The attack on Michael Voris

dolan_obama-300x250“And the church more or less shrugs and say, “Look, we don’t take our agenda from the polls. We don’t take our agenda from what the world is saying. Our agenda is given to us by the God who made us, and we must be faithful to him instead of what we’re– what we’re hearing’ from the world.””
-Cardinal Timothy Dolan (source)

Michael Voris, you can love him, or you can hate him, and some people do hate him. I would put down good money that the hierarchy does not care for him all that much. Yet recently, he kicked off a bit more of a response from defenders of the bishops’ failed leadership and policies.

For the record, I do not care all that much for Voris’ style. It speaks to some people and is probably good for them, but I don’t have time for bullet points, even when he’s right. I’m a theologian, I look up propositions in the manuals, in St. Thomas, trace their reasoning and source, and apply it to today’s problems. In this case, however, I feel he was right on the money, and his response is something that, frankly, every Catholic should feel. I am talking about Voris’ response to Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s decision to continue supporting and even lead the St. Patrick’s day parade, when that same parade has decided to allow practicing and proud homosexuals to march and display their banners, ostensibly in honor of St. Patrick.

In response to the decision, Dolan noted:

“I have no trouble with the decision at all,” Cardinal Dolan said at an evening news conference announcing his appointment as grand marshal. “I think the decision is a wise one.” (Source)

There are many other things we can note about Dolan, but Voris does it well himself:

Now, Voris uses some strong language, which is rather offensive to the church of NICE. He tells Cardinal Dolan that he is “in the grip of the devil”, and “wicked”. Well, strong as it is, it is not far off the mark. I think myself that it has come time to call out the type of things that are going on the Church for what they are, they are evil.

dolan_bigcheese

The big cheese defends the integrity and sacredness of the liturgy. [sic]

Meet Timothy Cardinal Dolan

I recall the first time I became aware of who Cardinal Dolan was during his installation in Milwaukee after that godly loving sodomite, Archbishop Weakland, had produced so much destruction there. Dolan gave his first sermon wearing a cheese head.

Dolan came from the St. Louis diocese, and for a while was in charge of the North American College in Rome, until he was elevated to become the Archbishop of Milwaukee to replace good ol’  Rembert, known for his cathedral wreckovation and squandering hundreds of thousands of dollars of diocesan money to keep old boyfriends quiet. At first Dolan appeared to step into the mold of his predecessor, but then appeared more conservative. I suppose many breathed a sigh of relief that he wasn’t gay. While from all appearances he attempted to help abuse victims while in Milwaukee, and we should not doubt his legitimate charity and concern for them, there are a number of anomalies.

Not to take a story exclusively from the New York Times, I instead am going to what is available of documents that have been released. Interestingly, as the diocese filed for bankruptcy, Dolan at the same time asked for and received permission to move over $57 million dollars to a cemetery trust fund to hide it from victims. Thus in one courtroom they are arguing that they are bankrupt, and in another that they are not. When groups criticized Dolan for this he dismissed it as old falsehoods. Yet, how false was it? The documents proved this was true. Now, to be fair, if we were to put ourselves in Dolan’s shoes, we might look at the situation this way. The diocese has obligations to retiring clergy who did not commit horrible crimes, to charitable works, payment of staff, health insurance, and the legal obligation to maintain cemetaries? We want to protect that don’t we? Why should everyone else suffer on account of these monstrous clergy. Such an argument has its merits, if that is in fact the reasoning, but in light of what went on the demands of justice require it be set aside.

For, if it is a matter of paying diocesan obligations, one could require Weakland to start recuperating the vast sums he spent on his boyfriends, pinch pennies, eliminate waste, the types of things bureaucracies hate doing. It should be simple, indeed, to realize that those who have in fact been abused by priests deserve some kind of compensation, as a modicum of justice. There is one diocese in this country that never had these sorts of problems and that is Lincoln, Nebraska. The reason is, Bishop Flavin, who was extremely progressive btw, heard that two of his priests had abused children. He investigated it, found out it was true, defrocked them and handed them over to the civil authorities. Then he went to the families and said, ‘what can we do to make this right?’ No shuffling priests around, or ignoring victims, or hiding money in trust funds. And… Lincoln Nebraska has never had a sex abuse lawsuit.

While that logic seems ineluctable to us, it is a bit much for a post-Vatican II bishop, as is seen in conservative and liberal bishops alike. There are other irregularities.

Dolan claimed many times that he was not aware of any cash payments for clergy to get them to leave without fighting their laicization. Yet he was present in diocesan meetings when they talked about doing just that. (Source) Again, this is not the MSM attacking the cardinal, maybe some of their spin is, but the documents show he was aware, which is a bit reminiscent of Cardinal Law claiming he knew nothing about the commission set up in the wake of the Rudy Koss scandal, even though he chaired it. Again we have to put ourselves in the bishop’s shoes for a moment. Here is an easy solution, give the priests money up front to get out of town, and we can take care of this faster. After all, we are canonically responsible for providing for these priests. Yet let’s back track, just a bit.

While Canon law requires dioceses to materially support their priests, this does not hold to priests who are under serious penalties, or are in the process of being laicized. Moreover, the bishops have shown themselves quite willing and able to cut off priests whom they suspend for other reasons. While it could be Dolan, or whoever made the decision, thought it was more expedient, it ignores two things: a) Priests who rape children deserve a hefty pyre where they will meet a fiery end to this life, before a fiery beginning to the next, not hush money, b) the perception will be, and in fact is, that they are being given some type of bonus. If it weren’t for the very strange statute of limitations on child rape, they would be transitioning to a jail cell anyway, so the concern should be with making this right however much they can with the victims, not helping priests who are guilty of the most monstrous crimes against children find funding as they “transition to a new life”.

As the Cardinal Archbishop of New York and the most recent president of the USCCB, Dolan is remembered for leading the fight against the HHS mandate and re-iterating the Church’s opposition to civil unions. He has acquired a reputation as a jolly bishop, happily leading the Church along. Curious stains on that particular legacy are that the Archidocese of New York, under his leadership, actually paid for contraception coverage and had complied with state law (under protest), though it was now fighting the same requirement on the national level, and that he had established a homosexual parish, St. Francis Xavier Parish in Manhattan, while he is preparing to close down one of New York’s more beautiful Churches, also being the only one where a daily Traditional Mass can be found, namely Holy Innocents. (Source)

We might also add that as Dolan is leading the fight against Obama, he happily invites him to the Al Smith dinner and allows photos having fun with the most anti-life President in years. He could have done, as Pope Benedict did when Nancy Pelosi, met with him, to forbid photographs to at least avoid the appearance of scandal. Yet he did not.

What all of these things show about Dolan, is that he is a company man. Of course he is more concerned with paying out pedophile priests than victims, or using Obama’s assault on the Church to bolster the Bishops’ “authority” even though his own Archdiocese does the same thing. Like Bernadine, Weakland, Law, Grahmam, and many other of the most disgraceful bishops to ascend to the office, Dolan is a team player, though it must be admitted his crimes are nowhere near the stench of the Bishops named before him. The problem is team USCCB is not always team Jesus, particularly where Catholic moral considerations are concerned.

It is also well known that a significant number of Bishops are gay, or sympathize with active homosexuality, and what is worse a large number of priests are gay. So again, Dolan doesn’t want to rock the boat. At least O’Connor, though he was no paragon of conservative Catholicism, had the backbone to oppose active homosexuals appearing in the St. Patrick’s day parade as a self-identified group. Not so Dolan, the team player, which probably is part of the reason he said “Bravo” to an openly gay football player on Meet the Press (which is linked at the top). Go along with the world even though it is entirely at odds with the Gospel. This is the career that Dolan has displayed, behind the jolly veneer. He is not satan in disguise, he is not malicious (it would appear) or evil, he is a fallible man who is doing wicked things.

The authentic Catholic uprising

Enter Voris, with a stern, serious and loud defense of what a Bishop should be doing. He wasn’t the only one. While Dolan has previously organized the so-called “fortnight for freedom” and other defenses of so-called “religious liberty”, Monsignor Charles Pope, a priest who dared to criticize Dolan was silenced, even though his piece dealt with issues much wider than Cardinal Dolan. So much for religious freedom. Its all fine and good when utilized to make people vote Republican, but as soon as someone in any position of authority takes a second look at our Catholic leaders, it is shut down. Likewise anyone appearing to have any sway. Therefore it is no surprise that the lapdogs of the Bishops should take aim at Voris, who is not a priest, and not employed by a diocese. They managed to shut down Mother Angelica in the 90’s but today the technology has made control impossible.

Now Voris’ comments, while appearing to be a bit histrionic, are what any Catholic 100 years ago would have said about such a spectacle. I think he is exactly right, not because Dolan is having tea with the devil between 4 and 5, but rather, because in his desire to be a company man and please everyone, he has forgotten the role of a Catholic Bishop (especially one in his position as a prince of the Church) and has given scandal. Moreover, he has rejected the same criticism from sources he declares to be charitable.

Thus we should look at the work of one Deacon who particularly took Voris’ appraisal amiss. Deacon Ditewig, PhD, offers the following appraisal:

Where to begin?  While reasonable people might certainly disagree with the actions of any bishop, just as one might with any leader, one must certainly stop there, without going on to try to infer motivation or motive.  I am sure that if Cardinal Dolan were asked about these things, he would completely and fully reject all of these assertions, and with good reason. To lump together, as Mr. Voris does, sexual orientation and sexual activity is to miss an important distinction made in the teaching of the church.  Nowhere has Cardinal Dolan ever sanctioned sinful behavior by anyone, nor does the record indicate that he has ever given anyone a “free pass” on sin of any kind.  There is no substantiation of any kind for a claim that the Cardinal has lost his faith, or that he is not striving to provide for the cura animarum of the people of New York — all the people.  To spring from a criticism of certain decisions into a full blown attempt to characterize another person’s intentions and motivations — much less that state of that person’s soul — is not only fatally flawed logic, it is seriously deficient in Catholic morality. (Source)

This is a bit shocking, actually, coming from a PhD. Firstly, Voris is not equating the sinful behavior with the orientation. Cardinal Dolan is fully pleased with being the grand marshal of a parade that will now include out and proud practicing homosexuals marching under their own banner, just as he has already approved Masses for the same. At this point we are beyond any question of orientation vs. behavior. Second, while in truth it is not a sin to “be gay”, so to speak, that is to have such an orientation, the said orientation is in fact disordered. That is why we must have compassion and prayer for homosexuals, not persecution. Yet, it doesn’t follow that we must approve of their behavior, particularly when they celebrate their behavior. I don’t think anyone would countenance the association for employers who defraud laborers, or the association of those who abuse orphans and widows celebrating their sins in a parade ostensibly made to honor St. Patrick. Why do we tolerate that for the other sin crying to heaven for vengeance?

What the good deacon here misses, is that the decision to allow out and proud homosexuals to march under their own banner in the parade, constitutes a celebration of their sins, not a mere acknowledgement of the fact that these people suffer under such inclinations. I knew a fellow that was gay in college, and we talked and he knew I wasn’t of the type that would hate him or judge him for having such inclinations. He was a pretty bright guy, but he suffered with it. I prayed with him, I didn’t judge him, as others might have, and he struggled a lot. That is not the type of person who is to be marching in the St. Patrick’s day parade. Rather it will be the type of people who need reproof for their behavior, not the tacit support of the Cardinal Archbishop of the diocese. That is just the problem. By continuing the parade, in all its normal debauchery, with this added, is in fact to give a tacit approval of this behavior. It would be different if it was a chapter of Courage, founded by the late Fr. Harvey, of Catholics, or anyone else, suffering under such an affliction hoping to overcome it. That would constitute not the slightest scandal or offense. Nevertheless, the good deacon continues. [my comments in red]

The last point I wish to highlight is the claim made in the crawler at the bottom of the video.  It is an advertisement for a paid subscription to the site, which professes to be “100% faithful to the Magisterium.”  I must confess that when I first saw that claim, while watching the video and its assertions about Cardinal Dolan and other “wicked bishops,” I laughed out loud.  How a person could claim to be completely faithful to the teaching authority of the Church while at the same time denigrating those men whose ministry includes being authoritative teachers of that Magisterium is simply nonsensical. [Being authoritative teachers like when they approve Gay parishes to have Masses for practicing homosexuals! Even Alexander VI didn’t stoop so low!]

What are we to make of all of this?  Let’s review some basics.

The Magisterium is not simply a “who”; it is a “what.”  Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the Church, a Church we believe guided by the Holy Spirit [Not absolutely, but rather protected in solemn definitions in faith and morals. There is nowhere in Catholic doctrine where we teach that the Church is guided in all her doings by the Holy Spirit, or was Pope Alexander VI guided in the banquet of chestnuts but I digress…].  Every person, in some way or another, and in the broadest sense of the term, participates in this teaching authority, constantly learning and sharing this faith.  Think of parents, for example, teaching and forming their children in faith, as they are charged at baptism; they are part of the magisterium in this broad sense. [A very broad and non-theological sense! This is one of the biggest stretches I have ever seen, and it entirely confuses the Ecclesia docens with the Ecclesia discens, to the point where the proposition is incorrect…]  But in a very specific and particular way, the highest human teachers in the Church are the College of Bishops, always in communion with each other and with the head of the College, the Pope [This particular formulation is problematic, because its ultimate conclusion is erroneous at best if not in fact heretical. He equates the college of Bishops with the Papacy itself, as though the Pope were merely a first among equals. The Pope is the highest human teacher, with or without the Bishops. After his personal office then come the college of Bishops, when they teach on a matter of faith and morals whether together or dispersed throughout the world. This is the great problem with post-Vatican II ecclesiology, it hopelessly pales in comparison to the careful and clear explications of pre-Vatican II tracts De Ecclesia].  Unless and until an authoritative judgment is made by the College (always in communion with the Pope), or by the Pope himself, that a bishop is no longer part of that College, then the bishop in question remains an authoritative teacher. [An authoritative teacher is different than the magisterium, but I’ll go into that later]  It is not within the competence of someone else (like Mr. Voris, or myself) to judge when a bishop is no longer teaching authentic or faithful doctrine. [Actually it is, when said Bishop departs from what has always and everywhere been believed by the Church, if it is demonstrable and public]. In fact, I will go further and suggest that, if there should be a presumption of veracity and accuracy in presenting the Church’s teaching, that presumption goes to the bishops, not to anyone else.  Put simply, Mr. Voris is neither qualified nor competent to make the judgments he is attempting to make.

It may or may not be the case that Voris is competent to make the claims he makes, but nevertheless, the Deacon is quite out in left field. Firstly Voris is criticizing prudential determinations, and calling on the Cardinal to step down. He is not declaring him a heretic or deposed. What Deacon Ditewig is setting up is a supremacy of the Bishops, quite contrary to the mind of the Church and the tradition. For, both in the Theological manuals, and in Vatican II’s document Lumen Gentium, #25, the Bishops are part of the Church’s infallibility when they teach together or are dispersed throughout the world in unison on an issue of Faith and morals. One Bishop’s prudential determinations do NOT make him a voice of the magisterium, not even under Vatican II. In fact, a Bishop’s role in the magisterium individually is very limited. Let’s continue with Dolan’s faithful defender.

Am I saying that bishops never make mistakes?  Of course not!  Bishops make mistakes just like the rest of us, and they also deserve the benefit of fraternal correction.  Some bishops commit crimes and should be held accountable under civil, criminal and canon law [Like Cardinal Law, who committed purgery in a court of law (against the 7th commandment), and was rewarded with a nice job in Rome for it!].  But no one has appointed any of us to take the place of God in judging us all for our sins [Whatever Voris is doing, that is not it. This smacks too much of the infamous “who am I to judge?”].  Alone we will stand before God and take responsibility for the way we’ve lived our lives.

Let’s take just one example from the litany of complaints made by Mr. Voris, and analyze just how wrong he is.  He condemns Cardinal Dolan for not publicly condemning Islam as “a heresy and a false religion”.  While this may be what he believes, it is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches [Really?] (remember the claim that he is 100% faithful to the Magisterium?).  What DOES the Magisterium of the Church teach about Islam?

Here’s some truly authentic magisterial teaching, found in Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution [please note that well — it is a DOGMATIC text, dealing with the most fundamental issues of faith and church] on the Church (Lumen gentium), #16: [I have to interject here, Pope Paul VI inserted a Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium, making it clear that nothing was dogmatically defined unless otherwise noted. So, while we might remark on the novelty of a “dogmatic contitution” not declaring anything dogmatic, there is nothing from the extraordinary magisterium that binds Catholics to belief].

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.  In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

Later, this thought is developed in the same Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate), #3:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and
subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has
spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as
Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though
they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His
virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of
judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead.
Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual
understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

In fact, even earlier — when talking about religion in general, the bishops of the Council (that “episcopal college” mentioned above) taught at #2:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

When a person claims to speak with complete faithfulness to the Magisterium, then, we should expect that this person would be echoing these teachings, which Cardinal Dolan has certainly done.  The Church does NOT teach what Mr. Voris teaches: that Islam is “a heresy and a false religion.”

Well, where to start? We could talk about the fact that he ignores all previous Church pronouncements, both through the unanimity of theologians and even former conciliar declarations concerning Islam, but we’ll stick with what Islam is and the philosophy of God. I will say that I have personally known Muslims who are good people. That is not the issue here. All Trads have issues with Vatican II, and I am no exception, but for the sake of argument I’m going to leave that behind. Vatican II says nothing here that contradicts what Voris is saying. The Church can indeed note those elements of the Islamic religion that are praiseworthy, in the realm of philosophy, but none of that changes the reality that nowhere does the Church acknowledge Islam as a true religion. That is the problem. If it is not a false religion, then it must be a true religion, because of the law of non-contradiction, two contrary positions cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect. Thus in the Qu’ran, Ibrahim (the Arabic spelling for Abraham) takes Ismael up to the mountain to sacrifice, while in the Bible Abraham takes Isaac up to the mountain to sacrifice. They might both be false, but they cannot both be true. Muslims may indeed worship one God, but that does not mean that their philosophy of God is the same as ours. In point of fact, if you look at the Qu’ran, Muhammad’s mother is depicted as a whore, Jesus’ mother is revered. Jesus is glorified more than Muhammad, and Jesus will judge all on the last day. Most of what Muhammad got into the Qu’ran is in fact from Christian heresy, and it is not without reason that St. John Damascene, a doctor of the Church, characterizes Islam as a Christian heresy.

St.john_damascene

St. John of Damascus: Just another pre-Vatican II misanthrope

“There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites… From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.” (source)

St. John Damascene is just another self-righteous crusader ignoring the magisterium of course! The fact is the Church does not teach what the Deacon here is proposing, that Islam is not a heresy and a false religion. In the comment box, several people pointed out similar things to the deacon, and he remonstrated that he was simply worried about Voris’ threatening language. Yet, he makes this a primary point of questioning Voris, that he is not faithful to the magisterium, and uses this as part of his example. The fact is that Voris is exactly right when he says that Islam is a heresy. It would be a heresy for a baptized person to embrace, and in its doctrines it is a false religion. That doesn’t mean that the Church can’t make common cause with Islamic countries at the UN, for instance, to oppose population control and birth control measures. It doesn’t mean that we can’t point to what is true in Islam. But it doesn’t make Islam a true religion. If it is not a false religion, it must be a true religion, and if so, what in the world are we doing in the Church? It may be that Dolan’s earthly prudence is justified or it may not, but it certainly doesn’t have a basis in Islam being a true religion.

Nevertheless, let’s look at where the attack on Vorris  is going, which I have seen on a few other websites too:

Finally, I want to return to the threatening language used by Mr. Voris when he refers to punishment that he thinks may happen to Cardinal Dolan after he dies, “or even before you die,” and when he issues his call for an “authentic Catholic uprising.  I would refer Mr. Voris and anyone else who is interested to the following canons from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1372 A person who makes recourse against an act of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council [note: such as Vatican II]  or the college of bishops is to be punished with a censure.

Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary [note: such as Cardinal Dolan] because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a canon lawyer with regard to these canons as they might apply in this instance.

Now we need to make important distinctions. Firstly, I don’t know what the deacon is taking about with his reference to Canon 1372, since Vorris is not making an appeal to Vatican II against all the bishops of the world, gathered together or dispersed throughout the world. It is a total non sequitur. This canon is talking about those who engage in private judgment attempting to challenge authoritative acts of his magisterium or jurisdiction on the basis of a council. This is based on much older laws, originating in the debates of Renaissance humanists who wanted to reform the papal court on the basis of the Council of Constance, the provisions of which were not entirely accepted by subsequent Popes. 1373 is a bit more pertinent. Now, in 1373, the Canon is envisioning someone who incites subjects to disobey their bishop, or to actually hate him. What Vorris has done, by contrast, is to call on Catholics to oppose bad decisions of their bishop, and to refuse to cooperate with his bad actions. I’ll readily grant he could be more clear about the “Catholic uprising” he is calling for, but his words are clearly in the realm of the necessary opposition that Catholics can have to bad members of their hierarchy. An authentically Catholic uprising by its very nature would suggest something non-violent, prayerful, etc.

Again, Dolan is not evil because he is in secret liaisons with the devil, or because he has palmist readings, or writes meditations on tarot cards like Hans Urs von Balthasar, but because he has chosen human respect above his divine calling as a bishop. We should support Voris’ call for a Catholic uprising, by telling our shepherds we will not tolerate any more wishy-washy compromise, watered down doctrine and assaults on our liturgical tradition. We do need any more “Bravo’s” to the world. Nay, we need another bravo: Bravo Michael Voris!

45 thoughts on “The attack on Michael Voris

  1. Cindy

    I enjoyed this article. It’s clear and to the point. While many may not care for the Michael Voris’ style or presentation, anyone who watches his Vortex episodes with some sort of consistency knows he’s not calling Catholics to disobey priests, bishops or clergy on doctrinal issues, but reminding us that as Catholics, we’re not bound to obey non-Catholic or anti-Catholic behavior. Thanks for dissecting deacon’s weak attempt to vilify Michael Voris.

    Reply
  2. alan stemp

    Lots of people beat up on Michael Voris. With good reason. That reason being that he stands up to be counted. He is hated by the people who are part of “the church of nice,” and he is hated by those who think he should “eat the pope.”

    He is on a different track.

    He is trying to spread the faith. His zeal is obvious.

    You don’t spread the faith – the real Faith – by supporting or ignoring von Balthasar, Cardinal Dolan, Fr. Barron, or any other squishy cleric. Nor do you spread the Faith by casting aspersions on the pope. You spread the Faith by educating people on things Catholic, and, pointing out where the hierarchy deviates from the Catholic Faith, when necessary. (The pope is a special case. You can’t denounce him to non-catholic audiences because to them, he IS the Catholic Faith. That requires much more prudence, and I applaud Mr. Voris for his restraint).

    There was once some Guy who stood up to be counted, and they crucified him. There were a bunch of others who followed His example, and they were done away with as well. But in the meantime, that group of folks, on their way to death, founded, fostered, and grew the greatest organization for good the world has ever known. Of course, there were some who went along to get along. We never hear of them. There were also a few who actively opposed its growth. Their names are written in history as failures (and elsewhere as condemned). Today, we only see the milquetoasts as they depress us in our own struggles to grow in all things Catholic. They’ll be forgotten as well, despite the trials they put us though. Christ founded the Church for His elect. He gave His life for it, and so did His greatest followers. I see Michael Voris filled with zeal for the Truth, and I only wish I had the courage to be that way amongst my friends and family…let alone the world and the powerful members of the hierarchy.

    May God bless him, and all those who fight for the Church with zeal.

    Zeal. We don’t see much of it today, do we. Not like back in the day when some Guy was denouncing the prelates of His day as whitened sepulchers and driving folks out of the church with a whip of cords. I wonder what happened to that sort of attitude.

    Did we out grow it?

    Reply
    1. Renee Kollars

      I agree with Allen. Zeal for souls means a love for Christ and his Church. That is what the Church Militant crowd has!

      Reply
    2. greyso

      It seems that Cardinal Dolan fits Malachi Martin’s description of someone who is “perfectly possessed.” Arrogant and can smile as he slithers through doing his destruction to Jesus’ church. Follow this man is not going to get one to heaven. Remember what our Blessed Mother said at Fatima and Garabandal, that Priests and Bishops etc would be leading souls to Hell.

      Reply
  3. Matthew Olson

    The comments that mention Pope Alexander VI should be altered to reflect the fact that the “Banquet of Chestnuts” is regarded by most scholars as a later addition (a forgery) to Johann Burchard’s diary. There is every reason to believe that, at least while in the Papacy, Alexander was, overall, an outstanding and wonderful man.

    I’m writing a short, well-cited “Apologia” book for this particular pontiff at the moment, and I am particularly sensitive to what I know are unsubstantiated rumors about him.

    Reply
    1. rubens7 Post author

      Matthew,

      I haven’t seen that most scholars regard the Banquet as a forgery to Burchard, although I have seen the case made by De Roo. My understanding is it is still widely accepted among authorities. If that’s wrong, I’m happy to be corrected, and I look forward to seeing it in your book.

      Nevertheless, my point in using the example that even I have certain reservations about is because it is an obvious counter-balance to this whole Pope guided by the Holy Spirit business. Even if the banquet didn’t happen, I know of no source that denies his illegitimate children, obviously Lucretia, or, eventually, a generation later, St. Francis Borgia. Nor does any source I know of contend he did not have a wild time, albeit less of one than Pope Leo X, who famously declared “We have the Papacy, let’s enjoy it.” One could add to that his failure with the French I suppose. Regardless of any of that, since Alexander’s failings are the most well known in the modern popular imagination, and at some level are documented (even if that one is a red herring) it serves the purpose of pointing out that Popes are not guided by the Holy Ghost, merely protected from formally binding the Church to error.
      Do let me know, however when your book comes out, I would love to revisit that period.

      Reply
      1. Alcide

        rubens7,

        Anyone who has become a disciple of Jesus Christ can be led by the Holy Ghost. It is a matter of giving up our own wills and submitting to His Holy will. If this is possible for you and I, then it is certainly possible for the Popes also. [Editor’s note: This is not what we are talking about. It is often claimed the Pope receives an extraordinary direction by the Holy Ghost as a charism of the office, and therefore can’t be criticize because he is “guided by the Holy Ghost”, which the Church has simply never taught. We’re not talking about the normal aid of grace which everyone receives regardless of how faithful we are to it] Conversely, anyone who doesn’t submit to God’s Holy will, but insists on doing things their way, will not allow the Holy Spirit to lead them (whoever tries to save his life will lose it). Again, any Pope can refuse to submit, and therefore lose his salvation.

        We aren’t perfect in our attempts to follow the Spirit. We must make great efforts to ‘stay awake’. When we falter we need to repent quickly and re-submit. We must try to remain prayerful, humble, and charitable in order to be made holy. Holy people are led by the Spirit (My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand…

  4. Janet

    Might want to look this over, even if I don’t agree on everything Michael Voris says or presents (might want to look specifically at sub section 3):

    Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

    §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

    §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

    Reply
  5. Renee Kollars

    Dear Rubens: Correction: Bishop Flavin, not Flaven. Another major error in your attempt to illustrate the good Bishop Glennon P. Flavin (God rest his soul) is that he was NOT extremely progressive. That denotes an extreme LIBERAL. He was not, he was a Traditionalist by all means. He kept the Mass holy and reverent, supported VOCATIONS to the priesthood and religious life like no other in his time, spoke out against contraception, had a true and lasting devotion to Our Lady, gave up his bishop’s mansion to house sisters that he promoted to come in to the diocese, wanted sisters to wear the habit, forbade alter servers and had only men be altar servers and lectors, instituted the acolyte program and dismissed any notion of “eucharistic ministers.” I could go on with more but I really have to question your outlook on Bishop Flavin. I am happy you told a story about him but please do not call this beloved Bishop “progressive” and I would like an e-mail back and a correction made in your next article, if you would please.

    Reply
    1. rubens7 Post author

      Renee,

      I have fixed the spelling error. Not sure if it was a typo or that just didn’t look it up. When I spell check the names are always in red anyway so I probably glanced at it without taking a second look. As far as the assessment that he was progressive, this comes from the testimony of priests who I knew that were active in the Lincoln archdiocese, as well as two who taught in the seminary who were from outside. Now, it may be he rejected all of those things, but that was in 1968, it was easy to be progressively minded and not have gone that far. Progressive, at least to my mind, is not the same as pincko commie lib, even extremely. Maybe I could take extremely out, but that is the assessment given me again by people who were in the diocese shortly after he left.

      Reply
      1. Renee Kollars

        Dear Rubens: Thank you for your reply. Correction: ” He rejected all those things in 1968″: No, he rejected them during his entire reign as Bishop of Lincoln from 1967-1992. altar servers came about, as you know, in the early 1980’s. He rejected it. Women lectors he forbade also. Here he was accused as moving “a step backward and offensive” according to the notorious ex-bishop Rembert Weakland (who left the episcopacy because of his scandalous behavior of identifying himself as “gay.” (See Huffpost on him). No, Bishop Glennon P. Flavin was CONSERVATIVE minded (see Wikipedia for that). But I didn’t have to look any of that up, I knew that already having known him myself. I give you these sources to let you do your own search. The priests you claim as sources to the fact that he was progressive have gravely misled you. The two who taught in the seminary are not fair in their estimation about Bishop Flavin, either. The seminaries where Bishop Flavin sent his priests would know that he desired a Traditional minded seminary to teach young men going into the priesthood from his Lincoln diocese. He sent them to Mount St. Mary’s, Emmitsburg, Maryland and I believe one in Yonkers, New York where Monsignor William Smith educated the young seminarians. (Look up Monsignor William Smith to know where I’m coming from on this!)

        Correction #2:” …shortly after he left.” He never left. He retired in 1992 and stayed in residence in Denton, NE and died of cancer in 1995. He is buried in the Lincoln diocese in the Cathedral of the Risen Christ in Lincoln, NE. He was 79.

        Question: Since you explained what “progressive” is not, would you please explain what it is. I don’t understand your reply in your response to me about what you think a “progressive bishop” is. Perhaps we can conclude our disagreement after I know what these terms mean to you and can rationally criticize our differences. Your article about Bishop Flavin’s will to confront abusive priests and not have lawsuits came from a VERY CONSERVATIVE / TRADITIONAL minded bishop, not one thought of as “progressive”. I cannot believe any progressive bishop could be given such a credit to perform heroic acts like Bishop Flavin had performed. (i.e. ex-bishop Weakland). I still think you need to correct this in your next article. Thank you.

  6. Malia -the Lily of France

    I support Michael Voris and his ministry in totality. He didn’t convince me; he is alligned with my observation as a faithful daughter of the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Faith. The Church is in the state of apostasy. Woe to him/her where scandal cometh. Deo Gratias. Christus Vincit. Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis.

    Reply
    1. Alcide

      It is comforting for me to read that people are supporting Michael. May God bless you in the best way possible for you today.

      Reply
    2. Margaret Honore

      Me too. Malia. I felt Like jumping up and cheering when Michael was finished. He voiced my exact sentiments as I’ve watch Cardinal Dolan make a mockery out of chastity.

      Reply
      1. Malia -the Lily of France

        Margaret,

        I just signed up to receive all notices from Michael Voris via email. On a separate note, there is a Rosary Crusade brewing to demand the consecration of “Russia” and not the “World” to Her Immaculate Heart. This is in preparation for the ushering in of the French Catholic Monarch and the consecration of France to Our Lord’s Sacred Heart. Remember, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque was tasked with the commission to go to King Louis XIV and command him to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart, he refused and 100 years later the Revolution took place. This mission is critical now. If they don’t consecrate “Russia” to Her Immaculate Heart, we will suffer the same fate. The Faithful everywhere are rising up. PRAY THE ROSARY AND PREPARE FOR BATTLE. Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis! Christus Vincit……- the Lily of France!

  7. Diane

    I totally believe that Mr. Voris is right on with his comments! I totally agree with his stand against the poor choices that Cardinal Dolan is taking with this issue. One can’t help but wonder if Dolan is getting paid under the table to be a vessel of approval regarding the Gays. I can’t help but wonder if Dolan would so readily accept other peoples choices of sin, and to march with their banner….adulterers, thieves, drug addicts, child molesters, pro-abortion? I have a hunch there is more to what makes Cardinal Dolan tick than what we know. If he was truly a good Catholic leader, he would not even consider allowing the sodomists to march. So why is he? What is his agenda?

    Reply
    1. rubens7 Post author

      I wouldn’t be surprised if that turned out to be true, but we don’t want to go too far without proof.
      It seems to me more plausible that Cardinal Dolan was always more on the liberal side, but played the game under Benedict, (remember, company man) and now that the wind has changed under Francis, and he can’t go higher, he is showing his true colors gradually.

      Reply
  8. veilofveronica

    Whenever I hear Michael Voris speak, I picture John the Baptist in Matthew 23. “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside you are full of plunder and self-indulgence.” We need some John the Baptists, they remind us to stay awake for the coming of the Son of Man, whether we like their style of speaking or not.

    Reply
  9. Bill Russell

    All good points, but: how can anyone possibly say that the Church of the Holy Innocents is the most beautiful church in New York City? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and Holy Innocents has a sentimental value for many, but it is pretty ghastly on all counts, and filled with some outrageous kitsch and a third rate fresco badly restored, besides being an inferior example of Victorian Gothic. A New Yorker or professional architect write this could not possible have made such a judgment. I can easily think of a couple of dozen churches in Manhattan far finer in every way. Not to quibble, but such an absurd comment might cast into doubt the truth of the rest of your fine article.

    Reply
  10. John Albertson

    Excellent commentary. You mention Church of Holy Innocents. I find it prayerful when I visit Manhattan – an oasis in all that confusion of the Garment District. But – “the most beautiful church in New York?” – with all due respect, you must be blind.

    Reply
  11. Ed Mulrenan

    Mr Voris and his broadcasts were removed from the Diocese of Detroit years ago because he pointed out the infamous Cardinal Bernardin link to CRS and CCHD links-money going to pro abortion & Homosexual groups. Dolan like those in Detroit are seeking to oust priests from SA(Holy innocents Latin mass parish) and others Mr. Voris included are under vile attacks for similar blogs condemning his-Dolan’s many legion of gaffs. He Dolan is a public disgrace called “Bravo Cardinal” for his George Sam-FB player coming out rant-Bravo!!! and St Francis NYC Homosexual parish video-Dolan fiasco. Lastly the Liberal Pro Homosexual-Abortionist NY Times newspaper has stated on Numerous occasions how Inept and Ineffective(NY Times terms Not mine)Dolan, Hubbard and Clark are and were at promoting any aspect of the Catholic faith and stopping the pro Abortion-Homosexual marriage agenda of living in sin liberal Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Not surprising the attacks on Mr. Voris coming from Dolan and his mouthpieces- not real journalists as was done in Detroit as well. Keep up the good work Mr. Voris. You can tell a man like Mr. Voris for the phony Catholic attacks though vile in nature are typical when you expose wrongdoing in the one true faith of the Catholic Church.Like Hubbard and Clark- Dolan should RETIRE before he disgraces the clergy like he and Bishop Bonney of Belgium(Similar gaffs-lack of faith and beliefs in Catholic doctrine etc. to Dolan) has done already.

    Reply
  12. Pingback: Criticism Grows Over Cardinal Dolan’s Parade Decision | PagadianDiocese.org

  13. FightinIrish

    I would actually have to agree with Michael Vorris’s stance on Islam: It is indeed a heresy. Islam REJECTS THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, just like Arias, the priest, denied the Divinity of Christ, with his heretical Arianism, which lead to the Counsel of Nicea. Islam says he was a “prophet of Allah”. and “Allah” is not the God we believe in. Our God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, a Triune God. They reject our Trinitarian God. Also, what they say about Heaven contradicts what Jesus, Our Blessed Savior, teaches about heaven. Jesus said we would be like the angels who neither marry nor are given in marriage. Islam teaches that there will be 72 Virgins in heaven, which is against the teachings of Jesus, and the Catholic Church. And by so by saying it’s not a heresy, you’re saying it’s a true religion yes? and doesn’t the Church teach that it is the only way to heaven? The Apostles preached that there is only one way. So, there can’t be both. it’s either one or the other. or none at all. You can’t mix truth with untruth, because then it is a lie. and if it is a lie, then what should we believe in? [Editor’s note: I think you got mixed up. The person denying Islam is a heresy is the deacon who attacked Voris and defended Dolan, or else you missed my comments shredding what the Deacon said. Go back up a few paragraphs. As far as V2 being modernist, of course it is, but the issue is it does not teach what that Deacon was teaching it did, not whether it is good or not] V2 btw isn’t a good reference. It mixes modernism in with Catholicism, which St. Pius X, and many others before him have warned us against the evils of modernism.

    Reply
  14. rubens7 Post author

    There is a trend I am seeing here that I think should be nipped in the bud: I wrote this piece to defend a fellow Catholic from the attack of the lukewarm, who called a spade a spade, even though I don’t always agree with Voris or his style. That Dolan’s behavior is in fact evil I do not deny, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that, as St. John Eudes says: “Wicked clergy and shepherds are a sign of God’s displeasure with His people.” While there are many bad bishops and bad clergy, we need to remember to pray for them. It is one thing to point out the things they do which are wrong, it is another to hate them or write them off as the devil’s clergy. We need to not lose focus of the fact we see these things because God has given us the grace to do so, and we are responsible for praying for bad clergy to convert.

    Reply
    1. Malia -the Lily of France

      A true and faithful Catholic always prays unceasingly for oneself that he/she might not fall prey to temptations of any/all sorts; to pray for the Church overall and as a whole, regardless. This is the “truth” in charity and the militant way. As such, we are strengthened in the face of adversity and bold in our speech. One could construe this though as being insolent and defiant, but quite the contrary; it is tenacity of spirit like that of John the Baptist and any other soldier and/or martyr who loves Christ and His Church. It is a spiritual warfare after all where we, the faithful, must be on guard at all times. Many leaders of our Faith have failed horrendously in their duties as shepherds and caretakers of the flock. Dolan does not hold monopoly over this, which is precisely why the faithful are restless and overwhelmed by such profane language spewing from the upper echelons. A person should not risk losing his/her own soul by subjecting oneself to bad company, bad clergy, negative influence and false doctrine. There are no other weapons given but prayers. The faithful are not oblivious to this. Let us put on the armor of Christ (Ephesians 6:10-18) and let things fall as they ought. In Christ, Be the Glory!

      Reply
    2. Reginald

      » … as St. John Eudes says: “Wicked clergy and shepherds are a sign of God’s displeasure with His people.” … «
      OUCH. That hurts.
      Let us never cease to pray for our clergy. Every night I conclude the Rosary with a special request that God protect our shepherds (and lift up the petitions of the Holy Father).

      Reply
    3. kmo

      Personally I think Voris is a cult of personality, the comments here show that. Most of your posts get a couple of comments at most, this one has 42 when I checked. In my car I listen to Fr. Wolfe’s sermons, he quoted I believe St. Ignatius who said essentially don’t let worldly affairs disrupt your peace of soul, do your duty in your state of life faithfully. Voris promotes the exact opposite. He doesn’t build up, he tares down.

      I only see Louie’s posts mainly because other people post them on facebook, but this is pretty spot on: https://harvestingthefruit.com/how-michael-voris-rolls/

      Especially the hour long video with Voris essentially trying to give an objective explanation of the SSPX, he has since taken a complete about face on that. I wonder now though with his criticism of the SSPX, from what I’ve heard would Voris also dislike The Latin Mass Magazine? Would he dislike Fr. Ripperger, in particular Ripperger’s article “The Merit of the Mass”? Pope Francis just made Fr. Barron a Bishop, do you think Voris is going to speak out about that? Or now that the Pope has done this is Barron’s views on Hell no longer a danger? It’s inconsistent, it’s hypocritical. That’s why Voris’s style is not the way to go. All he is doing is stiring the pot, he isn’t drawing people towards holiness.

      I wonder, what do you think Voris would think of yourself if he were to read some of your blog posts and interviews? “…where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed… Ryan Grant that elusive radical traditionalist… he sympathizes with SSPX defenders Chris Ferrara and the Remnant… don’t give him money for his translation project, it’s an secret plot to criticize the Pope.”

      And it’s not just him, I’ve encountered it with some other Canadian bloggers. You look in the comments section and they are all out arguing with anyone and everyone who they disagree with, to the point of it just being a shouting match with names flying back and forth.

      I think this article nails what is going on with him and other bloggers:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B__IF1-opxVNU3h0cEVzTDFXOGs/view?usp=sharing

      This article is almost a year old now though, it’s rather interesting reading it in light of all that has occurred in the past year.

      Reply
      1. kmo

        And by “this article” I mean your blog post not the Latin Mass Magazine article, though that comment would apply to both I guess.

      2. rubens7 Post author

        This is true. At the time I watched Voris occasionally, and did not care for his style at all, though I thought he did well calling out the hierarchy. Now he is making the typical course to be mainstream, by attacking the SSPX and his competition, the Remnant. Criticize everyone but not the Pope, etc. If I wrote this article now I would take a very different approach, and I’ve thought about revisiting it. That would be interesting, what he would do, especially if he discovers I worked at an SSPX school for 5 years! Who knows.
        I just try to be constructive and not engage in foolish verbal bomb-throwing, like you see in so many other venues. I might be wrong, as I saw in the Bishop Finn post where I foolishly waded into that, still I try to be constructive and useful.

      3. Margaret Honore

        All I know is that Voris’s presence at the pre-Synod last year saved the day! He was instrumental in getting out the truth about what was going down with the German coup attempt and the Vatican staff’s complicity in it. He got the African bishop’s speaking up. He asked the pointed questions and didn’t back down. Thank GOD for his tenaciousness and determination to hold these men’s feet to the fire! In a time when it’s hard to know who can be trusted in the media as well as among Church officials, I trust him. He’s going to tell it straight, and he has good nose for BS and double speak from certain bishops. I say, keep it up Michael! The Church needs you. God bless your apostolate and all the lay apostolates who are showing themselves to be heroes and champions of the true Faith. I’m no groupy. I simply appreciate truth-tellers, who seem to be in short supply these days.

  15. alababagreenhouse

    The truth always hurts especially when it rocks the boat of those who have chosen to move the Barque of Peter off course. Hooray for Michael Voris – hooray for all those who stand up for the true teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – and may Our Blessed Lord protect all the truly faithful Catholics who treasure the Church because of her hard teachings and Truth.

    Reply
  16. Stephen Dalton

    I used to support Voris, but I can no longer do that in good conscious. He gives the priests and bishops a good thrashing for their outrageous behaviors and statements, but he refuses to criticize the man who is their boss, who allows them to get away with these outrages. None of these things could go on unless the Pope was turning a blind eye or actually approving of them. No, Michael Voris says, no, the Pope is special, you can’t criticize him! As a former cult member, I find this to be extremely dangerous. Cult leaders will not tolerate any criticism of their actions or teachings. As a result, people can be hurt or killed. While I know the Church isn’t a cult, the attitude Voris is demanding from his supporters is cultic. No one who has been through the cultic experience, and found true Christian faith, can support the blind faith Voris is demanding. No, the Holy Father must be criticized for his bad leadership, we can’t be a partaker in his deeds.

    Reply
    1. Malia -the Lily of France

      I support Michael Voris and I don’t follow Francis; Papa Benedict is still my POPE. What does this mean? I, daughter of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, can and am able to make distinctions. I defend and support authentic teachings of the Faith from the beginning and in its TOTALITY. I am a servant and devoted child of Mary. St. Michael is my general at War and the Holy Spirit is my Paraclete. I shod my feet with the Gospel and the Holy Mass – Latin Form – is my safe haven. The Eucharist is my spiritual nourishment and Holy Bishops, Cardinals, Priests and Laity are who I stand with. Whatever description you give why you dislike Michael, just make sure that you are aligned with Authentic teachings and God is First and Foremost. That is what matters and takes priority. Could I ask, what cult were you previously in?

      Reply
      1. Stephen Dalton

        Malia, I was in the Herbert Armstrong founded Worldwide Church Of God cult.
        How can Benedict be your Pope? Francis, bad as he is, is the Holy Father now.
        I am aligned with the church and it’s teachings. That’s why I can’t support Voris anymore. He’s making blind obedience to the Pope as a requirement of the faith. If he doesn’t want to point out Francis’s failings or criticize him, he’s free to do so. But, if he wants to tell intelligent Catholics not to speak out about what is actually happening in front of their eyes, he’s no better than the leaders of the cult I was involved in. We were told to keep our mouths shut or get out. Mikey doesn’t have the power to excommunicate people, but I’ve heard he will revoke premium memberships if someone complains about his no pope criticism policy. Typical cultic behavior I only know so well from years of experience!

      2. Malia -the Lily of France

        Stephen, when I say Papa Benedict is my Pope and he is still the Pope as long as he is alive, it is because Francis is the “False Prophet”. I will not mince words even if I differ with Mr. Voris. I have no intentions to convince anybody, but I expect people to discern with the highest regard that the White Horse of Apostasy is in our midst. Papa Benedict is still the Pope whether people like it or not and regardless of the outcome we now face. I follow traditions and teachings of Antiquity and again, I do support Mr. Voris for calling out the madness and holding unholy priests, bishops and cardinals accountable. St. John Vianney tells us “Do not try to please everybody; try to please God, the angels and the saints. They are your public.” Deo Gratias and Christus Vincit.

  17. Stephen Dalton

    Malia, Pope Benedict resigned from the Papacy, he’s no longer Pope. Francis, whether we like him or not, is the Pope. He was, as far as we know, was legitimately elected to that office. So, unless he’s declared an anti-pope by a future church council, his papacy must be accepted as legitimate. As for calling Francis the “False Prophet”, you’re way out on a limb here. While he’s certainly saying things that are wrong, to label him as “The False Prophet” going overboard. What proof or authority do you have to say this? It sounds to me like you’re trying to set yourself up as a seer. Please talk to your priest, for I believe you’re heading down a wrong road.

    Reply
    1. Malia -the Lily of France

      Stephen, Pope Benedict is my pope, period. Francis is the false prophet, which is my personal assessment and discernment. “Seer” is your own fabrication and presumption. My priest is conservative and allows Latin Mass at our parish. We receive communion in the mouth and kneeling at the rail. The Novus Order is celebrated in such a way that he faces the altar and not the people; There are no Eucharistic ministers because he distributes communion himself. Point being and most importantly, he is fully aware of my reasoning and my assessment because I will not mince words, and I will not be silent about anything. Given so much confusion within the church and her members, I will stick with my gut instincts and remain with the traditions/doctrines and dogmas in totality. I will not follow any apostates and wolves in sheep’s clothing because you’ll know them by their fruits of their labor. I’ll carry my cross and we’ll part ways. Please make sure you don’t leave the Faith and follow another cult. People have a tendency to fall back in their errors, especially given the abomination of desolation times that we are now in. Deo Gratias. Christus Vincit..

      Reply
      1. Reginald

        Malia,
        This is scary. You are following your gut rather than the successor of Peter. You (with the blessing of your priest??) are setting yourself up at your own Pope it seems. We, the flock, have not been given the power to determine whether St. Peter’s successor is a true successor or not. Any Pope can make mistakes, even serious ones at times, but never so serious at to change the teachings of the Holy Ghost. Please continue to pray for the Holy Father and for all Bishops, that they may remain true to the Traditions of the Church and be open to correction when necessary. Pray for all the flock too so that we are not lead astray by our own “guts” (to borrow your expression) or by false teachings.
        But never, NEVER, imagine that a Pope is not the rightful successor of Saint Peter unless the Church determines so.

      2. Malia -the Lily of France

        Reginald, a true and faithful Catholic – Militant that is – always prays unceasingly, regardless. Papa Benedict is the true Pope. Francis is the False Prophet. I did not mince words. Carry the cross and be on our way. Prepare for Battle. Deo Gratias. Christus Vincit!!! In Christ, – the Lily of France!

  18. rubens7 Post author

    Malia,

    I can sympathize with your position, in as much as I would love to wake up tomorrow and find that Benedict is really the Pope and Francis was invalidly elected, or whatever one likes. Yet, such positions must be judged by logic and reason. It may even be that future generations will characterize Francis as a false prophet, however we cannot summarily make the judgment that Francis is not the Pope without clear public evidence of something that would invalidate his election, such as:
    a) Benedict’s resignation was forced (which would be invalid under the ’83 canon law)
    b) Benedict did not really resign the papacy (requiring clear evidence from his act of resignation in the Latin)
    c) Francis was not merely materially, but in fact formally in the traditional sense the Church has used the term (not as sedevacantists use it), a formal obstinate heretic prior to his election, which would mean his election was invalid, and if Benedict resigned it would mean we really haven’t had a Pope since 2013.

    All of those possibilities are disastrous for the Church, and in my view, worse than the present situation with Francis as Pope, and Benedict as “Pope emeritus” or whatever he is calling himself. There are indeed irregularities, but to come to the certain judgment that Benedict is not Pope and Francis is requires weighty evidence in the public forum (not so and so said that in some private letter somewhere), and ultimately, a judgment from the Church. Several people are making this argument now. However, I have read Benedict’s resignation in the original Latin, I have never read any English version of it, and I have not seen how it is he did not resign the Papacy. It is a teaching of our Holy Tradition that Catholics must be under the Roman pontiff, just as each Catholic in his own diocese is under his rightful Bishop, in order to be a true member of the Church and be saved. I have to caution you because without the proper evidence your position becomes rash, and can have serious consequences for your soul. I pray you look at this again.

    Reply
    1. Malia -the Lily of France

      Deo Gratias. Christus Vincit. Let us carry our crosses and prepare for Battle. Mater, Ora Pro Nobis!

      Reply
  19. raphaelheals

    Malia , I think, is a follower of the false visionary Maria Divine Mercy, which is why she calls Francis a ‘false prophet. Stay away from all this garbage. Dr. Mark Mirivalle of Franciscan University has written a theological rebuttal regarding this false visionary who refuses to speak to the church.

    Reply
    1. Lily of France

      They say assumption is the mother of all “F-ups”, which always leads to fabrication and denial of all sorts of things. I say quite right! So I’ll reiterate my stance again. FRANCIS IS THE FALSE PROPHET!

      Reply

Fac responsum tuum hic...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s