they never existed, washed away in the inevitable reflex that occurs when true light hits the eyes.

    Christ cried only once in Scriptures – at the burial site of Lazarus, but it was the crowd that claimed His tears were because He loved Lazarus. It occurs to me that Jesus might have been crying because He had to bring Lazarus back into this life.

    The War is over, but some people just have not gotten the message yet and like the Japanese islanders who were fighting WWII into the 1950’s, we can expect the Snake to squirm a bit on the hook as he has not realized that he is about to be swallowed by The Fish.

    The Chicken

  34. Dialogos says:

    First, for whatever reason, Mr. Voris rubs me the wrong way…but that doesn’t mean I think he’s wrong. I think the overall scheme Voris proposes is correct; however, I would offer the following alternatives. First, I find that the most hate-filled venom comes not from the “traditionalist” camp, but rather the “progressive” side of things–that’s one reason I will read, for example, Rorate Caeli, but find Crux and NCR almost unbearable in their venom-filled comboxes. That leads me to 2) the danger of schism. I understand the danger and appeal of schism when one is convinced of the position one holds. (I used to be Eastern Orthodox, where schism is a fine-tuned dramatic art form.) I hope the “traditionalists” Voris points to will not feel the need for schism, and hope that the SSPX will be completely in union with Rome in the near future. I once again think the “progressive” side is a better candidate for schism…in the sense that I wish they would separate themselves. That may seem uncharitable, but I’m not sure it is. Many progressives seem genuinely hurt in some way, but the hurt has metastasized. I think their separation from the Church might help them in their journey and would definitely help the Church avoid confusion. I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Cardinal O’Malley and was underwhelmed, while the Crux interview w/Cardinal George revealed the thought of a prince of the Church who I think gets it, and might reasonably represent the middle place Voris appeals to and for.

  35. St. Rafael says:

    The cure is more damaging than the disease? The cure of traditional orthodox Catholicism is more damaging than Modernism? Voris then goes on to attack the SSPX by again falsely claiming once again to be schismatic. Catholics “…who leave the Church and begin attending Mass in various schismatic groups not in full communion…” Never mind that the Catholic Church has never ruled the SSPX to be in schism. That is right. There is no official ruling from Rome that the SSPX has ever been in schism. That is purely the opinion of Voris, and one that is wrong. No Catholic can claim that the Catholic Church supports his personal opinion of the SSPX being in schism. Never mind that Ecclesia Dei has said in the past that a Catholic layman can fulfill his Sunday obligation at a SSPX chapel. Also, the term of “full communion” has been demonstrated to be Modernist terminology. It is so ironic and amusing to see conservatives bash traditionalists with the Modernist concept of “full communion.”

  36. snoozie says:

    He threw Cardinal Burke under the bus a few weeks ago, at the point when his eminence needed some back-cover; and now he throws the GREAT Bishop Athanasius Schneider under the bus in this current attempt to walk a non-existent razor’s edge (our Lord didn’t walk a middle road or a ‘third way’, He walked a simple path of Truth). I used to be a big fan of Michael’s, but I seriously question his judgement these days.

  37. paterscotus says:

    I have appreciated CMTV and Michael Voris very much but disagreed with his earlier public “mea culpa” after reporting Cardinal Burke’s remarks and disagree with him now regarding traditionalists who dare to criticize the pope. St Paul did it (Gal. 2:11).

  38. St. Rafael says:

    I don’t get this obsession with and deference to “simple souls” on the part of Michael Voris. We are living in tough times. People have to just deal with it. Grow up. They have to hear the truth, no matter how disturbing the truth is. You cannot be worried about people’s feelings when the world is rotting and going to hell, and the Church is near death in a total crisis of heresy and apostasy. A church in ruins, who the Pope is in no way restoring, but instead is sowing confusion and discord. Heaving forbid these “simple souls” actually discover traditional Catholic theology or attend a TLM Mass.

  39. Grateful to be Catholic says:

    The entire history of the Church is one of defense against heretics, usually from within. We are not enjoying the luxury of trustworthy bishops and this is by no means unprecedented. Just ask St. Athanasius who faced 80% of his fellow bishops being Arians. Or St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher, who stood alone among English bishops against Henry VIII on this exact same issue of the indissolubility of marriage. Or the many martyrs of the Vendée and thousands of other French clerics, religious, and laity who suffered martyrdom and were abandoned by their bishops. Now since the mid-19th century the modernists of one stripe or another have been eating into the flesh of the Church, spreading their fungus that religion is what we want it to be, if we want it at all, and that’s okay, too.

    That is what has brought us the dictatorship of relativism, the liturgical reform that almost wiped out the liturgy, the doctrinal vacuum caused by catechetical collapse. The whole plan is to brush away boundaries, dilute authorities, remove the buttress of tradition, put us at the mercy of the personal charism and predilections of a pope who is only one among many. With so many cardinals either oblivious to what is going on or fully on board with it, we get a pope who is marked more by his idiosyncrasies than his clear proclamation of the Gospel. Michael Voris is right to say that those idiosyncrasies and strange comments don’t amount to heresy, but they are still doing damage.

    So if you need a bishop, find one who is willing to publicly defend the Eucharist against those who publicly defy God’s law (abortion supporters, same-sex marriage advocates, accommodationists for adultery) and listen to him carefully. Inform yourself on the authentic doctrines of the Church. Above all, pray that the Church will be spared the worst of what is possible.

    The modernists have a plan to destroy the Church. See, for example, What is our plan to save the Church?

  40. bmadamsberry says:

    I think some of the difficulty for many of us in understand Pope Francis is that we’re thinking in left-right, liberal-conservative, etc. terms. The reason we may be confused about which side Pope Francis is, for example, criticizing is that he not criticizing a side but rather a position, way of thinking, or some other concept that is not conducive to a black-white outlook on the world.

  41. Dave N. says:

    I was a bit surprised to see Michael Voris employ one of the left’s favorite rhetorical moves. When you disagree with the Pope, go on about the narrowness or even rarity of infallible declarations. But when you agree, characterize infallibility or perhaps speaking “definitively” as any virtually anything coming out of the Pope’s mouth having to do with with “faith and morals”—a category that can be made broad enough to cover most everything the Pope says publicly.

    Also, why are people who are upset by certain statements made by the Pope dismissively labelled “simple souls”? Is the implication that they are well-intentioned but somehow less enlightened than MV? If one disagrees with Michael Voris does that person forfeit the designation “faithful Catholic”? His via media seems like pretty tiny group, and one that continues to shrink.

  42. Edelwald says:

    I am rather put out by this Vortex and I now think that Michael Voris is hammering away at something that seems to be bothering him. His opposition between these ‘very small number of traditionalists’ and the church of nice types who ignore everything is a phony dichotomy to me. Who are these traditionalists that he speaks of? I wish he would identify them. I think he is talking about the Remnant and possibly SSPX. But, other than those two groups, I’m afraid I really am not familiar with other traditionalist groups that apparently are out there and somehow are on his radar screen. The two aforementioned are the only ‘traditionalist’ groups that I know of that have any significant national visibility. If that is the case, his use of the word ‘schismatic’ is very problematic. Likewise, he doesn’t provide any examples, only his interpretation of their positions/statements whoever they are. If they have published something, it is public and if it is public, it is fair game to cite and quote. Why doesn’t he? Instead, we get innuendo. On the other hand, as he affects his being partial, are those who ignore the story. So what? Rather, the problem on the ‘other’ side are those who are actively endorsing the Kasper thesis which for some odd reason Voris did not wish to address. Of the three groups, not two, this last group, the NCR types, are the most pernicious of the three. The traditionalists advocate the position so nicely laid out by Fr. Hunckwicke ( and as for those who seek to ignore it all, they probably don’t even understand what the issues are. But, I’ve noticed Michael Voris getting steamed regularly over these unnamed traditionalists which I think he should come out and say who is referring to in order to engage in a legitimate dialogue. If they are in the public sphere, then he should come out and state those with whom he disagrees.

  43. Grateful to be Catholic says:

    @ Fr. Sotelo, Fr. Fitzpatrick did not say that bishops had committed mortal sin. He said that they had, IN PRINCIPLE, given themselves permission to commit mortal sin, i.e., an objectively gravely sinful act, namely allowing a Catholic under their jurisdiction who is persisting in manifest grave sin to receive Holy Communion. The purpose of Canon 915 is to protect the Sacrament from abuse (the canon is in the section on the proper participation in the Eucharist), to protect the person in manifest grave sin from committing sacrilege, and to protect everyone else from scandal. These are grave matters which fall within the pastoral responsibilities of a bishop and, provided he has the knowledge and full assent of the will required, can be matter for mortal sin.

    As for termites, in many cases I definitely see the resemblance, fattening on the joists until the structure collapses from within. It won’t completely collapse, but a lot of people can get hurt by falling beams.

    @ The Chicken: I love your point that maybe Jesus wept over Lazarus because he was about to bring him back to this life. But that wasn’t the only time. He also wept over Jerusalem for not seeing and accepting salvation. By extension, He wept over all of us because we all have our stubborn clinging to our own ways and our darkened understanding. Kyrie eleison!

  44. Imrahil says:

    Dear Dave N.

    When you disagree with the Pope, go on about the narrowness or even rarity of infallible declarations. But when you agree, characterize infallibility or perhaps speaking “definitively” as any virtually anything coming out of the Pope’s mouth having to do with with “faith and morals”

    Well, in this case the previous mistake of “our side” is redounding upon us.

    I said it before, but I think, probably without his knowledge, but maybe even partially knowingly, Pope Francis is teaching the Church how they should treat things the Pope says. One might be tempted to treat the occasional encyclical, heavily checked for theological correctness by very erudite advisers, and above all (indeed!) fired by the graces of the Church’s supreme Magisterium (though not the supreme form of using said magisterium) for an oracle; but one cannot possibly treat the daily Papal sermon (the World’s parishpriest, he has been called ;-) ) for an oracle.

    By this I do not say that previous Popes should were wrong in restricting themselves to saying a few things, and these really checked to be true. That was a good idea of a policy, at any rate.

    I do say, though, that the attitude “yes, I know that the Pope is not always infallible, but I cannot practically I cannot bring myself to feel you can disagree with the Pope and be Catholic” was a wrong one.

    I’d confess myself to be a Papist towards any Protestant, but that being said there is something that might be described as “Papism” which is wrong. We belong to the one and only, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. We don’t belong to the Pope’s church. We belong to our Lord’s Church. The head of said Church is the Pope (with teaching authority culminating in infallibility, and with jurisdictional authority, to be sure). We believe what we believe because it’s true – not because the Pope says so. This holds even true to the dogmas – here only, that the Pope says so is a peculiar way of knowing for certain that they are true.

    In the 20th century apart from canonizations and leaving technicalities out, there were three infallible statements: Assumption of Mary 1950, Church has no authority to ordain women to priesthood 1994, intrinsical grave immorality of directly and willingly killing an innocent 1995 (Evangelium vitae No. 57) – if that one counts, but from the wording St. John Paul chose it seems it does. In the 19th century apart from canonizations and the Council, there were four: Immaculate Conception 1854 and invalidity of Anglican orders 1896.

  45. robtbrown says:


    There is no need for new Council or research on Ecclesiology. Beginning with Pius XII there began a move away from the Church as Perfect Society Ecclesiology (cf Bellarmine) and back toward Mystical Body Ecclesiology (cf. St John, St Augustine, and St Thomas Aquinas). Certain theologians like Kasper are still using the previous premises. Nor is there need for a new Council on Infallibility.

    There have been good books and articles written about both.

    Fr V Fitzpatrick,

    IMHO, the theologically flabby practice of giving Communion to everyone follows from the Eucharist as Meal concept that still pervades the Church. If Mass is a meal, then who could refuse a starving man? “And what would you like on your hamburger?”

  46. StephenGolay says:

    As several have pointed out he needs to name names (or is it sites), and give examples from each. After the third “not this extreme, not that extreme” his point gets washed out. Though, one is left with the impression that he is more irritated with those who exhibit anger towards Pope Francis. As if the long term damage to the Church will rise fro the vortex of their anger than from those who constructed a bandwagon from the pope’s (quite confusing – and disturbing) statements (and – let us not forget – his appointments) as float exhibit #1 down the progressive road.

    Of course, the Moderate Trads – knowing (how do they?) that that progressive bandwagon will eventually (before Oct ’15?) tip, crash, or otherwise disintegrate – will have the last laugh, they think. For, as the story running the undercurrents, Pope Francis did really mean those statements, and did not know what he was doing when he made those appointments. The liberals have ballooned their hopes too high. Just wait and see, Pope Francis will snip their strings.

    Have yet to be convinced. I find Francis’ statements (and silence) to be quite direct and clear. His infamous “Who am I to judge”, regarding the homosexuality of one of his first administrative appointees, means just that. The back-story attached to that statement tells all.

    And, that is the central issue: the stealth acceptance of homosexuality as a gifted given for the Body of Christ. The fact that he – that’s right, Pope Francis – permitted the topic of homosexuality to become the PUBLIC FACE of the Synod in Rome (regardless of the conversation within the Synod Hall) is a statement of silence that tells all.

    In these remaining months gearing up for the Synod next October I will be mo9nitoring how the subject of homosexuality is being addressed: keep a close eye on the manipulations (the subtle manoeuvrings) to once again to give it a staring role in the Roman drama. The “other side” scents victory in the air and they will not be satisfied with anything less than full capitulation. As far as they are concerned Pope Francis has promised them a crown of oak leaves. None of this sense of alarm rising from even concerned “moderate” bishops will sours the taste of triumph they already have. Pope Francis has said and appointed too much. Which of those words, which of those appointments will be take back?

    I am not a Traditionalist. Mr. Voris should not fear that I’m off running to some schismatic congregation. That – of Voris will take a deep breath – is not the threat. It is to him, maybe,, because that is where the competition is – on his right side. The real (larger in terms of boots walking out of the Church) threat is from those who simply walk out and away: to retired belief (for one never totally exhumes it completely), into Pentecostalism (which near to being the majority religious faith in much of Latin America), or, more frightening, into Islam or other death cults (which has always been the deep,deep choice of despair in South America). Now, how will a “Franciscan” softening up to the agenda of the Progressive Left (Catholic and secular) staunch THAT bleeding of boots going out t door?

    Mr Voris’ equivocation of the Left-Hand/Right-Hand threats is – once more – a washout. At the e3nd of his piece one can’t detect on what his opening points are anchored to. Except to say that all (here I think he means the Moderate Trads) must respect and honor the Peterine Office.. Good and well, but, in this crisis, it doesn’t get us far. (Maybe, by now, I’m showing some slip!) Still, what was his point in pointing that out, it’s not quite clear. Was it to deflect some criticism coming his way from some of his previous reporting? Who knows. As we can’t read Pope Francis mind we can’t read Michael’s, I suppose.

    Still, the gambit meal tossed on the table is homosexuality. Like marijuana, it is the gateway sex for all sorts of human disorders, and downright sins. Get any kind of acceptance of that and the Progressive oyster (Pandora Box) is wide open.

    For the next ten months running into Oct., next year, my eyes will be peeled wide open. It is THE issue for me. If it looks like that – as some great signal – Elizabeth Scalia (the Anchoress) and Eve T. (authoress of “Gay and Catholic”) will be, to all intent and purposes, composing the paragraphs on homosexuality for the final report – then I’m out of here.

    Have to. Need to be. Not that I’m disbelieving, that I have despaired that the Church . over time (how many papacies, how many generations?) – will not right itself. It is just that – for my own peace of mind, and maybe salvation – I must put myself in place where discouragement and despair will not weight my soul with stumbling stone. For Christ is never that!

  47. robtbrown says:


    Maybe you’ve made it too complicated.

    What could be done is that every bishop make sure that in every mass in every parish once a year it is made clear that people who are in sexual relationships outside of marriage (or are participating some way in abortion) are putting their souls at risk by receiving Communion.

    And reference should be made to St Paul a Cor 11:27: ‘Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

  48. Norah says:

    I am certain that doctrines of the Church are not going to be changed and I am also certain that disciplines in the Church are going to be what ever some bishops and priests say is the pastoral, non rigid approach. For perhaps the majority of Catholics, doctrines of the Church are going to be honoured more in the breech than in the observance. As for the Faithful, they will be left doing what their well formed conscience tells them is correct and obeying the doctrines of the Church and their faithfulness to doctrines and disciplines and pious practises will be mocked by priests from the pulpit.

  49. Mike says:

    I don’t know if Voris is implicitly referring to Mr. Matt and Co. at the Remant in this video, but having watched a few of their video reports I think they are balanced and fair to all sides in this issue of the present confusion coming from Rome.

  50. ofHippo says:

    The whole thing is very sad. But we still have the Catechism and can’t use this confusing time as an excuse to mess up our children and sit around playing CSI to PF’s vices and inconsistencies. It’s not nothing..clearly there is something wrong. But we still have the Truth. Look at St. Catherine of Siena or even St. Ignatius of Loyola who had Alexander. Or St. Hippolytus who had to deal with himself..and did become a repentant anti-pope and Saint. What can we do? Pray The Rosary, Catechize you and yours, remain calm like the exorcists did and be grateful to know that Cardinal O’Malley is running for pope on 60 Mins. I am relieved people are coming out with their true intentions. I just wish the priests, bishops and cardinals would come out of the closet then we would just all know for sure where everyone stood. We knew the narrow path was going to be narrow (cue Fr. Z’s cartoon) and again pray for Pope Francis..he needs us. Ad Jesum per Mariam!

  51. jhayes says:

    Fr Hunwicke has come up with the idea that before the second Synod on the Family, a serious, considered, well thought out encyclical would be, shall we say, appropriate.

    The purpose of the Synod is to provide advice to the Pope regarding an Apostolic Exhortation he will write after the Synod finishes its 2015 session.

    There wouldn’t be much point to having the Synod if Francis published the AE (or an Encyclical) ahead of time.

  52. MrsMacD says:

    Well done Mr. Voris. You have earned my respect. Being a simple soul I can’t handle all the Pope bashing. I want Pope Francis to be a holy man, so I think I need to pray for him. My heart aches at seeing clergy promoting sin. So much focus is on pointing fingers at the sins of others. We need to do penance, to pray for peace, to sanctify our own lives. We have to be so careful not to detract or gossip or trash this man that God has given us to love as our father, despite his weaknesses. I admit I’m confused but I know what Jesus promised, “behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Jesus I trust in You! I love to hear priests, cardinals, bishops encouraging us to be Faithful, to love Our Holy Church., to avoid evil.

    Just as a sort of side note; I don’t like the “Liberal,” “conservative,” labelling because sanctity isn’t “conservative,” it’s Catholic and not one Catholic is left out of the call to perfection. It might be better to label them sinners and saints but then the lines would be confusing because both so called conservatives, trads, liberals, whatever could lay claim to being sinners.

    Also, isn’t there a good deal of wisdom in avoiding all curiosity and striving for personal perfection while turning a blind eye to the crisis, after all I can’t fix it, I’m just a little mother, but I trust God and He’s in charge.

  53. jameeka says:

    I like the music at the end.

  54. ad Deum says:

    Voris keeps stating laymen cant speak out against the pope publically because it could scandalize the faithful and they may leave the Faith. But now he states no big worry on what Francis says or doesnt say, does or doesnt say since most is not protected as infallible. So in his thinking, let the pope say whatever and when it scandelized others, dont worry since its not infallible. Right. No…The damage is done. Most dont get infallibility and in the end scandal happens anyways. Mr. Votis cant have it both ways. And if not for those bad trads, we would have no Tradition left here or elsewhere, lest Voris thinks otherwise.

  55. marcelus says:

    And then at CM.TV there is this other video

    Top Stories:
    1. Pope Francis Reaffirms Complementarity of Man and Woman
    2. Vatican Affirms No Sacraments for Active Adulterers
    3. Cardinal Burke Calls for Clarity
    4. Pope Condemns Abortion & Euthanasia
    5. Planned Parenthood in Michigan Follows Trend of Closures


    The Egyptian says:
    17 November 2014 at 7:21 am
    “For the most part I agree, very even handed,
    If I have “who am I to judge” thrown in my face on more time by our 80?s holdover Deacon, I may go off on him and anyone else who does the same, talk about poor timing and delivery”

    If a gay person seeks the Lord in good will. WHo am I to judge?

    Can a gay person NOT seek the Lord in good will?

    Neither The Church nor the Pope will deny the right of that sinner to look for God in good will correct?Nor I suppose to the worst sinner.

    Now, can that person approach the sacraments before repentance and confession? no, but that is a different issue.

    Who an I to judge aims at the action o

  56. CradleRevert says:

    Maybe I’m one of the few, but I actually really like the music they use at the end of their videos now.

  57. Gratias says:

    I figure I am just a Pelagian Pharisee of simple Faith who likes protocol be kept.

  58. Imrahil says:

    Dear robtbrown,

    Maybe you’ve made it too complicated.

    Ah yes, I guess I have. ;-)

  59. Gabriel Syme says:

    I like Michael Voris, but I didn’t like this video.

    My main beef is his repeated reference to “schismatic groups” who “exercise no legitimate ministry” – he doesn’t name names, but its obvious who he is aiming at (Hint: four letters, starts with an S and ends with an X).

    It is both uncharitable and absurd for him to make mean-spirited, false statements (“schismatic”) about sections of the Church, which contradict the official pronouncements of the Holy See (through the Ecclesia Dei Commission and various Cardinals).

    I think its reasonable to ask questions and offer constructive criticism of a questionable Pope; I do not think its reasonable to tell lies about others, which besmirch faithful Catholics and contradict the Holy See.

    I understand why Michael takes the line of not publicly criticising the Pope. However, as St Paul showed us, such a stance is wrong. It is reminiscent of the Papolatry which infects the novus ordo Church – in that the casual whims and off-the-cuff comments of the Pope are considered the “be all and end all” – eclipsing the magisterium, tradition and scripture.

  60. Maltese says:

    “In so voting, the American bishops accepted, IN PRINCIPLE, giving Communion to ANY person who approaches for it–out gay couples, the illicitly married, shack-ups, and, of course, vicious persecutors of the Church like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, etc., etc., etc.”

    Though I’m scandalized that Pelosi, Biden and Kerry call themselves “Catholic”, I don’t know that it’s a mortal sin to give them communion because one can’t know the state of their souls at the moment they receive (except perhaps their last confessor).

    This mess all started with Vatican II–Bl. Paul VI said that the “smoke of satan” had entered even into the Vatican. The Church is like bulwark against raging waves being pummeled against it. When the hatches are un battened, water begins to inundate. The Church can never be friends with the world, because Christ said that those who loved him would be persecuted for his sake. The kingdom of the world and heaven are at odds. Vatican II tried to make nice with the world, which is always a bad idea. Pope Francis is trying to make nice with the world (satan’s kingdom), which is also a bad idea. We need sanctuary–a safe refuge–from the world, not more of the same.

  61. guans says:

    The fulfillment of the law is love. Thus, Jesus was precisely what Simeon the prophet said He would be: a sign of contradiction—most especially to those who believed man was made to serve the law.

    …The reaction of many today is precisely what it was in Christ’s time: “What? In a time of such lawlessness you are not stressing the law? When the people are in such darkness, you are not focused upon their sin?” It would seem to the Pharisees, who were “obsessed” with the law, that Jesus was in fact a heretic.

    …What Jesus was revealing to the religious teachers is that the law without love (truth without charity), could in itself become a stumbling block, most especially to sinners…

    …Those who did not bother to discover the context of Francis’ words (those who, perhaps, opted for the headlines rather than his homilies) would have missed the thin line between heresy and mercy that is being traced out once again. And what is that? That truth is at the service of love. But love must first stave the bleeding before it can begin to heal the cause of the wound with the balm of truth.

  62. Imrahil says:

    Oh by the way… Mr Voris seems to be warning only against schismatic and sedevacantist groups “who are” not in full communion and “who do not” exercise a legitimate ministry… not “and those not in full communion and those who do not exercise a legitimate ministry”.

    Which does not include our dear SSPX, as they are neither schismatic nor sedevacantist. ;-)

    They are said to be not in “full” communion, whatever that means, and they certainly exercise no legal ministry and are acting besides Church law.

    They could, thus, fall under the “wild groups” Mr Voris mentioned, though.

  63. Imrahil says:

    Btw… Mr Voris quotes Bp Schneider to the effect that we’re having the fourth great crisis in the Church, the first being the Arian crisis.

    Which are the second and third?

    I’d say Babylonian captivity and Reformation up to Trent, but I’m not sure. After all, there was also Marozia’s reign in Rome and the Napoleonic period (or even farther, the time from the Suppression of the Jesuit order due to worldly pressure).

  64. Maltese says:

    Imrahil, I agree that SSPX (of which, though highly sympathetic, I am not a member) is not schismatic, and, really, to be excommunicated one normally must deny a dogma of the Church, and, if anything, SSPX has been upholding dogma against true liberal schismatics.

    I think this is one reason Benedict lifted the excommunications against the four Bishops. Pope Francis, if anything, is giving further legitimacy to their fight (whether they have handled that fight correctly, or taken it to far–their fight, for instance, to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass, has brought-forth great fruits; because, it is impossible that we would have groups such as FSSP, and pockets of traditional faithful, praying the mass of the saints, without them). Maybe it was not a good idea for SSPX to sign the preamble after all, given some of the actions of Pope Francis?

  65. Perhaps Mr. Voris errs in concentrating on a peripheral dichotomy—between ultra-trads crying wolf, and nice types with their heads in the sand—and ignoring the overriding moral dilemma posed for Catholics completely loyal to Church and Papacy, by the perception of a pope encouraging dissent in practice from established doctrine, thereby himself causing more damage than any extremists on either side. Pointed out by a commenter at Southern Orders post on the Voris video, the most perceptive analysis from this viewpoint that I’ve seen so far:

  66. StWinefride says:

    Bishop Schneider mentions the four crises of the Church in this interview with the UK Latin Mass Society:

    Q. How long will it be before the Church is renewed?

    BAS: ‘I am not a prophet. We can only presume. But, if you look at the history of the Church, the deepest crisis was in the fourth century, that was Arianism. This was a tremendous crisis, all the episcopacy, almost all, collaborated with the heresy. Only some bishops remained faithful, you could count them on the fingers of one hand. This crisis lasted more or less 60 years.

    ‘Then the terrible crisis of the so-called Obscure century, the 10th century, when the papacy was occupied by some very wicked and immoral Roman families. They occupied the papal chair with their corrupt sons, and it was a terrible crisis.

    ‘The next period of harm was the so-called exile of Avignon and was very damaging to the Church, causing the great occidental schism. All these crisis lasted some 70-80 years and were very bad for the Church.

    ‘Now we are, I would say, in the fourth great crisis, in a tremendous confusion over doctrine and liturgy. We have already been in this for 50 years. Perhaps God will be merciful to us in 20 or 30 years? ‘Nevertheless we have all the beauty of the divine truths, of divine love and grace in the Church. No one can take this away, no synod, no bishop, not even a Pope can take away the treasure and beauty of the Catholic faith, of the Eucharistic Jesus, of the sacraments. The unchangeable doctrine, the unchangeable liturgical principles, the holiness of the life constitute the true power of the Church.’

  67. Maltese says:

    But “who am I to judge” Pope Francis? I don’t have the lens of his eyes, or his praxis. Frankly, I think the good things he has said have been ignored or drowned-out by the controversial ones. He did give a homily about hedonistic “pagan” Christians, and is not afraid to mention or preach on the reality of real evil, and the devil. I like that this Pope was a bouncer when he was a young man and fell in love with a woman. St. Peter was no less controversial, perhaps, in his day (denying Christ three times, was a dagger-wielding ear-cutter, and was such a figure that St. Paul had to oppose him face-to-face; cf. Gal. 2:11); so, Voris is right: Popes are flesh-and-blood men (some have even been great sinners–if you think Francis is bad, read about some of the popes in Coulombe’s “Vicars of Christ”!), with an extraordinary office.

  68. pannw says:

    snoozie says: “He threw Cardinal Burke under the bus a few weeks ago, at the point when his eminence needed some back-cover; and now he throws the GREAT Bishop Athanasius Schneider under the bus…”

    I think you need to go back and watch what Michael actually said. I watched it twice after seeing your comment, and it is clear that he is actually supporting Bishop Schneider’s position that the Church is in a crisis. He says that some in the media are guilty of “denying the reality, or ignoring it, of what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has rightfully termed the fourth great crisis in the life of the Church…” What Michael is ‘throwing under the bus’ in his mention of Bishop Schneider is the church of nice side of the media that ignores the fact that the Church is in crisis, as well as the side that is throwing, as Father Z would say, a spittle flecked nutty against the Pope every time he opens his mouth and says something we might not find edifying. (And I have seen it more in comment sections than anywhere, but it is a rather large and loud group of commenters and they are permitted to post their screeds on various sites. And I’ve also seen many threats to leave the Church over things the Pope says, like those who believe he is a Marxist threatening to go to conservative Protestant Churches, or that he will do away with the EF so they are leaving for the Orthodox, etc…) In any case, from all indication, Michael is in full support of Bishop Schneider and agrees with him. I am certain he feels the same about Raymond Cardinal Burke and think you are misinterpreting his apology a while back as a rejection of Cardinal Burke’s rightful criticism. It was Michael’s own reaction that he was apologizing for, feeling that he had succumbed to the same hostility that he is now decrying on the part of the more “traditionalist side”. He never said Cardinal Burke was wrong or that a Cardinal of the Church did not have the authority or duty to correct even the Pope, only that as part of the laity, he (Michael) had to be more careful in how he comes across in his agreement with the Cardinal, so as not to appear that he (and Cardinal Burke) are somehow in a hostile opposition to the Chair of Peter.

    Michael is one of the good guys. God love him.

    Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick, God bless you. Forgive me if I mistake your righteous anger for a bit of despair. I can hardly imagine how a faithful priest must feel when he sees so little leadership from his shepherds. I am often brought to the verge of fury over it and I’m just a lay member of the Church who loves her, and loves Our Lord and His faithful priests. I do not do enough, pray enough for you all, but I intend to try harder, because you all are our front line and we can not make it without you. Please do not think you are alone. There are some of us behind you, believe it or not, and a few good bishops leading the fight, because the war is not over. I think it is only just gearing up to a head. God have mercy. It might appear that the battle at least in the West has been lost, but not the war. You know what Jesus promised.

    As to Pope Francis, I have a feeling some of us are going to be very surprised. I’m not sure yet which ‘side’ it will be. I’ve been wondering all sorts of probably crazy things that I’ll keep mulling over myself, but for several reasons, I think he knows what he is doing and is on the side of Truth. I pray I am not the one surprised and even more that God does not allow me to be deceived no matter what.

    John 14:27

    Jesus, I trust in You.

  69. Grateful to be Catholic says:

    @Maltese: you said “Though I’m scandalized that Pelosi, Biden and Kerry call themselves “Catholic”, I don’t know that it’s a mortal sin to give them communion because one can’t know the state of their souls at the moment they receive (except perhaps their last confessor).”

    Canon 915 is about people who are persisting in “manifest grave sin.” It is the public nature of their sins that requires that they “not be admitted (ne admintantur).” The private disposition of their souls has nothing to do with it. If they have repented for such public sins, they must make a public statement of repentance and repudiation of their previous acts. So until that is done, they are “persisting in manifest grave sin” and the minister must not admit them to Holy Communion.

    This confusion of public sins and private disposition often appears in discussions of Canon 915. It must be avoided if the discipline of the Church, founded on the doctrine of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is to be upheld.

  70. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    Fr_Sotelo says:
    17 November 2014 at 12:49 pm
    Fr. Fitzpatrick:

    While it is true that many bishops lack the courage that is needed to refuse Communion to the pro-aborts, I would not call them termites, apostates, or mortal sinners. Only God can know if their lack of courage reaches to the level of mortal sin in their souls. Objectively scandalous? Yes. Excessive indulgence toward the public sinner? Yes. But let God judge whether they are guilty of mortal sin.

    But I didn’t say that the bishops were subjectively guilty of formal mortal sin. I said that they voted themselves the right to commit mortal sin. And they did, when they voted themselves the right to do something that is always grave matter.

  71. Imrahil says:

    Ah St. Winifrede, thanks!

    So I was wrong on Reformation ;-) After all, it was indeed, in a sense, and attack from the outward. (Luther started out as a Catholic monk, but still – in a sense it was from the outward.)

  72. Pingback: Pope Francis A Confusing Pope | Quicksilver to Gold

  73. KAS says:

    I find much to love about Pope Francis. His tendency to off-the-cuff remarks that can be understood one way in the light of orthodox teaching, but easily spun all sorts of other ways by the media, is quite disturbing. Those remarks, and the way the media spins them, is quite upsetting and scandalous to me.

    I agree with Michael Voris’ assessment of some of the responses. I also agree he needed to cut this episode short because he got repetitive. I also agree we have a very very serious and multifaceted crisis going.

    Assuming as we all do that God is in charge here; perhaps this scandal is to permit the heretics in the Church to come out and publicly reveal themselves, thus serving to wake up those orthodox believers who were being too polite to call out the heterodox. It certainly will be useful to the next Pope to know who supported what.

    Meanwhile, I think there needs to be a lot more organized and dedicated efforts at prayer.

  74. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    @Maltese: you said “Though I’m scandalized that Pelosi, Biden and Kerry call themselves “Catholic”, I don’t know that it’s a mortal sin to give them communion because one can’t know the state of their souls at the moment they receive (except perhaps their last confessor).”

    A minister of Communion CANNOT refuse to give Communion to any baptized Catholic on the basis of what the minister may know about state of the person’s conscience–whether from sacramental confession, or a conversation, or wiretapping–anything. If the person is publicly known to be persisting in manifest grave sin, the minister MUST refuse Communion.

    Thus, Cardinal Wuerl is lying (I refuse to entertain the idea that he could be speaking from ignorance) in a recent CNS YouTube when he says that the “conscience” or the “state of the soul” of the would-be communicant is among the considerations that must be taken into account when deciding to flout Canon 915. This is just one of those things Cardinal Wuerl likes to say in an intense, breathy voice, to make himself sound “pastoral” and “sensitive.” It is nonsense.

    Canon 915 is about manifest, grave sinners, and the fact that giving them Communion causes grave scandal. Which is why the canon prohibits giving them Communion. The canon MUST be obeyed because to disobey it is ALWAYS grave matter.

  75. marcelus says:

    In the end it all comes down to love for this Holy Father like the most of Catholics worldwide vs. Tolerating this Holy Father until he departs I’m afraid , for trads.

Comments are closed.