The Vortex – where “lies & falsehoods are trapped and exposed” – really?

Describing the terminal decline of the Church in the USA (which really mirrors the decline of the Church just about everywhere else) Michael Voris manages to assess and lament the situation there without any reference to Fatima. He sees no “bright spots” – not even one: he cites the “bad stats” to illustrate his point, but makes no mention of the “good stats” which are to be found in “traditional” chapels. Is this an honest assessment of the situation in the USA or anywhere else?

Michael Voris concludes his script with these problematic words:

The time for advancing careers and protecting turfs and nursing bruised egos and shooting the messenger has come to an end. The Church is being killed in the United States and either you are on board with coming to Her assistance – or get out of the way and let those who are get to work.

The problem with those words is that Michael is playing his part in the decline by protecting the diocesan “turf”. It may be that he is afraid to lose the support of those bishops, like the bishop in the film, who support him, if he breaks ranks completely with the current Vatican line on “traditionalism” and refuses to toe the party line on Fatima.

I’ve always admired the work which Michael does in the media. He is very professional and his short, snappy videos are excellent – they just stop “before the end” so to speak. He is unwilling to go the whole ecclesiastical and theological hog, if you know what I mean. He seems to want things to sort of stay the way they are, only get better, if you still know what I mean!

That’s what I think. What do you think?

47 responses

  1. I think Michael Voris will eventually move forward. He used to always speak about the secular world, politics, as being the problem and it took him a while to realise that the problem is within the Church. That was quite a leap for him, as he admitted at the talk he gave at Carfin.

    It takes people a while to really come to see how bad things are and the “obedience” thing in Catholics makes it difficult for many of us to admit that things are wrong right at the top of the tree.

    I do think he’ll get there in the end, though – he is a very well meaning young man and his videos are very well done. Once he gets to realising that the “party line” is wrong on quite a few things, he’ll be a really great asset in the battle to “keep the faith and tell the truth”, as per the Catholic Truth motto!

  2. It takes people a while to really come to see how bad things are and the “obedience” thing in Catholics makes it difficult for many of us to admit that things are wrong right at the top of the tree.

    I think the situation in the Church is akin to Plato’s Parable of the Cave in The Republic where the inhabitants of the cave are shown a shadow-play on the wall cast by a fire and which they take for reality. The Philosopher is the one who leaves the Cave and emerges blinking into daylight. When he returns to the Cave to tell the inhabitants that what they think is reality is a fiction they become wrathful and throw stones at him.

    Now, the shadow-play that conservative Catholics watch is one in which the Popes from John XXIII onward have been failed, through no fault of their own, by heterodox bishops and priests and in which whatever the Popes teach in their ordinary magisterium must ipso facto be in continuity with what the Church taught before.

    What keeps these Catholics chained in the Cave? A notion of ‘obedience’ that demands assent to the proposition that the Popes can neither contradict the Perennial Magisterium (i.e the deposit of the faith as taught infallibly by the Church) in their ordinary magisterium (i.e. the exercise of their authority as supreme teachers of the faith) nor be responsible for the crisis in the Church.

    For someone to leave the Cave and acknowledge that these Popes can and have contradicted the truths of the faith in their ordinary teaching and that they have participated – far more than any other Catholic – in the self-demolition of the Church is a liberating and terribly isolating act. When he returns to the Cave to try to help his fellow Catholics see the truth of the crisis in the Church they grow wrathful and accuse him of “disobedience” as if truth were indeed a “respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).

    We see this notion among conservative Catholics when they consider the actions of someone like Arcbishop Nichols in 2010 laying flowers upon a Hindu altar. This they rightly condemn. However, when you place before their minds the actions of Pope John Paul II taking part in a Voodoo ceremony in Togoville in 1985 they perform mental somersaults trying to justify what was, objectively speaking, a grave violation of the most solemn of the Commandments. Every possible interpretation is given, except the one that recognises that God has Rights that cannot be violated, regardless of how sensible such violations may seem on the natural level.

    The same goes for the many errors that Pope John Paul II taught in his ordinary magisterium. The average conservative Catholic simply will not see that in a great many cases they clearly contradict the perennial teachings of the Church. The Principle of Non-Contradiction must give way to their mistaken but seductive notion of obedience, rather than the other way around.

    And, so, a thinking Catholic in 2013 is faced with two options: either stay in the Cave where contradictions must be his very bread and butter and enjoy concord with the majority of his fellow Catholics or make his way to the light of day and spend his days misunderstood and maligned.

    • Augustine,

      Your post is fantastic. It is so clear. One of the best descriptions of the situation in the Church today that I have ever read – even on this superb blog.

      I’m going to copy it and show it to many others. Thank you so much. You’ve no idea how much you’ve just done to help doubters.

      • I agree – that is one of the clearest comments on the “neo-con” Catholic plight I’ve read. Augustine, you’re moving up the pay-scale and on the list for a Christmas bonus!

        I’m afraid a lot of lay organisations – and Church Militant TV is probably among them – stand to lose a lot in terms of financial support if they take that extra step along the road back to the fullness of the Catholic traditional Faith. He already knows that he’s unpopular with some clergy and hierarchy, for merely defending orthodoxy. He wants to try defending “Tradition”: being labelled “schismatic” is not much fun. Well, not as much fun as Mass in Brazil, if you get my drift…

        I have a feeling (despite not having met him) that Michael Voris is a man of some character and that, once convinced, he’ll go that extra mile or a hundred! Our Lady will sort out the funding, Michael, if you’re reading this (I sent him the link, folks) – believe me. She will see to the accounts. Come on in!

  3. How would one explain priests (or lay people) like maybe Fr. Gruner? I believe he knows exactly what’s going on but he has chosen an approach that skips much criticism of the Holy Father.
    What’s the proper balance here? Some souls seem SO sensitive and are so easily scandalized that they can’t even look at a photo of the Pope doing something, um, ecumenical. Personally it seems like a case by case to me, seeing how much an individual can take. But what if you are a public figure and you don’t want to cause someone to move towards sedevacantism? How much and in what way should a public figure criticize the Popes actions, writings,etc? Any examples in the lives of the Saints?

    • I agree with St. Catherine! But what I don’t know is how much one can say publicly. Did she ever publish open letters or convey her concerns publicly?
      Now when the Popes do the Assisi “encounter” everyone should be horrified and make reparation publicly I think. But I also think that a strategy of the devil is to cause scandalous acts and then have them broadcast, first for those who will follow from example and second to cause the faithful to go into schism.
      So what if I were to broadcast those acts? I think it’s confusing.
      I do think that if Mr. Voris finds SSPX positions to be too far over then he ought to brace up and toughen up somewhat. (St. Catherine would have said this with more colorful language!)
      A poster above called Mr. Voris a “young man”, I think he was born in 1961 like Athanasius.

  4. I think you have more in common with Michael Voris that makes me disappointed that you choose to publicly criticise him.
    As for Fatima it should be remembered that although the Catholic Church has allowed it to be accepted as authentic The Church has never dogmatically stated it has to be accepted as a definitive truth. You CAN be a good Catholic and have no trust in it’s reality at all. You can be a good Catholic and disbelieve it, in fact.
    Not saying I do, or Voris does either.

    • Rob – we are not making any public personal criticism of Michael Voris – I made a point of saying that he seems to be a young man of some character, but he falls into the “neo-con” category of Catholic, willing to fall for the party line about many things.

      Fatima – Pope Benedict said – imposes a serious obligation on the entire Church: when, in history, has any pope said that about a “private revelation”? Fatima is NOT a private revelation – it is a public prophetic revelation, there is a difference, and since the New Testament tells us “do not despite the prophets/prophesy” we’d better not risk refusing to believe the manifest truth which is a sin against the Holy Ghost. Name the only time in the entire history of the Church that a public miracle was prophesied to the day and the hour in advance, by Our Lady, and occurred before a crowd in excess of 70,000 people? Answer: Fatima.

      Public, prophetic miracle, which places an obligation on the entire Church. I’d say only a fool would disregard Fatima.

      By the way, I’m interested that you think Michael Voris and I have plenty in common – so did I before he came to Scotland and declined the invitation issued by the organiser of the Carfin talk, to meet with me. Go, (as they say in the USA), figure…

  5. The crisis in the Church was prophesied by Our Lord when speaking about the end times “When the Son of Man returns will he find any faith on Earth?” Almighty God is sifting the wheat from the chaff. St Paul mentions the great apostasy which will happen before the man of sin arrives – the anti-christ. We have the great apostasy before us today with divorce, abortion, “men doing shameful things with men” etc. and satan’s laws are being legislated throughout the world. The statistics are disturbing but we need to talk also about the reality of satan and also the words of Our Lord, “Fear not – I have overcome the World”. Michael talks about the next 30 or 40 years. I believe the second coming will happen before that and usher in the great triumph of Jesus and His Church.

  6. I am pro-Voris, I liked his Carfin talk and thought it said a lot about him that he was prepared to come to speak with such a relatively small (in the grand scheme) audience.

    I admire his zeal and energy as well as the frankness which characterises his work. He has had conflict with Church authorities on occasion, so I wouldnt see him as “part of the establishment” – indeed, at Carfin, its my understanding the Holy Ghost Fathers had to step in with a replacement venue, after the Xaverians cancelled his booking (after finding out it was a Michael Voris event).

    That said, its true that he seems to avoid certain topics which I understand would be frustrating to traditionalists.

    I can appreciate that (eg) to view him from an SSPX persepective can be to identify a gap between him and SSPX positions. However, I certainly think there is more profit in engaging and working with him, than not. I perceive that the pendulum is starting to swing for the better in the Church and I think that a general consensus – which is far more achievable than is getting every last person to exactly agree – will be enough to change things for the better.

    I perceive that liberal / heterodox / modernist prelates are able to remain powerful because there is so much division among those who would (or might) oppose them.

    No-one can deny the disarray which has been affecting the Church for decades now. The certain Bishops still work energetically to defame and marginalise the SSPX is a disgrace. Look at the recent news from the USA: the SSPX is building the biggest seminary in the country. Local (common or garden) Catholics were excited and curious to see this impressive building going up on their doorstep and wondered what it meant for them. But, according to the local Bishop, it means nothing for them, he says the SSPX are “schismatics” and “not Catholic”.

    Its my strong opinion that such Bishops are motivated by spite and by pride – they do not have the humility to accept they have been wrong and the flourishing SSPX “right”.

    It is precisely because of such Bishops that so many people are ignorant / misinformed about the SSPX. If you say “SSPX” to certain people, their demeanour totally changes and you can almost see the drawbridge of their mind being hurridly raised up.

    In this sense, voices like Michael Voris are useful, in that he can confront matters and people might actually listen to him, not simply zone him out, like so many do with the SSPX. He can be like a Trojan Horse for positive change. If he at least gets people thinking or talking, such that they might seek to learn more and perhaps become sympathetic to tradition, then that can only be a good thing.

    I agree Michaels stance will probably develop further. My written question at Carfin was asking his thoughts on the usefulness of a more reverant form of liturgy (ie the tridentine mass). And although he read the question out, (along with another), he noticeably avoided directly answering it, which perhaps suggests uncertainty.

    I would much rather it was the Michael Voris’ of this world whom ordinary Catholics were exposed to, and not the Tina Beatties or Basil Loftuses.

    The more I think about it, the more I see that the restoration of the Church will not occur via a sudden event or agreement – like the damage to the Church did, after VII – but rather it will occur via a gradual metamorphises. It will be slow and so subtle that, when complete, many people will not even realise a crises has just passed.

    Accordingly I think the more voices shouting out in the same direction, even if they do not agree entirely on ever last matter, the better.

    I am sure a restoration of the Church will be achieved but – sad to say – I think we must wait until a certain generation (whose minds and thinking seem cemented in the 1970s) has largely passed from the earth.

    In the meantime, more power to the SSPX and to Michael Voris.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I know exactly what you are saying and I agree with you in a way but in another way, is it not compromising the truth to only go “so far” – why should Catholics who are guilty of nothing except clinging to the wholeness of the Catholic Faith have to keep silent about things, so as not to “put off” those who are basically in error?

      Also, when you say that the restoring will be “gradual” – I think Our Lady said that there would come a point in this crisis when she would suddenly intervene. I think (with the gay marriage vote and the worsening abortion situation) that time is very near.

      • I know exactly what you are saying and I agree with you in a way but in another way, is it not compromising the truth to only go “so far”

        Yes I understand what you mean here, but it could be that his views must develop more. Perhaps his views on the situation (and indeed the SSPX) are tainted by the large amount of misinformation which is spread about the SSPX.

        Also, when you say that the restoring will be “gradual” – I think Our Lady said that there would come a point in this crisis when she would suddenly intervene

        I would be delighted to be wrong!

        I said the above based on the slow regrowth of tradition which seems to be happening currently, based on consistency and consolidation – but if changes happen faster then so much the better!

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I am pro-Voris, I liked his Carfin talk and thought it said a lot about him that he was prepared to come to speak with such a relatively small (in the grand scheme) audience.

      I’m not keen to get into a “pro” / “anti” Voris debate – that makes it personal and I have no personal animosity towards Mr Voris at all: quite the reverse. I see him as potentially a huge asset in the fight to restore the traditional Catholic Faith. I’ve already said complimentary things about him, acknowledging that he is well meaning, a young man of good character and so on, so let’s not turn this into anything personal. I was delighted when I learned that he was coming to Scotland and – unsolicited – I posted an advertisement for the Carfin event on our website, and booked to attend myself.

      Unlike you, however, I was disappointed in the Carfin talk. From the outset, Michael emphasised that this crisis had to be seen in the context of the whole history of the Church and we’d had crises before. Right off, then, the audience were lulled into a false sense of security. This is just one of those blips in the history of the Church. No big deal. Wrong. This is an unprecedented crisis. There has been nothing like it – ever. We’re in almost total meltdown – total apostasy; if there’s a bishop in the Church who still believes it all, please (as Michael Voris would say) raise your hand…

      Then, using the overhead projector, three events in Scotland were highlighted. Number one, an announcement about an all night vigil in the chaplaincy at the University of Glasgow, where, among other things, the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary would be recited: all were encouraged to attend. Then our Catholic Truth conference at Celtic Park was advertised, briefly, but without any exhortation to attend. I’d asked if an announcement could be made that there were tickets on sale in the hall for the Conference if anyone would like to approach me, but that was not said (although I had been given permission to hand out leaflets during the evening, for which, gratitude). Thirdly, a Corpus Christi procession was advertised and, again, as with the all-night vigil, all exhorted to attend. Throughout the evening, periodically, Michael Voris mentioned the all night vigil and the Corpus Christi procession, exhorting everyone to attend. This, it seemed, and events like it, were the answer to the crisis. Not once did he mention our Conference, let alone exhort anyone to attend. I don’t actually know the reason for this wish not to be associated with us (the organiser has invited Michael to interview me, but he declined) but I suspect it’s because some of us are known to attend SSPX Masses. More on the Michael Voris/SSPX (non)-connection below…

      Later, we had his description of Pope John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran as a “mistake”, and “hands up if you’ve never made a mistake?” This nonsense, this blatant papolatry, changed my view of his apostolate entirely, at that time. I had to struggle not to call out “hands up if you’ve ever been pope…”

      What is it he is actually trying to do? I’m not at all clear about it, but, at the moment, I do not see him as a marvellous apostle of the restoration of the Faith. More, I’m sorry to say, as any other middle-of-the-road “orthodox” Catholic, who wants things to be a little (maybe a lot) better than they are at the moment, but, hey, it’s not the Pope’s fault!

      Indeed, Michael still has a way to go before he fits into the category of a truly informed Catholic. The most obvious and recent example that I can think of to illustrate this (apart from the video at the top of this thread) was when he interviewed somebody who was clearly not knowledgeable about the SSPX on one of his videos, and the two of them mulled and mused over the “disobedience” of the Society priests, manifestly unaware of Archbishop Lefebvre’s piercing comment about Satan’s masterstroke which is to have gotten Catholics (like Michael Voris!) to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience. I mean, if he genuinely wants to know the truth about the SSPX then the blankety blank obvious thing to do is to interview a priest of the Society, not an enemy of the Society. Any truly informed Catholic knows, in fact, that the battle raging in the Church right now is between Catholic Tradition (represented primarily by the SSPX) and Modernism (represented by just about every bishop in the diocesan world).

      As for not knowing about Fatima – WOW! You gotta be kidding me?

      That, Gabriel Syme, in someone like Michael Voris who has achieved such a public profile, who has expressed a laudable determination to alert Catholics to the crisis in the Church, and who, I am certain, is a person of some influence among, at least some of the clergy and hierarchy in the States (and probably elsewhere – including Scotland; there were several priests at the Carfin talk) has just got to be culpable ignorance. There is just no excuse for it. If he didn’t know about it when he was growing up, then his work in researching the crisis in the Church should have led him to unearth the facts about Fatima, long ago. I’m afraid I do not agree that he may not know about Fatima. More likely, I suggest, that he knows about it only too well but refuses to doubt or at least publicly question the Vatican (i.e. the Cardinal Bertone) lies about the Third Secret and the Consecration of Russia. Many of his supporters will belong to that brainless school of non-thought which believes the Consecration has been done and we are now enjoying the promised period of world peace. The fear of losing supporters has a chilling effect on too many apostolates, and prevents them from really making a difference.

      Sorry to be so blunt, then, but – notwithstanding all his excellent work in producing those professional and often hard-hitting videos, which I’ve often featured on our website – the fact is that not to tell the full truth about the nature of the current crisis in the Church is tantamount to lying.

      I think you may be right about him trying to be careful, taking people along etc. But (and I hear this approach touted all the time) I think this is to place a barrier in the way of the work of God’s grace. Far from driving people away, I believe his videos would still be watched by the same people and more, if he grasped certain nettles by the scruff of the neck (don’t you just love mixed metaphors?) and left the rest to God.

      Michael, more than almost anyone else involved in this kind of work – including (especially) ourselves with our very much less effective, impoverished even, resources – could bring the truth about the crisis in the Church and the God given central role of both the SSPX and Fatima, to millions of people.

      Bring it on, Michael!

      • Hi Editor,

        I’m not keen to get into a “pro” / “anti” Voris debate – that makes it personal

        Of course – I had not interpreted this thread as an attack on him, (sorry if I gave that impression), only a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of his views.

        Unlike you, however, I was disappointed in the Carfin talk

        I agree with what you say above that this crisis is unprecedented, in terms of the numbers falling away from the faith and the general state of the Church.

        Perhaps Voris does have further to go, regarding his view of the situation – but surely his efforts, (even if lacking), represent part of an awakening of sorts among the general laity?

        I think a lot of Catholics (in the west, at least) are unknowingly ignorant of the faith and a lot of what they regard as the norm is actually highly problematic. Accordingly they cant see the wood for the trees.

        I mean, if he genuinely wants to know the truth about the SSPX then the blankety blank obvious thing to do is to interview a priest of the Society, not an enemy of the Society

        Yes, and that would only be fair. I think the mainstream Church in general deals with the SSPX in quite an unfair manner, which is clearly incoherent when considered alongside how it deals with protestants.

        As for not knowing about Fatima – WOW! You gotta be kidding me?

        I was not actually sure of his knowledge / views on Fatima, I was more meaning that he probably didn’t mention it at Carfin because likely he knows many ordinary Catholics are ignorant about it. (like I was previously).

        I don’t ever recall learning or hearing about Fatima in my youth. We all knew about Lourdes, though, because of the parish pilgrimages there – in high school, one of our pupils who was seriously ill went on a visit to Lourdes.

        Sorry to be so blunt

        Not at all!

        If the Editor of the website herself cannot be forthright with her views, then who can!?

        the fact is that not to tell the full truth about the nature of the current crisis in the Church is tantamount to lying

        Yes, something which is only half truth is then also inherently half error.

        It will be interesting to see how his views are shaped by the Church response to this “homoheresy”, including the information now coming out about Monsignor Battista Ricca.

  7. I forgot to mention Fatima above. I am not surprised that Voris didnt mention it. Before I started visiting this website, I had not even heard of Fatima. I wouldnt be surprised if Michael Voris has not heard of Fatima. The mainstream Church does not talk about, or teach people about, such things at ground level.

    Since becoming interested in Catholic tradition, I have learned much about the Catholic faith and its beautiful culture. Indeed, so much learning has been crammed into just a year or two that, looking back, it is resoundingly clear to see that the mainstream Church taught me nothing on any matter. It is difficult to see what substance I ever thought “modern” Catholcism had.

    • I’m just amazed that anyone would not have heard of Fatima. That’s just amazing. What about when they read about Pope John Paul II’s assassination? That happened on the Feast of Fatima and the pope said it was OL of Fatima who save him. How could anyone not know that?

      • I’m just amazed that anyone would not have heard of Fatima. That’s just amazing.

        Hi Josephine,

        I know, it is ridiculous that such an important event could go unmentioned in Catholic schools.

        What about when they read about Pope John Paul II’s assassination? That happened on the Feast of Fatima and the pope said it was OL of Fatima who save him. How could anyone not know that?

        Ah, the assassination attempt was in 1981, but I didn’t start school until 1982 (aged four). I do not ever recall us learning about the assassination attempt at school, or about John Paul II generally, or indeed about any Pope.

        On a previous thread I recounted my experience of learning about Catholicism at school – it was pretty sparse, to say the least!

    • Voris publicly consecrated his apostolate to the Immaculate Heart in Fatima, and he did a series of videos during his recent visit there. There is a statue of Our Lady of Fatima in his company’s oratory in Detroit.

      Perhaps rather Voris has underestimated the urgency of the message, or he sees it as an apparition among many, like Rue de Bac or Guadaloupe.

      Two things must be made clear when talking about Fatima:

      1.).John Paul II didn’t perform the required consecration.
      2.) Fatima goes beyond private revelation, public prophetic revelation.

      Likely Voris knows a lot about Fatima, just he hasn’t grasped these two points.

      There’s time. Remember, back in 2008 Voris was a raging Neo-Catholic, who was prone to saying things like “the documents of Vatican II are beautiful”.

      He’s buddies with Father Z as well, and I can imagine this is a disorientating influence ( I believe Fr Z toes the party line on SSPX). .

      • That’s very encouraging indeed, Miles Immaculatae. I didn’t know Michael had publicly consecrated his apostolate to the Immaculate Heart in Fatima / statue in his company’s oratory, nor did I see the videos he filmed while in Fatima. That’s great news.

        Yes, I think you are right – there are too many disorientating influences around him right now and the fact that he has come through it all to where he is today, is heartening.

        Thanks for that very illuminating post. I firmly believe that, just as the penny dropped for him when Pope Benedict spoke about the wolves, and Michael realised that the problem wasn’t the secular world but was within the Church, so something will click with him about the SSPX and the urgency of Fatima – probably around the same time! Until then, we can certainly continue to appreciate his work in so far as he is taking people a step forward (or back, more accurately!) closer to the traditional Faith. The giant leaps will come when those other pennies drop!

        Our Lady of Fatima will make sure those pennies drop – hopefully, soon…

      • Thanks for this information Miles, I didn’t know about Voris consecrating his apostolate either.

        For anyone who is interested, I found his video from Fatima on you-tube, link below.

        (I have not watched it myself yet)

      • I meant to say below, the Fatima video I linked to below is (I think) from around autumn 2011.

  8. Editor,
    sorry if this is late to come back to you, but its not so easy to reply here these days since your sites changed. All I’m saying is that I’m glad that there’s people like you and Voris around because your’e both a voice and a platform for those of us who recognise the crisis in the Church, and both of you are a much needed thorn in the side of the Judas’s of the Church.
    Don’t like to see you calling him out on your differences, that’s all.

    • Rob,

      I appreciate your kind remarks but we’re not remotely in the same league as Michael Voris, whose professionalism in this field is second to none. That’s why I’m desperately keen for him to walk those further few steps along the way (then we can retire altogether – always an ulterior motive!)

      It’s not about me “calling him out on (our) differences”: there is a very real danger, and I see this a lot, of people who are in this or that apostolate (the pro-life movement is a classic case) where they are so anxious not to disturb people “too much” for various reasons, that they steer clear of mentioning the key issues which go to the heart of the current crisis. I think it’s important to highlight this danger, so that people don’t get lulled into a false security.

      With some of these groups it’s more the fear of losing supporters/donors, but – having read and reflected on Michael Voris’s apostolate over the life of this thread, and having heard him speak about his own experience of the Church and his growing realisation of the nature of the crisis – I don’t think that is the case with him. I remember his honesty about the Mass. He said on one of our older blog threads that he would never get involved in the Mass debate, but he has done, and that is to his credit. I’m certain that once he’s convinced of the truth about the SSPX and of the urgency of Fatima, there will be a welcome further development in the work of Church Militant TV. That’s what happened to us, remember – in terms of the Liturgy, Catholic Truth started out being part of the Reform of the Reform movement until that particular penny dropped loud and clear for us and we moved forward. It’ll happen with Michael’s apostolate as well – just hope it’s soon!

  9. Mr. Voris should really try for an interview with the SSPX. Probably with someone like Fr. Laisney. When’s the last time anyone saw a good interview? I mean they’ve been okay but just a little boring, mostly I think because the interviewer is untrained.

      • I thought Fr. Laisney or some of the other fiery priests would do really well in an interview.
        Poor Bishop Fellay can’t say “God bless you” without the rebels trying to find some hidden modernist meaning in his words.

  10. I think it is very telling that the first victory for the Modernists at Vatican II, the victory of having all the prepared orthodox texts (schemas) rejected and all the traditional minded heads of the various Commissions replaced, occurred on October 13, 1962. These are facts Michael Voris is probably not aware of, facts that demonstrate the link between the divine chastisement related in Fatima’s Third Secret and the present crisis of Faith (apostasy) in the Church.

  11. 3LittleShepherd,

    “Poor Bishop Fellay can’t say “God bless you” without the rebels trying to find some hidden modernist meaning in his words.”

    That’s so funny and so true, poor Bishop Fellay, right enough!

    Athanasius,

    I didn’t know any of that about the 13 October 1962. That’s amazing. There obviously IS a link between the divine chastisement/Fatima and the crisis in the Church. Truly unbelievable – surely if more people knew this, especially priests, they would sit up and pay attention to Fatima?

  12. Indeed they would, JOSEPHINE, indeed they would. Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, in his book ‘The Rhine Flows into the Tiber’ actually states that one prominent Dutch priest was heard, on exit from that first official Session of the Council, to exclaim “That was our first victory!” What, I wonder, did he mean by that?

  13. Athanasius,

    “Victory”? Reducing the Church to the spiritual equivalent of a rubble? Some “victory”!

    The fruits of that dissident priest’s “victory” screams out from every page of the Catholic press this weekend. They’re getting more and more off the wall. There’s even a letter in the Scottish Catholic Observer from someone headed “This has a very selfish ring to it” – and then this, incredible nonsense:

    I write to inform you about a worrying new phenomena (sic) I have recently discovered. That of “self-marriage”.

    Recently, a 36 year old woman … who lives in North Dakota in the US, exchanged rings with her ‘inner groom’ and married herself in a commitment ceremony to which 40 guests were invited.

    The correspondent goes on to say it would be easy to dismiss this as a joke (duh!) but that it highlights “the growing cult of the individual that dominates much of our society” adding “To be honest, I find this much more unsettling that the idea of homosexual marriage, which has so excised (sic) the Scottish Church of late. At least in those cases, there is love between two people.”

    Talk about confusion of mind! Or, to put it another way…

    Gerragrip!

    • editor,

      Yes, it beggars belief. It’s very difficult to see how the Church is going to return to sanity from this Modernist/Liberal madness. That’s why Fatima is so important, for nothing short of divine intervention can now save the Church from the madness that now appears to reign in all quarters.

  14. JOSEPHINE,

    Here’s another piece of useful information to keep in mind.

    On January 25, 1884, Pope Leo XIII overheard that now-renowned exchange between Our Lord and Lucifer as he prepared to leave the Sanctuary after having celebrated his private Mass. That shocking experience led the Pope to retire with haste to his office, visibly shaken, where he composed the famous prayer to St. Michael, which he ordered all priests to recite at the end of every low Mass.

    What the Pope heard being exchanged between Our Lord and the devil is recorded as follows:

    ‘The guttural voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord: “I can destroy your Church.” The gentle voice of Our Lord: “You can? Then go ahead and do so.” Satan: “To do so, I need more time and more power.” Our Lord: “How much time? How much power? Satan: “75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service.” Our Lord: “You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will.’

    Note the date, for it was on January 25, 1959, exactly 75 years to the day, when Pope John XXIII announced that he intended to convoke the Second Vatican Council.

    Another statistic of interest is that it was exactly 33 years after Leo’s vision that Our Lady appeared at Fatima. The centenary of that great event is in 2017, 33 years after Satan’s 100 year deadline. Our Lord was 33 years old when He was crucified! Coincidence?

    • Athanasius,

      I’ve read that story often but never been able to find a reliable source for it. I don’t honestly think it is likely that the conversation took place, or there would be a good source for it. Everybody quotes it, but nobody gives a source. I can’t imagine Our Lord telling Satan to go ahead and destroy the Church, knowing that souls would be lost. I just find that too incredible for words.

      Obviously, if anyone can find a source, you can and then I’ll bow to your superior knowledge, as ever, but I’ve always been doubtful about that quote.

      • Margaret Mary,

        I agree. It would be very good to get a reliable source for this story. I’m not saying that this is one of them but there have been many just-so stories circulating among traditional Catholics that have turned out to be false. Such as Padre Pio’s warning about the Three Days of Darkness. Yves Dupont’s book Catholic Prophecy which contains erroneous information about the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich.

      • Margaret Mary,

        If you recall from Sacred Scripture, God rose to a similar challenge from Satan regarding holy Job. His permissive will gave Satan leave to tempt this great saint, but with the necessary grace available to Job that he might resist the onslaught, which, as we know, sustained him throughout his time of trial.

        God the Father also permitted His Divine Son to be tempted by Satan following the completion of His forty days of fasting in the desert. In fact, the lives of the saints in general is one whole series of temptations permitted by God, who only allows them in order to purify his elect. This is particularly the case in the lives of the contemplatives.

        Now, I have to point out that God did not tell Satan to go ahead and destroy His Church, as you suggest. What He actually did, if you read that conversation again, is give Satan the time and power he claimed would be sufficient for him to destroy God’s Church. It’s not the same thing.

        As for any loss of souls that might result, I merely come back to the grace of God which is available to all who want it. Those lost will be the lukewarm (indifferent) and the infiltrators, who, like Judas Iscariot, await their opportunity to betray Our Lord. Satan was merely asking leave of God to encourage these to do their damnedest on his behalf. As Our Lord Himself said “many are called, but few are chosen.” The crisis that would ensue would test all and find a great many wanting.

        As for your request for a reliable source for this vision, I offer the following together with an assurance that no-one has ever doubted the veracity of this episode from the life of Pope Leo XIII. It is universally accepted that he wrote the prayer to St. Michael as a direct result of what he had just heard. Anyway, I hope the following helps to confirm for you the authenticity of that vision.

        In Gabriele Amorth’s book, ‘An Exorcist Tells His Story’, published by Ignatius Press (1999), on page 37 Fr. Amorth includes an excerpt from a magazine, Ephemerides Liturgicae, reporting in 1995 on pages 58-59. This excerpt is not just another second-hand account; it is actually written by Father Domenico Pechenino, who personally witnessed Pope Leo XIII having the vision during Mass, leaving quickly to write the prayer on a slip of paper, and sending it to the Congregation of Rites to be promulgated.

  15. That’s interesting. I’ve never heard it figured out like that.
    Any thoughts on why Our Lord gave the devil the power and time to destroy the Church? The only thing I can think of is that it’s a diversion from something worse, a sacrifice to save souls. I suppose the whole world could be destroyed physically and then there would be no nations left and no one born in the future. But if the devil is allowed inside the Church he probably would not want creation destroyed.

    • 3LITTLESHEPHERDS,

      Satan can never destroy the Church, which is of divine origin, but he can reduce it to the point where it appears to be destroyed through the universal infidelity of Churchmen and poor Catholics.

      Think of it in terms of Calvary. Surely, if ever it appeared that Satan had triumphed over God it was on that first Good Friday when Our Lord died in torment on the Cross, abandoned by His disciples. Yet, it turned out to be the greatest victory of God over Satan. Appearances, as we know, can be very deceptive!

  16. Athanasius

    So when prophecies speak about the martyrdom of many priests do you think that won’t include priests who have stayed at the foot of the cross with Our Lord like St. John? I’ve heard Society priests say that faithful priests may have to undergo martyrdom in the future but I dunno.

  17. 3LITTLESHEPHERDS,

    Martyrdom by its very nature can only be applied to those who die faithful to Our Lord and the teaching of His Church. It is worth considering, though, that martyrdom doesn’t necessarily mean bodily death. There are other forms of martyrdom, especially for faithful priests whose fidelity to the Faith can see much calumny and isolation visited upon them by those in authority who have chosen to compromise with the world. That’s a spiritual martyrdom.

  18. I meant, if the Church is going through the Passion then faithful priests like SSPX are like St. John, who stayed with Our Lord at the foot of the Cross. He was the only Apostle not physically martyred. All of the Apostles who ran off were later martyred, except of course for Judas. So if it pleases God to have the same thing work out it would seem many priests will repent and be martyred, but the St. Johns will not (although they would like to be!).

  19. 3LITTLESHEPHERDS,

    Yes, I see the logic in your comments. Who knows how God has ordained things, we must all only hope that at the end of this life, regardless of how it ends, we each find a welcome home in heaven!!

  20. editor,

    Spoken in the true spirit of the early Christians (not)! All I can say to that is: taxman, watch out!

    Actually, what I meant by my “regardless of how life ends” statement was that some may suffer bodily martyrdom and some may suffer spiritual martyrdom. God alone knows the end of each of us. In your case, I would venture to suggest eventual death by tea and cream bun syndrome. But hopefully that will be many years in the future. I don’t know anything about my own eventual end except that it will almost certainly include a paupers burial!

  21. I don’t know anything about my own eventual end except that it will almost certainly include a paupers burial!

    You speak for the entire nation there, Athanasius. The way things are going, the only person who will be able to afford a proper funeral is the new (lovely, I’m sure) royal baby. There’s just a slim chance that the national economy will be back in working order by the time he’s due to meet his Maker!

    Seriously, there is, of course, as you say, a type of martyrdom suffered by many today, especially sound priests who are persecuted if they allow a single orthodox thought to pass through their minds, let alone openly preach and teach the Catholic Faith in its entirety. I think the coming events at WYD will serve to underline the nature of such martyrdom. It is truly painful to watch and to listen to the superficial baloney dished out at this singularly ridiculous event. I wonder if Michael Voris will be there and if so, it will be interesting to hear his report(s).

  22. Yes, indeed, editor. I know of some Catholics, faithful to the orthodox teaching of the Church, who were recently tagged as “Taliban Catholics” by a prominent nominal Catholic source. Remarkably, the bishops who should have spoken out in defence of those maligned, remained silent.

    I too await reports on WYD proceedings. I understand that Pope Francis, unlike his predecessor, will not use Latin, “the language of the Church” during any of the liturgical services. That one development confirms what I have suspected and feared. We could actually see worse than the liturgical deviations that took place under Pope John Paul II. I hope and pray I’m wrong but I have a very bad feeling about this.

%d bloggers like this: