Michael Voris On SSPX – Vicious…

I stopped subscribing to the Church Militant TV videos when they announced their papolatrist policy.  Haven’t given them a single thought since.

Then today a reader emailed to alert me to the above video in which – from around the 33rd to 47th minute – Michael Voris and his two colleagues launch into one of the most savage and untruthful assaults on the SSPX that I have ever witnessed (and I’ve witnessed some corkers, believe me.)  Seems some Cardinals in Rome told Voris that the SSPX is definitely in schism, in fact, one said: “It is beyond doubt that they are in schism” and that’s good enough for Michael.  It might have been Cardinal Kasper, for all we know, but hey, who cares? A Cardinal said it and it’s what the ignorant Mr Voris wants to hear, so that’s just fine and dandy. He threw into the mix Pope Benedict’s comment in Summorum Pontificum (SP)  to the effect that the Society does not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church and threw up his hands, fait accompli.  No in depth examination of the issues whatsoever. An unnamed Cardinal’s opinion, other unnamed Cardinals in the background,  and a statement from Pope Benedict taken out of context.  Voris clearly doesn’t DO serious research…

Earlier in the video, the mantra was to the effect that we must all lament the “reactionary” Catholic media who, while they may correctly diagnose the crisis, use the wrong methodology to correct it – naughty to mock and ridicule the Modernists… However,  it’s perfectly in order to mock and ridicule  the “reactionary” Catholics who frequent SSPX chapels or even simply support them.  One of the most striking pieces of mockery is when Voris laughs at the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from the Society of St Pius X, saying that he was expelled for “disobedience” and expressed the view that this is ironic (less politely, take note).   He hasn’t noticed, apparently, that no Modernist bishops have been given as much as a disciplinary rap on the knuckles for their scandalous disobedience, let alone been expelled from the Church.  In fact, wasn’t one of them appointed to lead the recent Synod on the Family? The one who doesn’t want any of us to call adultery “adultery”?  No mocking now. He’s in communion with the Pope and Church – unlike the SSPX.  This, folks, is the level of “intellect” with which we are dealing over at Church Militant TV. 

Under fire in this shallow interview are several American publications, classed as “reactionary” and considered dangerous because they are supportive of the SSPX –  The Remnant, Angelus Press, Catholic Family News.

The whole thing is shallow and unimpressive.  A real giveaway is the description of “reactionary” Catholics guilty of “idolising the Latin Mass.”  That says it all, really.   

This  totally biased and ignorant conversation about the SSPX  prompted me to break my self-imposed rule of ignoring the Voris video club, in the hope that we can help readers who may be influenced by the false information peddled in the above film.  I was disgusted at the dishonesty of the CMTV staff – and the number of them.  Clearly, cash is not a problem over at CMTV – just knowledge of the Catholic Faith and the ability to recognise real schism when they see it.

So, thanks to the reader who alerted me to this unconscionable and utterly dishonest conversation.  It confirms my own view that Michael Voris and his staff at Church Militant TV are a major part of the problem in the Church today. They are not even remotely part of the solution. You won’t hear the truth about the crisis in the Church from them.  If you currently subscribe to their videos, I recommend you unsubscribe. Like yesterday… 

80 responses

  1. I came across this article by John Salza – American lawyer – which puts the facts of the SSPX situation succinctly. Hopefully, it will help visitors to realise something of the extent the sheer confusion and ignorance of the Voris interview:

    Is the SSPX in Schism?
    John Salza, J.D. v. Robert Moynihan, Ph.D
    (undated – pdf available online)

    During the past year, I have been an unsolicited beneficiary of the many email communiques of Dr. Bob Moynihan, Founder and Editor of Inside the Vatican magazine. Dr. Moynihan sends out regular emails explaining his personal views about current developments in the Church. In his recent Letter 21 entitled “Can the Lefebvrian Split Be Healed? On What Terms?,” Dr. Moynihan repeatedly states that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. In attempting to provide an update on the talks between Rome and “the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre” (which was actually no update at all because the talks are private and Moynihan admits he doesn’t know “what is going on”), he writes:

    “There has only been one official schism in the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council. That occurred in 1988, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops against the express instructions of Pope John Paul II. That led to the excommunication of Lefebvre and those four bishops, and the schism of Lefebvre and his followers from Rome. Now 23 years have passed…Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear that he would like to heal this schism during his pontificate” (emphasis added by JD Salza).

    As we will see, Dr. Moynihan not only does not know what is going on with the Society’s talks with the Holy See, he also does not understand that the bishops and priests of the SSPX are members of the Catholic Church. While the SSPX’s canonical status is irregular and thus their priests operate under supplied and not ordinary jurisdiction, the SSPX is not and never has been in schism (schismatics don’t have “irregular” canonical situations because they are not subject to the Church’s canon law at all). However, given the rash way in which the Holy See originally handled Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 episcopal consecrations, we can understand why ignorant Catholics would hold this erroneous opinion.Let’s take a brief look at the Church’s law and the facts of the case to provide some clarity to the question.

    The day after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops, Cardinal Gantin (not Pope John Paul II) declared on July 1, 1988 that the Archbishop had excommunicated himself by consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate in violation of canon 1382, and also referred to the consecration as a schismatic act under canon 1364.1. Although Pope John Paul II acknowledged the Gantin decree in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (July 2, 1988), his Motu Proprio was not a papal decree of schism or even an authentic interpretation of the canon law addressing schism. And it couldn’t have been, for under the pope’s 1983 Code of Canon law, illicitly consecrating a bishop is not a schismatic act. Needless to say, the pope’s punitive sanctions must be based on the current canon law of the Church as a matter of justice, upon which Catholics have a right to rely; otherwise, the punitive canons do not serve their purpose. Therefore, under the laws of the Church, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor the bishops he consecrated was guilty of schism.

    That is most likely why the Holy See gave Archbishop Lefebvre a canonical warning about excommunication and not schism before he consecrated the bishops. Dr. Moynihan should know the difference between disobedience and schism. A person’s disobedience of a papal command does not give rise to schism; the person must actually deny the pope’s authority to be guilty of the crime of schism, and this “refusal of submission” (under canon 751) must be interpreted in the strictest sense, in favor of the perpetrator. Even the liberal Fr. Yves Congar, a staunch critique of Archbishop Lefebvre, correctly explains that schism involves the refusal to accept the existence of the legitimate authority of the pope and not the refusal to accept a decision of that legitimate authority. Of course, Archbishop Lefebvre never denied Pope John Paul II’s authority as the Vicar of Christ. In fact, he believed his actions to secure traditional priests were actually serving the pope and the Church at large.

    In fact, the Ecclesia Dei commission has made it clear that the SSPX is not in schism. The commission declared that Catholics can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Masses offered by SSPX priests – and this was before the excommunications were lifted! (see letter from Monsignor Perl dated September 27, 2002). If the priests of the SSPX were in schism, the Ecclesia Dei commission would not allow Catholics to assist at their Masses, since in doing so they would be allowing Catholics to worship outside the Church (and thus permitting them to break the Third Commandment). This proves that SSPX bishops and priests are not in fact in schism (for example, Catholics could not fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending liturgies offered by the schismatic priests of the Eastern Orthodox sects). The same commission has said that, so long as Catholics attend SSPX chapels out of their devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass (and not because they want to separate themselves from the Roman Pontiff – of course they don’t!), such conduct is also not sinful.

    The Holy See has stated that the SSPX situation is an internal matter of the Catholic Church and that the SSPX is not a counter-diocese or separate ecclesial structure. That the Church regards the SSPX situation as an “internal matter” also proves that SSPX bishops and priests are not in schism. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in five separate interviews has stated that the SSPX is not in formal schism (what Moynihan calls “official schism”), without any rebuke from the Holy See.

    The case of the Hawaii six also bears this out. Those excommunications would not have been lifted if the six Catholics were attending Masses offered by schismatic priests. And for those who insist that the SSPX priests are “suspended” (even though the Holy See has never issued a decree of suspension against them!), they would be admitting that SSPX priests are still subject to the Church’s disciplinary laws. In such case, the SSPX priests cannot be schismatics who are outside the Church because, as previously stated, one cannot be outside the Church and still be subject to her canon law. This is a legal impossibility.

    Pope Benedict XVI’s explanation in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (2007) also clears the air that the SSPX is not in schism. Pope Benedict first explained that John Paul II’s 1988 Motu Proprio was issued to bring the SSPX into “full unity” with Rome – not to declare they completely severed their unity with Rome, which is the case with a schismatic. (We note that canon law recognizes no such principle as “partial unity” or “partial communion”; these terms are unique to the ecumenical double-speak of the conciliar Church. One is either a member of the Body of Christ or completely severed from the Body as is the case with a schismatic).But Pope Benedict says the positive reason for his Motu Proprio, which updates Ecclesia Dei,is to come to “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.” Note that the pope says this reconciliation – which is between the SSPX and Rome – is an “interior” one that is taking place “in the heart of the Church,” further demonstrating that the SSPX is inside the Church where the reconciliation is being pursued.

    Pope Benedict has also made it clear that the SSPX is not in schism by vacating the excommunications declared under his predecessor. Schismatics remain excommunicated from the Church until they retract their errors, but Pope Benedict required no such retraction from the SSPX before nullifying the bishops’ excommunications. This unprecedented action also indicates that the excommunications were not justified, and canon law supports that conclusion.

    As further explained below, canon law operates to mitigate or eliminate canonical penalties under certain circumstances. For example, canon 1323.4 provides that one is not liable to a penalty who, when violating a law, “acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience, unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls.”

    As applied here, Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear in his sermon on June 30, 1988 that he believed he was acting “due to necessity” in consecrating the bishops to retain the traditional priesthood and Holy Mass which was all but abandoned by the bishops at that time. The archbishop was concerned about the Modernism that had ravaged the Church (remember these consecrations took place shortly after the scandalous Assisi prayer meeting) and was genuinely worried that, without traditional bishops, he would have orphaned his seminarians. When one reads his sermon, it is clear that the last thing the archbishop wanted to do was separate himself from Eternal Rome. Of course, the act of consecrating a bishop is not intrinsically evil, nor is it harmful to souls (especially when Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t purporting to grant the bishops jurisdiction or set up an ecclesial structure in opposition to the Church).

    As we have said, the pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, and he obviously disagreed with Archbishop Lefebvre’s “case of necessity.” Nevertheless, canon law regards what is in the mind of the offender, not the pope. Canon 1323.7 says that no one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept, “without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned (i.e., necessity) existed…” In other words, if archbishop Lefebvre (not the pope) “thought, through no personal fault,” that a “reason of necessity” existed to consecrate the four bishops, then he would not incur excommunication under canon 1382.

    Can anyone credibly argue that Archbishop Lefebvre did not really think there was a “reason of necessity” or “grave inconvenience” which motivated his consecrations? I don’t think so. Putting aside the issues of “traditionalism,” I think any honest Catholic would conclude that the archbishop truly believed, “through no personal fault,” that he had a case of necessity or grave inconvenience.

    But even if one wants to accuse the archbishop of being culpably erroneous in his assessments, canon 1324.1 says that the penalty is diminished for one who “thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances [necessity] was present” (°8). Under canon 1324.3, where the penalty is diminished, “the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.” Thus, even if Archbishop Lefebvre was culpably wrong in his assessments, canon 1324 would diminish his canonical penalty to something less than excommunication. Archbishop Lefebvre knew canon law. He based his decision to consecrate the four bishops on this law providing for “reason of necessity” and “grave inconvenience.” If Catholics cannot rely upon canon law to govern their actions, then we have an absolute monarchy and not the Catholic Church.

    Dr. Moynihan reveals his ignorance of these legal issues and does a grave disservice to the Church in accusing his fellow Catholics of being in “official schism” (Is there “unofficial” schism? Perhaps like “partial” communion?). Such a dismissive approach to the Society is often an excuse for an unwillingness or inability to substantively address the legitimate doctrinal issues that have been raised by the SSPX and entertained by the Holy See. Instead of showing us how the council’s teachings on religious liberty and non-Catholic religions can be reconciled with the teachings of the pre-conciliar Magisterium, Dr. Moynihan would rather alienate the SSPX and any other Catholic who would dare question Vatican II.

    Gratefully, this is not the attitude of Pope Benedict XVI, who not only acknowledges that the Society is inside the Church, but also recognizes with the Society that the Church has suffered an attack on her theology, liturgy and discipline since the council. It is high time that Dr. Moynihan and his cohorts recognize that the crisis in the Church is not about “schism” or “full communion,” but about the dogma of the Church. This is precisely what Our Lady of Fatima revealed. In the end, Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph, and the Church’s dogma will be restored – without compromise. END.

  2. Look….come off it…..stop flinging about all sorts of flack to all and sundry about all sorts of doctrinaire.
    …. infelicitaions….or words to that effect…..to those who are basically …..ON OUR SIDE…..!!!…..let them comment as they will…..but let us
    …..GENTLY…..remind them that a humble, unassuming, French archbishop…..forget his name right now…. ( Marcel Quixote ……??? )…he tilted at windmills. ….and where are the windmills today……stuck with a sorry Pontiff , who they really would ….tilt at……but are too stupid to see the damage he or they are calling….and so on….for several pages…..!!!

  3. I don’t quite know where to start with this Michael Voris business. He accused so many Traditional Catholics of schism, ‘naming and shaming,’ as he sees it, those who are “outside the Church” without providing any evidence to back these very serious indictments, save something some unnamed Cardinal(s) told him. This has to count as the most unjust and uncharitable treatment of the SSPX, the Remnant, the Angelus and others that I have ever encountered.

    And in case anyone comes back on him with Canon Law, statements of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei PCED), Pope Benedict XVI, etc., he muddies the waters further with the most ridiculous base line assertion that the SSPX, et al, have separated themselves from the legitimate authority of the Pope and the bishops.

    Michael Voris clearly does not know the teaching or laws of the Church if he thinks that resistance to the dangerous innovations of liberal Popes and bishops is the same as rejection of their legitimate authority. Neither is he aware, apparently, that one act of disobedience to a Pope does not constitute a schismatic act under Canon Law, particularly when the one accused of disobedience acts from a genuine fear for the integrity of the faith and safety of the Church. He should know this, however, because Cardinal Hoyos has made the situation of the SSPX perfectly clear in public on at least five occasions.

    Here are just two relevant quotes from the Cardinal, who spoke with the approval of the Holy See:

    In a 30 Days interview appearing soon after Bishop Fellay’s August 29, 2005 meeting with the Holy Father, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, then-President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said: “Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.”

    A short time later, Cardinal Castrillón was interviewed on Italian television channel 5, November 13, 2005. Again he clarified in regard to a question concerning the status of the SSPX: ”We are not confronted with a heresy…They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking — as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay — a fuller communion, because communion does exist.

    Now, does anyone remember the story of the “Hawaii Six”? These were Traditional Catholics who were excommunicated as schismatics by the Bishop of Honolulu because they attended Mass at the local SSPX chapel. They appealed to Rome and were vindicated by no less than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the CDF, who revoked the bishop’s censure as unjust and uncanonical. That bishop subsequently had his knuckles very seriously wrapped. So where does that leave Michael Voris’ argument?

    It clearly demonstrates that his accusation against the SSPX and all those affiliated with it is a scurrilous one that the Church’s Magisterium has never declared nor upheld. Quite the contrary, in fact.

    So what of his claim that SSPX Sacraments are invalid (he mentioned Confession and Marriage in particular)?

    As regards Confession, it is quite clear that if SSPX Confessions were invalid then the PCED would have been obliged to declare the fact when, on several occasions, it has responded to letters from Traditional Catholics affirming that they may fulfill their Sunday and Holy Day obligations at an SSPX chapel. It is impossible that the PCED would neglect so grave a duty as to mention Sacramental invalidity in respect to SSPX Confessions if such were the case.

    But the Church’s legitimate authorities have never declared any such invalidity in regard to SSPX Confessions. This is purely and simply a scare tactic of Liberals to keep the faithful from attending SSPX chapels for Mass.

    Further clarity is here presented by Chris Jackson, copied from his Remnant article of May, 2013:

    ‘Actions Speak Louder Than Words’

    In some cases, official acts have shown that Rome actually does recognize Society confessions as valid. Consider the following account told by Bishop Fellay at the 2010 Angelus Press Conference as reported by Brian McCall in the Remnant:

    As most Catholics know, there are certain grave sins, the remittance of which is reserved to the Holy See alone. Under Church law if a priest hears the confession of a person who has committed one of these reserved sins, he is obligated to report the matter to the Holy See within thirty days to receive permission to absolve as well as guidance for the imposition of an appropriate penance. His Excellency indicated that from time to time Society priests have heard such confessions, and that, in every case, the required notification was sent to the Holy See. In each of these cases, the response received from the Vatican was that “all was good and licit” and that the permission for the SSPX priest to absolve was granted.

    What inference are we to draw from this? Obviously, the Society priests can validly hear confessions. If the Society priests lacked any form of jurisdiction to hear confessions, the Holy See would have replied that the penitent needed to confess to a priest with legal jurisdiction to hear confessions. By definition, we are here dealing with grave matter and hence mortal sin (assuming all other conditions are present). Yet even still, the Holy See replied to the SSPX that “all is good and licit.” The Holy See is thus making a de facto recognition of SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions, a position that the Society and a number of canonical experts have maintained for years in the face of what is obviously a difficult legal situation.
    .
    Conclusion

    It is my hope that this article, in some small way can provide a counterbalance to the vast amount of confusion and misinformation made available by self-appointed internet “experts” on the validity of Society confessions. In conclusion, here is a summary of what we know about the validity of Society confessions:

    • Rome has made no public official ruling on the validity of Society confessions, despite a moral obligation to do so if these confessions have been invalid since 1971.

    • There are strong canonical arguments in favor of the validity of Society confessions under at least canons 144 and 1335. These arguments are supported by canon law commentaries dating before the Society’s existence, ensuring the opinions in these commentaries are unbiased.

    • At least two prominent canonists, (one a Jesuit and theologian, the other an Apostolic Protonotary) as well as one Cardinal and former head of the CDF, none of whom are or were in any way associated with the SSPX, believe(d) in the validity of Society confessions.

    • Under canon 144 (positive and probable doubt), if a Society priest sees good reasons for his confessions being valid due to legal common error, but also recognizes some reasons they may not be, the Church supplies jurisdiction and the absolutions are valid. Opponents of validity would have to demonstrate that there are no good reasons at all for a Society priest to believe he acts under common error of law. Thus, the burden of proof is on the opponents and their standard of proof is extremely high.

    • No Ecclesia Dei community was required by Rome to instruct their faithful to re-confess mortal sins previously confessed to their priests while in an irregular canonical state. To the contrary, Bishop Fellay tells us that Rome has accepted the validity of Society absolutions, even absolutions of excommunicable offenses.

    • It is entirely illogical that the new Code of canon law would allow Catholics to confess to Orthodox priests and not allow them to confess to Society priests. Such an interpretation would make canon law self-contradictory and worse, cause it to work against its very purpose which is the highest law of the Church: the salvation of souls.

    No point in entering into the same argument about the validity of SSPX marriages since the same laws and rules apply. Suffice it to say the SSPX has very occasionally submitted evidence and requests to the Holy See seeking a formal decision in relation to a marriage annulment. The Holy See has never yet rejected such submissions on the grounds that SSPX marriages are invalid in the eyes of the Church. Again, quite the contrary.

    So what does this say about Michael Voris and ‘Militant TV’? Well, in a nutshell, that they are typical of the middle-of-the-road Catholic voice we hear so often today bewailing the crisis in the Church while refusing to acknowledge its source and those in authority in the Church who stand guilty before God for permitting such a tragedy to happen under their watch.

    For example, Pope Francis recently celebrated Mass in the Philippines before a congregation of millions, during which he permitted, or at least did not object to, countless Eucharistic outrages taking place before his very eyes. In the linked video to this thread Mr. Voris bewails the outrage yet avoids laying the blame at the door of the Pope, whose sacred office obliged him to prevent such crimes against the Blessed Sacrament. Is this ducking of duty by Michael Voris militant Catholicism? No, it’s utter cowardice cloaked behind respect for and obedience to the Pope. No wonder the Church is in the state it’s in.

    I have absolutely no doubt that if Michael Voris had been around at the time of the Arian heresy, he would have declared St. Athanasius to be a schismatic bishop excommunicated by Pope Liberius and therefore “outside the Church” along with all Catholics who support his cause. That’s the kind of man Michael Voris is, a man paralysed by his false understanding of the Church’s teaching on the difference between true and false obedience to superiors.

    For his correction, I present this admonition of St. Robert Bellarmine: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, in Opera Omnia [Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871], vol. I, p. 418).

  4. Regular commentators here, and not visitors like me, regularly quote Cardinal X, Y or Z, including Cardinal Burke, to criticise The Pope, and other Bishops, and so how is Michael Voris any different from them?

    The organisation run by Voris had to change its name, as his local Bishop, as required in Canon Law, banned him from using “Catholic” in its title. The use of the word Catholic, to imply the source is truly Catholic, can only be used under authority of the local Ordinary.

    • Oh I think you’re a regular commentator by now, CS . . . . The difference in this case is that Michael Voris is peddling a demonstrably false line about the SSPX and is using an alleged quote from an unnamed Cardinal in an attempt to shore up the falsehood, which is completely different from people who regularly comment on this blog who generally use authenticated, public, factual, sourced quotes, in support of truth.

      It is true that Voris was stopped from using the name ‘Catholic’ for his organisation, but in fairness, I wouldn’t take any notice of that in itself. It seems that the hierarchy grant and remove that faculty at whim these days, whether the organisation deserves to be called Catholic or not. Look at the openly pro-abortion, pro-women’s ordination group ‘Catholic Women’s Network’ which was listed in the Catholic Directory for many years and is still listed in some diocesan directories to this day. No-one tried to stop them using the title ‘Catholic’.

    • CS

      If you are going to be fair, you would admit that when the ‘commentators’ name…they name names. Not like Voris who hides behind a collective term.

      These named Cardinals and Archbishops do not attack the Pope, they attack the errors. They do not say “The Pope is an Idiot” or “the Pope is a fat fool”: they concentrate on the error.

      Common Sense, please start showing some, rather than being unfairly obstinate in your anti-SSPX stance.

    • Common Sense,

      Oh, you have become quite a regular contributor here but not in a constructive, objective way!

      How do you know that Voris was ordered to remove “Catholic” from the name of his TV outfit? As always, evidence please, not hit-and-run comment.

      Editor: Athanasius, your posts are going into moderation because you use the name “Common Sense”. Suggest you abbreviate to “CS”.
      In fact,
      Voris WAS ordered to remove “Catholic” from the name of his outfit, which showed simply that the bishops fear anything remotely resembling orthodoxy and because technically, in Canon Law, permission is required to use “Catholic” in the name of an organisation. I didn’t know that when we chose Catholic Truth as our name. I was asked by a priest (in disguise – I didn’t know until later that he was a priest) at one of our meetings in Glasgow, what we would do if told to stop using “Catholic”. I said that since it would be a legitimate order, we would have to obey, but I would then focus on the rest of the “Catholic” organisations, beginning with the “Catholic” press until all of those groups removed “Catholic” as well. I was later told by a seminarian that this matter was raised during a seminary discussion when one of the students asked why the bishops didn’t just order us to remove “Catholic” from our title. The answer was that it had been discussed and dropped. I presume because it would conflict with the policy of the bishops to ignore us, in the hope, presumably, that we would go away. No chance!

    • CS,

      Commentators on this blog do not, as Westminsterfly pointed out, hide behind quoting cardinals and bishops whom they will not name, as Voris does, presumably under the pretext of ‘charity’. Voris spouts a lot of hot air with a lot of emotion, and his bombastic manner along with his presentations unfortunately appeal to the folks who want a simple answer to everything- they are content to let Voris do their thinking for them.

      Being ordered by the local bishop to remove the word Catholic from his organization is not a badge of merit- Voris in his abrasive manner, goes after the bishops who offend his idea of what it means to be Catholic.

      • The fact that he obeyed his Bishop, and doesn’t ignore Canon Law says something about him. If a person knows what The Law requires – even if the authorities, for whatever reason don’t enforce – and ignores universal that says something about their morality, and fidelity to The Church too.

        Athanasius, [I see that] the Editor has confirmed what was universally reported

        Ed: the fact that you keep on about obedience without recognising the nature and limits of obedience and the fact that it is not the highest virtue, means that we really can’t help you. Please read this blog but try not to comment – I find your persistence in false ideas really – frankly – wearing. Can’t be bothered correcting you all the time and don’t think others should either. Since I don’t know anything about your intellectual ability I am not sure whether you just really cannot grasp the key distinctions or whether you have just had an extremely poor religious education. Please, how can I put this… go away, if you have no intention of switching on lights in your head. Thank you.

        • Editor

          On this very blog people argue about Holy Communion in the Hand is licit, even when The G.I.R.M. in the current Roman Missal mandates it.

          Editor: we’re not being sidetracked by this red herring as we’ve spent many threads discussing the dishonest way the abuse of Communion in the hand was introduced. It’s a major cause of concern which is why Pope Benedict tried, via his own example, to put an end to it. He didn’t have the bottle to use his authority to say “that’s enough – it’s over” but he did try to end it by refusing to give CIH himself.

          I think, you should put a light on and read Canon Law, which is universally binding, and then ask yourself why you feel it doesn’t apply in your life.

          Editor: a tad judgemental. As it happens I’ve read BOTH the 1917 and the current Code of Canon Law. PLUS I’ve read the motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem which tightened up the penalties for dissent in the current code of Canon Law. So, wrong again, Sugar Plum.

          As I will resist giving biographical details I will just observe that I have extensive academic/theological knowledge and the relevant qualifications.

          Editor: bully for you. I HAVE said to myself, reading your posts, “he’s a right clever clogs”. So, I’m right yet again!

          You cannot choose whether assent to submit to a universal law, by its very nature it is that, universal.

          Editor: wrong again; I repeat, you just cannot grasp the fact that the highest of all “universal” laws, is the Faith. Nobody, not even a canon lawyer, not even a pope, can make us do something or advocate something or even accept something that is a danger to the Faith. Endangering the Blessed Sacrament falls into the category of “I don’t have to accept this, no matter WHAT the GIRM permits”. Get it now, CS?

          Now, what did you think of that excellent video by Louie Verrecchio posted by DominieMary? Doesn’t he show up Voris in all his ignorance? But nicely, not like me.. Moi.. Why can’t I be nice, too? See? I’m not even eligible for the Church of Nice! Do you think if Michael Voris realises that, he’ll ease up on me for attending SSPX chapels?

          • Editor

            I am not endorsing Mr Voris. He is not a spokesperson for The Catholic Church. That is why Canon Law requires he, and people like him writing from whatever viewpoint, should not present their personal views as the teaching of The Catholic Church.

            Ed: which is what we never do. Everything we state as being Catholic teaching is sourced, or so obvious that everyone recognises it as Catholic teaching. Our opinions on anything are of no more weight than any other opinion. That’s different, of course, from the conclusions we draw from flagrant breaches of Catholic teaching and morals. For example, you do not draw the same conclusions as we draw from the dissenters rejection of Catholic teaching. But that’s not a matter of opinion – it’s pure logic, or lack of it. When Cardinal Kasper said we ought not to call the divorced and “remarried” adulterers, and Jesus said clearly that they ARE adulterers, the conclusion we draw, logically, is that Kasper rejects Christ. Not an opinion – that’s an obvious and only conclusion to draw, assuming the Cardinal is not suffering from any mental illness or incapacity.

            The Church authorities, not me would disagree with your interpretation of the rules, relating to Communion in the Hand (You cannot argue, by the way, one Pope didn’t like it and so it must be wrong. Likewise, we have not been told on what basis he discouraged.) I recall you, rather misguidedly, to illustrate your point of view, used a photo of an elderly, sick, Pope John Paul, suffering the effects of disease, receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. As a priest he would normally of consumed Holy Communion unassisted, but his physical condition meant he needed help.

            Editor: ignoring the non-point about Pope John Paul II receiving Communion in the hand, you think because he was ill – there’s no evidence for that, but we do know that he wanted, like Pope Benedict, to end the scandal of CIH, so it is reasonable to assume a point was being made. Ignoring that anyway, you continue with the non-sense of saying the Church authorities would disagree with me about CIH – obviously! It’s they who have permitted this indult. Indult it remains. It will be withdrawn in due course.

            It is pointless comparing the two Codes as one replaced the other.

            Editor: that’s not the point. Think about it.

            With regards the SSPX contradictory voices about “schism” are coming from Rome. However, one consistent voice has been they must accept the whole of The Teaching of The Second Vatican Council before reconciliation can take place. Schism, or not, the centrality of the teaching of The Glorious Council cannot be overlooked, avoided, or discounted, and nor can the 1983 Code of Canon Law which, now, Pope Saint John Paul described as the final document of that Council, and the new G.I.R.M. was a fruit of that Council too.

            Editor: (1) there is no authoritative statement from any source in Rome telling us that the SSPX is in schism. Everything with any remote stamp of authority, says the opposite. They would have a heck of a job explaining how priests, bishops and faithful who have clung to Catholic Tradition and not changed a jot of Catholic dogma and liturgy are in schism while the multitude of public dissenters – who defy, not only Catholic dogma but Canon Law (think Canon 915, think Bishop Keenan, Paisley, to cite but ONE example) remain “in good standing.” That would make for quite a few hilarious cartoons.
            (2) The Council – it is well established – set out to be a purely pastoral, not dogmatic Council and (talk about “contradictory voices coming from Rome) is not binding on the Faithful.

            Did you read the statement from the SSPX which I linked late last night, in response to the latest accusations of schism. What is becoming apparent is that, as the crisis worsens under this shocking pope, so is the hatred of authentic Catholicism growing within the poisoned and protestantised souls of Catholics like Voris and – dare I say it – yourself. Otherwise, you would not only not hate the SSPX but you would recognise their God-given role in this crisis.

            • Editor,

              Thank you for that crystal clear distinction between an opinion ( Our opinions on anything are of no more weight than any other opinion) and the drawing of a logical conclusion from observable behavior (flagrant breaches of Catholic teaching and morals ).
              You made it clear that nobody’s opinion matters, but the ability to draw a logical conclusion from what one observes- is what separates the non-thinking papolatrists from the thinking Catholic. I think I got it!!!! 😀

                  • An edit…

                    To publish stuff on a website called “Catholic Truth”, and claim every authority, including The Pope, other than those approved by you, is wrong is to do more than share your opinions.

                    Canon Law requires, and that is not a matter of opinion, but of fact, that people cannot arbitrarily publish using the word “Catholic” to suggest their publication is Catholic. That is what you are doing!!!

                    Editor: See page 8, standing invitation to the bishops to correct us if they find anything which contradicts Catholic teaching. We’ve been publishing since 1999. To date, not one correction received. In any event, why not write to the Bishops of Scotland and tell them to do their duty? If they contact us on the matter, we’ll do the right thing, be assured. It’s not your problem, so don’t you worry about it.

                    Note: we are not here to discuss Catholic Truth. From now on, all of your posts going over old ground, repeating nonsense such as the above, will be deleted without any comment from me. I think you’re enjoying the attention. It’s over.

      • Jobstears,

        What a very clear post – I agree with every word of it.

        I noticed that all three of the speakers, Michael Voris and his two friends being interviewed, are very young and it was quite amusing to see them speak with such confidence. They think they’ve got it right with “stick with the pope no matter what” and that it is all we have to do to be faithful Catholics.

        I also noticed that the other young man said that it gets “convoluted” when you get into the SSPX defence, which I took as a way of putting people off investigating in case they get to the truth and realise the SSPX are not the bad guys after all. I hope it backfires and more people do their own checking up. That’s the only way to get to the truth – the modernists tell lies without any conscience about it when it comes to the traditional movement.

        • Margaret Mary,

          “They think they’ve got it right with “stick with the pope no matter what” and that it is all we have to do to be faithful Catholics”, that is exactly it! You have pointed out the quicksand on which Voris is building his thriving Catholic business!

          I’ve had to marvel at the logic of concerned Catholics who willingly rail at the bishops all the while obstinately refusing to see why these bishops can go about destroying the Church, with such ease – because the Pope, yes, Voris, the Pope allows them to, and with his blessing (after they have blessed him first, that is!).

          • Jobstears,

            ” and with [Pope Francis’] blessing (after they have blessed him first, that is!).

            Brilliant! I don’t usually DO “LOL” but I’ll make an exception this time!

            LOL 😀

      • Jobstears

        Comment removed – another attack on Catholic Truth. Try attacking Voris – notice that comments are disabled for his video on YouTube.

        • Comment deleted. Tired of repeating the same information over and over. Go and study what great saints and doctors of the Church did in times of crisis – begin with Saint Athanasius.

  5. Anti-SSPX musings of members of the hierarchy are puerile. Time and opinion is now moving in Msgr. Lefebvre’s direction, with de facto schism prevalent within Mother Church and certain members of the hierarchy are raising the question as to when it will become de jure. They refer to the potential of “two churches” arising. In the European Low Countries Catholicism at parish level is almost dead and that which remains has restricted outlet for worship – “got yo your Protestant Church” is the Bishops’ Conference mantra. There are already being created ‘collectives’ of Traditional leaning clerics and I have long been of the opinion that SSPX clergy should co-operate with their like-minded diocesan confreres. A current example is that of Fr. Dickson a parish priest in the North East of England – see his “Catholic Collar & Tie” web-site – but there are many others. Decision time is rapidly approaching for both clergy and bishops – sheep and goats.

    • Sixupman,

      I’d like to read more about the bishops who are asking when the de fact schism will become de jure. Do you have any links you could post on that?

    • I have long been of the opinion that SSPX clergy should co-operate with their like-minded diocesan confreres

      I agree with that 100%, Sixupman. I regard it as a tragedy that here in the UK the response often made when good priests like Father Dickson ‘come out’ so publicly is “He says the new Mass so that’s that”. I don’t for one moment deny the importance of this crucial difference between SSPX and mainstream clergy, but for some of the latter the bridge they have still to cross is narrow, and only God can see their reasons for holding back. I happen to believe that these are so often pastoral and that priests are acting as their conscience, in their particular and unique circumstances, dictates. in the meantime, I think that we should do all that we can to help them.rather than drawing up the bridge. I believe that in God’s good time traditional Catholics will come together, and we know that the new Mass, celebrity popes and all the other novelties will become past aberrations in the Church’s journey.

      I don’t think that this sort of seige mentality is universal in the SSPX. I have heard that in other countries the priests do co-operate with mainstream clergy. Even here in the UK friendly overtures are made (resulting in gifts from closing churches!) and even in an SSPX priestly voice being raised in newchurch meetings to the great discomfort of everyone else present! But overall there is suspicion, and I think this is a very great pity and does no good at all.

      • When Fr. Black was Superior in the UK fraternisation was encouraged and I know it is other countries. Even Msgr. Lefebvre did not live in isolation of diocesan and curia clergy.

      • Christina,

        “…priests are acting as their conscience, in their particular and unique circumstances, dictates. in the meantime, I think that we should do all that we can to help them. rather than drawing up the bridge.”

        I agree with the above, notwithstanding my generally held view that there are priests who are keeping their heads down for less noble reasons than pastoral concern.

        We know, e.g. that the now Bishop of Paisley (Father Keenan as was) when asked if he would learn the TLM, said he would wait to see how the land lay with the then incoming Archbishop (Tartaglia). His apparent careerism certainly paid off. To the best of my knowledge, he never did learn the old rite Mass and he’s now a Bishop. Had the new Archbishop wanted to promote Summorum Pontificum Masses, I suspect dear old Father Keenan would have been top of the list to learn. He’d then still have been made a bishop, or at least not ruined his chances! Go figure, as our American cousins might say! He’s not the only example available to us, but he’s the one to spring to mind right now. See page 5 of our current newsletter to see him toe the episcopal line on Canon 915. Refusing to obey Canon Law # 915 is par for the course in diocesan parishes, although those who savage the SSPX for “disobedience” don’t seem to notice.

        I accept that those genuine diocesan priests who do what they can to promote the traditional Faith, should certainly be encouraged and supported and I know for a fact that the SSPX priests do all that they can to help any priests in that category. SSPX priests have said to me, personally, that if I meet any clergy who would like to learn the old Mass or perfect their Latin etc I am certainly free to offer their willing help – and they didn’t withdraw the offer even after I’d removed the gun from their heads 😀

    • Donniemary,

      Brilliant response from Louie, extremely concise, objective, charitable. I don’t see how Michael Voris will be able to listen to what he says and not feel the guilt of the injustice he has committed. We’ll see!

      Thanks for posting that great video.

    • That’s a great video – well said. I think Michael Voris will be embarrassed when he sees it.

      I think it is very encouraging that the Americans support their traditional groups which I presume they do financially, otherwise how would they afford to produce videos and make enough to live on from their apostolates, as Louie Verrechio and Michael Matt do. If they had the same apathy that we have, that would not happen, so America seems to be ahead of the game. Well done, them!

    • Dominiemary,

      Thank you for the video. Mr. Verrecchio has done a fantastic job countering the ignorance the CMTV has been proud to display!

  6. All I know is…

    They attacked St Athanasius and branded him a schismatic and heretic over and over, exiling him…

    All I know is…

    The SSPX Chapel I attend is a place of reverence and worship to Our Lord Jesus Christ with devotion to our Blessed Mother Mary, all the Angels and Saints. We have Daily Mass, Daily Confession: all the same devotion the Church always had until Protestants and Masons infected it via Vatican II.

    All I know is…

    I know I am in the right place. I couldn’t care less if they changed Canon Law again and branded me excommunicated. It would mean nothing. I am in the Church.

    • Summa,

      I would love to hear Michael Voris’s opinion of St Athanasius and the pope of his day. How can anyone who knows that St Athanasius was excommunicated and yet is now a doctor of the Church, not understand the position of the SSPX? Even those who cannot attend an SSPX chapel for practical reasons, know that they are not in schism.

  7. Thank you Editor & Athanaisius for those facts regarding the real status of SSPX.

    Michael Voris has lost the plot. This papacy makes him reveal he is as confused as any neo-catholic he thinks he’s enlightening with regard to the ‘crisis’ of Church.

    Only when the penny drops with the likes of Voris, Cardinal Burke, Bishop Shneider and all who are realising way too late that we have apostates and heretics in full control of the governance of Christ’s established Church, and that SSPX is the remedy to the restoration of Catholic faith. Only then will things change.

    I will never again attend a N O sacrilegious celebration of DENIAL of Catholic truth, where surely no sanctifying grace can be obtained.

    Attending my local SSPX chapel one can almost forget the betrayal of Christ ever occurred, but of course always one prays for the conversion, or riddance of the apostates. Just like Summa above I KNOW I am in the One True Church when I receive the sacraments from the faithful Society priests.

    Here’s a good video Voris should watch and maybe educate himself.

  8. Dominimary, thanks for posting that great video. At the end Louis says something about his next video being a “much watch” or words to that effect. Do you know when it was / will be released?

      • I think Christina may have been referring to the prayer for the pope at Benediction,

        but I wouldn’t expect any Catholic under the age of 50 to know what Benediction is or to have heard that hymn sung. I don’t know of any parishes locally that still have Benediction, we’ve all moved on from that silly old archaic form of worshiping God in the Eucharist, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the SSPX still has it. Thank God at least someone has.

        • I know of at least three diocesan churches which have benediction.

          During Lent, in addition to the normal a.m. Wednesday Benediction, they will have Benediction and Stations Sunday afternoons.

          • Sixupman,

            And do they include a prayer for the Pope? I ask, because I’ve attended diocesan Benediction where there was no prayer for the Pope. Some time ago, I admit, so it may have changed now (probably has – I’d be surprised if they have any kind of “liturgy” these days without praying for Pope Francis The Great!)

          • I think that the SSPX pray for the pope after every low Mass with 3 Hila Marys, which was always the practice before Vat 2 and I think there was a prayer for the reigning monarch after mass at one time.

        • Alex F,

          I meant to answer this a while back. Some years ago, when I was attending an in-service day for teachers in Catholic schools which happened to fall on the Feast of SS Peter & Paul, I found myself seated in the by then customary (if not quite “traditional”!) semi-circle facing the table at the novus ordo Mass. The priest wanted spontaneous bidding prayers so I immediately curled up and prepared for the worst, with no intention of participating.

          One after the other came the daft, nonsensical “prayers” that are usually commanding God to fix some problem in the world, care for the accident victims of the latest tragedy in the news, end one war or another, if not the lot all at once, OR telling him how wonderful this or that group is who are doing a great job at caring for the poor and needy in the far flung corners of the world. Not a mention of the Pope (John Paul II), Feast of SS Peter & Paul notwithstanding.

          So, when it was clear that the priest was about to tie this nonsense together with a few choice closing words, I changed my mind and decided to contribute the following – I began…

          “Lord, we pray for our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II on this great Feast.” Already, you could cut the atmosphere with a knife. Remember, the “liberals” thought/think that Pope John Paul II was too “strict” because of his staunch pro-life stance. His public condemnation of contraception and abortion, sealed his fate with the “tolerance” brigade.

          Anyway, I followed up my introductory words with a few pointed reminders of the role of the pontiff to rule the Church, to uphold Catholic teaching and to give him courage to do so in season and out of season despite all criticism. That sort of thing. I mean, those wouldn’t be my exact words (I can’t recall what I said to my friend on the phone ten minutes ago, so I’m not making any claims of exactitude, but that was the drift.)

          And if looks could kill, I wouldn’t be here today to write this. Father M.A.D. (Modernist & Dissenter) looked about as cheerful as a lottery winner who’d lost his ticket, avoided looking at me altogether, and the rest of my “colleagues” looked at me as if I’d just been beamed in from Mars. I said later “no, I just eat Mars, I don’t live there…”

          The whole event had been a scandal and the bidding prayers were almost an improvement on the rest of the day, but the claim that the Pope is prayed for at every Mass, brought to mind my experience of that ever so inclusive and diversity conscience liturgy.

          I would imagine, however, that the bidding prayers in most churches today will include enthusiastic and loving prayers for Pope Francis. And not just in the Catholic parishes 😀

          • Editor,

            “One after the other came the daft, nonsensical “prayers” that are usually commanding God to fix some problem in the world, care for the accident victims of the latest tragedy in the news, end one war or another, if not the lot all at once, ”

            Why do you consider prayers for any or all of the above to be “daft” and “nonsensical”?

            • Santiago,

              I’ll let Editor answer your question in her own words but I suspect she’s referring to the Modernist fixation with natural disasters to the complete exclusion to the much more serious supernatural ones we see all around us today. They pray for the poor, the sick, the traumatised, the war torn, etc., but never a word to God to protect His Holy Church, the Supreme Pontiff and the clergy from evil and harm; nor indeed a single prayer ever for the conversion of poor sinners. It’s all very superficial and worldly.

    • Christina,

      Due to my business commitments, I travel around the UK a great deal and attend Mass in many different parishes. At Mass in every parish I have always heard prayers for the Pope.

  9. “Clearly, cash is not a problem over at CMTV – just knowledge of the Catholic Faith”! Editor, that says a lot, but not all, because there is something diabolical mixed in as well.

    Voris seems to be making sure that those Catholics (friends and parishioners I know) who are starting to get uncomfortable with what they see in the Church, – will never go to the SSPX – the only place where they will have all their doubts quelled, and find Catholicism- in the original, unabridged version !!!!

  10. I’m quite surprised at the disinformation peddled by CMTV. However, I suspect they really believe what they are saying. Louie says that they “nearly get it” so perhaps, in time, they will. Nevertheless it could harm souls and prevent them (as Jobstears says) from finding their way to true Catholicism chez the SSPX.

    • Helen,

      Sorry to be a wet blanket but Michael Voris is not just any Joe Bloggs who doesn’t fully grasp the issues. He’s set himself up to publish daily (I think?) video lectures on the state of the Church, as a sincere defender of the Faith, and is regarded by the rest of the neo-Catholic population as an authority on all things Catholic. If he doesn’t “get it” by now, it’s well overdue time for him to put that right. There’s enough information out there to answer his doubts. To go about the place asking a Cardinal(s) in the Vatican if the SSPX is schism is like asking David Cameron if it’s a good idea to vote for UKIP in the forthcoming General Election. The fact that he doesn’t “get” that, doesn’t put him in the running for the next Mastermind award.

  11. Perhaps next week on Church Militant TV Michael will tell us how to gather grapes from thorn bushes and figs from thistles … 🙂

  12. Here is the excellent response of the SSPX to the latest accusations of schism being hurled at them. I’m glad to note that no mention is made of Voris, just a reference to the charges of schism coming from “various” quarters. As you will see, the Society is providing a “summary page” to answer these old chestnuts. If the “schism” numpties still don’t get it, then they really do need help. From men (and women, of course) in white coats…

    • The SSPX summary of their position is very clear. Nobody in good faith could think they were in schism after reading that.

  13. The reference to help from people in white coats for people who take a contrary view emphasises why the name of your site is so wrong..

    Editor: meant light-heartedly. I also shouldn’t have said “bully for you” re. your academic qualifications. Meant light-heartedly but could be taken as sarcasm… me? Moi? Sarcastic? Anyway, meant as a bit of fun. Glad you are well qualified academically but that doesn’t mean you have a grasp on the Faith. You, sadly, don’t.

      • I think Michael Voris actually mentions priests leaving the SSPX to form or join the FSSP and other such “legitimate” groups.

      • The priests – the small number who have left, you would hardly find more than one or two who has left to embrace the Novus Ordo. The small number that have left have stayed in Tradition, some deciding FSSP etc or you have the unhinged, who have lost the plot and gone down the ‘resistance’ route.

        The very fact that Voris says this as if it is the end of the SSPX when in fact it is thriving is testament to his deplorable media circus.

        He also stupidly talks as if the SSPX are sedevacantists and all this nonsense about being disobedient to the Pope. We are continually reminded by the Fathers of the society to pray for the deliverance of the current popes from modernism. We pray for our Popes, hoping in God that they will guide the Church back to the Faith of the Church Fathers.

        Yet with all of this, no mention of the mass exodus from Novus Ordo from Voris.

        Oh and one final hilarious part…. the ‘experts’ on his show. Ha!

  14. Editor, please don’t apologise to anyone for your sense of humour (it brightens many a dark day) especially to someone who clearly hasn’t got one. As for ‘bully for you’ – that was mild. Anyone who makes such a claim as …I will just observe that I have extensive academic/theological knowledge and the relevant qualifications while coyly saying I will resist giving biographical details deserves to be laughed at. It’s such a magnificently boastful statement backed up by nothing that would enable one to give credence to it. Certainly one’s subjective judgement as to the value of ‘qualifications’ won’t do. A-level? PhD? ThB? STD? I tell everyone I’m a well-qualified artist, but no-one believes me!

    • Christina,

      Thank you for that kind post of encouragement. I’m glad my sense of humour isn’t completely lost on everyone!

      And I know what you mean about claiming qualifications. Every time I claim to be a well qualified singer, even at family “do’s” groups form to demand written proof!

    • STD!? Sexually Transmitted Disease???

      Editor: I suspect Christina is referring to the Degree of Doctor of Sacred Theology (S.T.D.) given that she lists other academic Degrees and is writing in the context of academic qualifications. But think nothing of it – we all make mistakes.

  15. This whole incident, especially the straw-man of obedience, has reminded me of what Fr Calmel said regarding the new liturgy.

    (paraphrasing…) He said that the whole new liturgy game was being played out on the field of obedience to the Pope. Well what else (?) as their is no substantial basis for it. And so, here is where it falls: obedience must mean for us to reject all liturgical compromises.

    So when Voris goes on about disobedience, he is in fact highlighting the obedience of the SSPX to remain truthful to the Liturgy.

    I must thank Voris for all the free SSPX publicity! 🙂 (that would have cost us millions!) 🙂

    • Summa

      “So when Voris goes on about disobedience, he is in fact highlighting the obedience of the SSPX to remain truthful to the Liturgy.”

      Absolutely. The liturgy must be approved and received by the Church. The SSPX honours this maxim. It’s the Modernists who are disobedient!

    • Michael Voris aside, those who usually accuse the SSPX of being disobedient to the Pope are the ones who are the most disobedient of all. I speak of the bishops who permit, for example, Communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion against the expressed wishes of a number of modern Popes.

      But then, they are also disobedient to the Fathers of Vatican II who said nothing about stripping churches of their altar rails, tabernacles and, in some cases, side altars. Nor did they call for a New Mass in the vernacular, altar girls, profane music, etc., etc.

      As far as I see it, the SSPX then is actually more faithful to the Pope and the Council than a majority of the Church’s bishops and priests. What gains the day for these priests and prelates though is that the greater majority of Catholic lay people really don’t know their faith or the teaching of the saints and councils. Ignorance and no little indifference is the reason we’re in this crisis.

      • Athanasius,

        It’s the fact that the CS / Domchas Brigade totally ignore these manifest examples of disobedience which you – and others – have repeatedly published on this blog, that convinces me that they are not in good faith.

        There is nothing in the moderation queue acknowledging the truth of what you say and there won’t be. Thanks, though, for highlighting what, to anyone with half a brain, is the most obvious refutation of the “disobedience” argument. If “disobedience” to the stated wishes of the pontiff and even Vatican instructions/Canon Law, is the proof of “schism” then the Voris brigade need to look very carefully at the list you have supplied.

  16. Voris seems to have lost the plot, I was previously a big fan of his, even going along to hear him speak at Carfin a few years back. As he has shown here, he doesn’t always get it right – hey – but at least he loves the faith and has a spine, in stark contrast to (for example) the Scottish Episcopate.

    I dont agree with his papolatry; its idiotic, given we have the example of St Paul resisting St Peter, when Peter was in the wrong.

    And even in our own time, prelates such as Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider have openly stated that they will resist the Pope, if he perseveres with his half-baked, protestant-populist ‘reforms’ at the Synod.

    Are Burke and Schneider – both likely among the cream of the post-V2 prelates – in schism too? The suggestion would see anyone with half a brain laughing you right-out-of-town.

    I think Voris attacks the SSPX out of desperation, given he cannot bring himself to criticise Francis. Given the shambolic state of the Church, he has got to say something about it, and it seems he feels that he can cheaply cast the SSPX as a convenient “bogeyman” – not least because the majority of Catholics are not well informed regarding the Society (if even aware of its existence) – rather than give Francis the flak he so richly deserves.

    I think he tries to create a smokescreen; i.e cast a spotlight and false accusations on the SSPX and then maybe people wont notice what a lunatic Francis is, or how fundamentally weak Voris’ own public response has been to this standard of Papacy.

    Its a great shame, but it is heartening to see the robust responses from various quarters, and anyone worth their salt will consult these as well as Voris. This kind of idiotic “friendly fire” (if you will) is to some extent what keeps Catholicism weak and the likes of Kasper strong.

    I can just imagine Francis announcing a new Mass tomorrow, the content of which involves us all dressing in Chicken Suits and doing “The Birdy Dance”.

    I can picture Michael Voris looking really stupid in his Chicken Suit, bobbing along to “The Birdy Dance”, while muttering to himself bitterly about the SSPX and how they are destroying the Church.

    He greatly damages his own credibility with these attacks; I mean even if he wont offer criticism of Francis, he could have at least attacked the American LCWR, or similar “face asking to be punched”.

    I think Voris is confused / desperate, rather than malicious. He spoke of Irony when discussing the SSPX, but here the supreme irony is surely that he thinks the SSPX is disorientated, when in fact it is he himself.

    • Gabriele Syme,

      I think when you listen to what Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara have to say about this turn of events (see video below), you may not look at Michael Voris in the same light again. I’m not sure the man does have a spine! His recent treachery is inexplicable.

%d bloggers like this: