The Conversion of Michael Voris…

After insulting all and every traditionalist newspaper, website and blog for daring to criticise Pope Francis, the Voris outfit has ‘U-turned’ on the issue.  View the video and try to keep a straight face as he explains the obvious limits of papal authority. Seems the Holy Spirit doesn’t pick the pope after all.  I believe a number of well known Catholic journalists in the USA tried to tell him that, but, hey, who’s complaining?  We always welcome converts to the truth and Mr Voris is no exception…

19 responses

  1. I think a convert is a great event and I’m glad Michael has seen the light. He has a large audience and can put his newfound insight to good use in God’s service.

  2. I’ll pay attention to Michael Voris when he publicly apologizes to the SSPX! He has a lot of humble pie to eat, that’s for sure. And I have to wonder, being the cynic that I am, whether his shrinking audience has anything to do with this about-face.

    • RCA Victor,

      Well said! Can’t see him issuing any apologies, though, or eating that humble pie, not after all the humbug pie he’s already consumed!

      Still, perhaps we ought to allow him the benefit of any doubt. Whatever the reason, his about-face is welcome.

  3. Yes – I remember that he called criticism of Pope Francis ‘spiritual pornography’. Welcome to the porno club, Michael. I don’t think you’re cynical at all RCA Victor. I stopped watching CMTV a long time ago (although admittedly I was never a paid-up member, I just watched the freebies) but falling subscriber numbers could easily be a reason for the u-turn. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and I agree with you – he owes a HUGE public apology to the SSPX and he should also distance himself from that creepy priest he associates with (can’t remember his name) who publicly attacked Fr Gruner within hours of his death.

  4. Pathetic. It’s the media’s fault more than the pope’s, dontcha know. Not forgetting the ignorant laity (whose fault is that Michael?).

    • Therese,

      I was at first skeptical of Voris’ attempt to deflect blame to the media, but then I noticed the title of his video: “A Disgrace to the Chair of Peter.” So the title says what Voris himself avoids saying. And I wonder if he made this video on the 22nd? (i.e. The Feast of the Chair of Peter)

  5. Yes, RCA it was Fr Paul Nicholson, thanks for supplying the name. Spot on Therese. I’ve actually watched the video now and Voris is passing the buck everywhere except where it SHOULD stop.

  6. I must say, Michael Voris doesn’t look at all well in that video (haven’t seen it all yet, I refer to the static picture).

    I stress it must be a couple of years since I last saw him, (I stopped following him when he started to attack and slander the SSPX), but my: he appears gaunt / washed out / thin and has aged markedly. I presume its down to stress from this papacy (!) – I certainly hope he isn’t ill anyway.

    I thought Michael was great at first, he came to Scotland to speak (Carfin) and later made a great video episode in Glasgow. He even managed to annoy some Bishops (in this age, this is often a sign from Heaven that you are doing something right).

    But then came Francis and its clear the “francis effect” was to disorientate him and set him against friends instead of foe. But then, a lot of good people tried to defend, or make excuses for, Francis at first. Remember Fr Z’s early “read Francis through Benedict” slogan? (long since canned, needless to say). How absurd does that sound now, with the advantage of bitter experience?

    People have gradually changed their opinion as they have eventually gotten a better measure of Francis. And this is their credit, especially as its not always easy to admit you were off the mark. And their realignment helps to improve the demography of opinion and understanding in the Church. So, if this movement is the start of Voris rehabilitating himself as a credible, influential and fiercely Catholic voice then – great!

    It is also good from an SSPX perspective that people are thinking more and more, because a lot of people will now see the Society in an entirely different and positive light and understand its stances and aims a whole lot better. This can only be a good thing.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I agree with a lot of what you say but I’ll wait until Voris retracts his slurs against the SSPX before welcoming him with open arms.

    • GS,

      I also noticed Voris’ rather gaunt appearance, and wondered if several years of enlisting in the ranks of the sycophants, and having his financial strings pulled by the SSPX-hater Terry Carroll, had taken its toll on his soul.

      As for admitting that he has been off the mark, I didn’t notice any such overt admission, but I suppose the new thrust (if indeed it is a new thrust) is a tacit admission. May he free himself from his ideology-driven backers, and pursue the Truth.

      • RCA Victor,

        Agreed about the open admission – it’s a sort of warm up for the real thing. Preparing us for the day when he actually dares to say what this SSPX priest is saying in the current Dici:

        Vatican specialists perplexed

        After every pontifical journey, Pope Francis gives a press conference on the return flight. But rather than offering clear answers to the journalists, his statements always create serious interpretation problems. Everyone remembers his famous “Who am I to judge?” when he was asked about homosexuals after his apostolic visit to Brazil in July 2013.

        In the press conference after his recent trip to Mexico, Francis voiced a severe judgment on American presidential candidate Donald Trump, declaring at the same time that he does not get involved in the Italian politics on the question of civil unions (i.e. homosexual “marriages”) in Italy; he then firmly rejected the crime of abortion while mentioning the possibility of contraception as a lesser evil to help avoid the consequences of the Zirka virus…

        The Italian press spoke of “enigmatic exits” and of “multiple ‘Jesuitisms’, constantly on the move, that can never be stopped of grasped”, and resumed his contradictory answers as follows: “I meddle, I don’t meddle; I judge, I don’t judge… Francis disconcerts the Catholic world with his fluctuating evaluations.” The fact remains that the average reader’s conclusion will be very simple: “A Christian cannot vote for Donald Trump; as for the bill on civil unions, each person should listen to his own conscience… but no barrier has been laid down to keep it from passing; abortion is a crime, but contraception is only a lesser evil, so it is acceptable…”

        Back in their writing rooms, these Vatican specialists denounced what causes their uneasiness: today, pontifical talk is “a perpetual ‘say, unsay and contradict’.” Some are doubtful as to Fr. Federico Lombardi’s efficacy as decoder of a line of thought that remains hopelessly muddled. What slightly reassures them, it is true, is the pope’s recent answer to the criticism of one of them, Antonio Socci, in an Open Letter on the Church in Time of War. “I am sure that many of the things you say will do me much good,” Francis wrote to him. So the journalists have hope. And while there is hope there is life.

        Father Alain Lorans

        • Editor,

          How about this thought for the day: what is so disturbing about Francis is that for the first time we have a modernist Pope whose personality is an exact mirror, and therefore the perfect vessel, of modernism: one day this, the next day the opposite. Blurt out nonsense, the next day have the spin-meisters fix it. Scandal today, an appearance of orthodoxy tomorrow.

          All the previous modernist Popes had, at least, some modicum of traditional Catholic dignity with which to disguise their deconstruction of the Faith. But not this Pope. He is, you might say, modernism personified.

          • RCA Victor,

            Yes, I have thought often that, despite the fact that the recent popes have not been shining lights, to put it mildly, they did at least have some dignity.

  7. In the case of Pope Benedict XVI, Michael Voris could get away with his claim that Popes make the odd mistake in speech. In the case of Pope Francis, however, the mistakes in front of the media are way too frequent, and always to the detriment of Traditional Catholic teaching. I wonder if it has occurred to Michael that Pope Francis is using the media rathe than the other way around.

  8. I have just looked at my Penny Catechism
    What do you mean when you say the Pope is infallible?
    When I say the Pope is infallible I mean that the Pope cannot err, when as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the whole Church.
    The confusion lies in the fact that our children are not being taught the Faith.

    • John,

      And the key there is “defines” – the false teaching went about for years that “when the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals he is infallible” and that’s why we have so many papolatrists today.

  9. Well Mr Voris has no sooner appeared to concede the argument that popes are not above criticism, until he’s insisting that the Consecration of Russia has been done …. because, effectively, EWTN says the popes say so, and who is Church Militant to contradict the Pope! Click here to read it for yourself, and then repeat after me… Gimme strength!

%d bloggers like this: