Hilarious. Michael Voris apologizes for a story:
Voris seems to confuse the Pope with the Church. He also seems to believe that any public criticism of a Pope is sinful. How he comes to this ludicrous conclusion escapes me. Popes have been subject to public criticism by faithful Catholics since Saint Paul withstood Saint Peter “to his face” on the issue of whether Jewish dietary restrictions should be imposed on Christians. Popes are not demi-gods, but men filled with flaws, as we all are, trying to lead the Church through frequently stormy times. The idea that the mistakes they inevitably make in their difficult task should not be pointed out by Catholics is not only unCatholic, it is anti-Catholic and plays into crude stereotypes that enemies of the Church have carefully fostered over the years. Voris has long posed as a valiant defender of the teachings of the Church. Here he fails miserably in his self-appointed role.
100% correct! Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church – He and NO ONE else. The Pope is to be respected for the office he holds, but flattery of Peter does Peter no good and the Church great harm.
The man who happily carpet-bombs any Catholic bishop who doesn’t have “of Rome” in his title is worried about how his reports affect the Church?
Huh.
This is a real head scratcher. There has to be more to the story or the sacramentals around his neck are cutting off his circulation.
I’d actually prefer an apology from him for wearing Notre Dame paraphernalia given the harm that the “University of South Bend” does to the Church every day.
How am I supposed to know what he’s saying without random words being highlighted on the screen?
It is sad but true that people who are drawn to the humanity of this pope see perceived “criticism” of him as unfair or unreasonable because … he is so loving and merciful. Many will not listen to a discussion of what has played out in this synod that gives emphasis or credence to the remarks of Burke or Pell.
Giving people the impression of criticism of the pope, closes their ears, and Michael, like most of us, hope people’s ears will remain open.
I think it is fine that he offered this clarification in an attempt to help people understand that the coverage provided by Church Militant is not motivated by ill will, and that he does respect the office and the person of the pope. Everybody who writes here knows how easy it is for words to be misunderstood, exaggerated by the hearer. The mission efforts of Church Militant can easily be rendered useless.
The kind of heartfelt confusion and chaos that many many people are feeling is just what the devil hopes for. He probably loves to read the sniping between Catholics. Anywhere there is a crack or a fissure, the devil comes with his crowbar of malice, and accusations of malice. It is important that Michael tries to make clear that his criticisms are not out of malice.
Most people don’t read the word “criticism” as a disinterested appraisal of something, but see negativity and even malice in the very word. He is not trying to reach just the people who are educated about legal meaning, but those also who just respond with their heart to what they perceive.
If he felt he had something to confess about his own emotional response to the characters and their machinations- God bless him for earnestly looking to his own motives.
I had hopes the other day that he’d finally pulled his head out of the sand. Alas, apparently not. This clarification video turned me off for a couple of different reasons. Obviously the first being that he still believes that to criticize the Pope (or to report on anything that might even sound like he’s criticizing the Pope) is wrong, wrong, wrong. But what bothered me even more, I think, is his public confession and telling us all how he’s mortifying himself and what sacrifices he’s making to atone for these great sins of his. Sorry, that whole part came off really poorly, no doubt exactly the opposite that you no doubt were going for. Seemed like false humility. Look at me! Look at me! Michael, what you perceive as your sins are between you and God. Good grief. It’s no wonder I ceased listening to his shows months ago. This confirms it.
So Voris is showing and admitting that he also has the same flaws that you point out that the popes have.
I actually quite like Voris. Sure, he is often OTT in some of his criticisms, but he also applauds bishops that do the right thing, and IMO there is a radical voice required in the Church to pull it back from many of the modernist errors that have barnstormed into the Church over the past 50 years.
I applaud him for standing up for the Truth – I also criticise him, as he does some bishops, for ocasionally getting it wrong. Whe one puts oneself “out there”, one will always cop a lot of flack.
Don the Kiwi & Anzlyne.
For what’s it worth I’m in your camp on this one.
It is so Easy to fault others for trying to serve and making a mistake in the process.
Only God knows hearts…anyone who claims otherwise is unaware of his own heart.
Elizabeth- Your take was an interesting one in calling this false humility. On the one hand he should make a public apology if what he did was of a public nature, which it was. On the other, we don’t need to know the details of how he has mortified himself or what sacraments he has or hasn’t availed himself.
He’s entitled to his foibles like the rest of us.
@Paul D: Perhaps “false humility” wasn’t the correct phrase. Maybe I should’ve said over-the-top, melodramatic mea culpas.
Voris would be horrified over Pat Buchanan’s statement from
his recent article, that Francis may be leading the church into heresy
should he change the teachings of the church on divorce and
remarried Catholics and on gay unions and active homosexuals
receiving communion, both of which would violate the principle of
infallibility, and therefore nullify Francis’ Papacy.
I think Michael Voris was being himself, not using “false humility” because this is the style in which he always speaks. He probably felt he was between two hard positions because he has a large following and didn’t want to be responsible for causing people to be cynical about the Pope and his authority. He might have felt if he sounded critical that he may be sounding like he’s critical of the papacy in general. I think the work he has done has reached a whole new audience not formerly familiar with the intricacies of the politics surrounding certain men in the church and he is to be commended for exposing a lot of that. However since he put himself out there, he is under a microscope as our culture of watching is always waiting to pounce on small things.
Has Michael forgotten that we are proudly ‘papists’ not patently ‘papolators’? Of course loyal and respectful criticism of the Pontiff is no mortal sin: the pope himself would be the first to admit he needs it. The history of the papacy is enough evidence, for we know that some popes were not, putting it mildly, quite up to scratch. But perhaps Michael felt an understandable concern for the orthodox standing of his media apostolate , and as the saying now goes, who am I to judge?
I am a supporter of Michael Voris and most disappointed in his retraction. He indefensible support of Pope Francis undermines his stated mission. He finds fault with most of the Bishops but not with their leader. This doesn’t make sense. My guess is that Opus Dei has something to do with this.
Writing in the aftermath of the First Vatican Council, Bl John Henry Newman was at pains to warn against the Ultramontanist tendency of creeping infallibility.
“I observe that, conscience being a practical dictate, a collision is possible between it and the Pope’s authority only when the Pope legislates, or gives particular orders, and the like. But a Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy. Let it be observed that the Vatican Council has left him just as it found him here.”
And he offers a number of examples:
“Was St. Peter infallible on that occasion at Antioch when St. Paul withstood him? Was St. Victor infallible when he separated from his communion the Asiatic Churches? Or Liberius when in like manner he excommunicated Athanasius? And, to come to later times, was Gregory XIII, when he had a medal struck in honour of the Bartholomew massacre? Or Paul IV in his conduct towards Elizabeth? Or Sextus V when he blessed the Armada? Or Urban VIII when he persecuted Galileo? No Catholic ever pretends that these Popes were infallible in these acts.”
Sounds like some are reacting to MV’s attack of conscience as a personal indictment. It reminds me of Debbie in Days of Wine and Roses in a drunken stupor mocking “Sober Joe”.
Nope, my comments merely reflect the ahistorical nature of the scruples of Voris.
“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations” – Fr. Melchior Cano O.P., Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent.
“Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers.” “The court is the leprosy of the papacy.” Pope Francis
Is his hair real? And is it his?
No idea. But his hair cannot compare to the Shatner Turbo 2000:
http://shatnerstoupee.blogspot.com/2010/09/shatners-toupee-in-pop-culture-night.html
On this one, I would give Voris the benefit of the doubt. He said an impression was generated that he was critical of the Pope. If that was not his intention but enough folks made comment as such, then he may have felt obligated to make a public correction. I do wonder where the objections came from.
I would be more surprised if the Pope moved toward pastoral changes that in effect denuded Church doctrine and Voris did not opine.
Franco: I was about to say that changing the teaching on the inviolability of marriage would cancel infallibility. The Vicar of Christ must teach infallibly, but you, Franco, have said it better…and that business about the assault and battery that is sodomy to be overlooked is just plain crazy.
test
In the matter of the assault and battery that is sodomy to be overlooked, some people, some priests believe that two adults consenting to sodomy make it innocent, but man cannot consent to sin, any sin without having sinned; man cannot consent to any crime without committing a crime and therefore, sodomy remains a sin to which man cannot commit his immortal soul.
.
Going to hell to prevent other souls from going to hell is the no greater love than this: that man lay down his life for a friend.
.
As far as infallibility is concerned, Bishops Burke and Pell have already pulled out of the Magisterium on any requirement to dissolve the indissolubility of marriage, and therefore, Pope Francis cannot speak “ex Cathedra” without Bishops Burke and Pell.
Hey everyone. .
Where did any of you read or hear that Michael Voris thinks no one should criticize the Pope? Why this response? Clearly it is a decision of his apostolate to have no pope-bashing, none. I can see that. I can admire it.
But Michael in no way is trying to bind others to the same decision.
I do not hear Michael saying no one should criticize the pope. I think he saying he is not going to do it. He has decided not to, not in his public ministry. He does not fawn as so many do. He does report.
Mary De Voe wrote “Pope Francis cannot speak “ex Cathedra” without Bishops Burke and Pell”
Of course he can (which is not to say that he will)
The First Vatican Council taught that “when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church”
“Ex sese non ex consensus ecclesiæ” – of itself and not from the consent of the Church means that the Pope can issue an ex cathedra pronouncement, even if all the bishops oppose him on it. It was specifically aimed at the Gallican heresy, which said the pope was only infallible, when he spoke in union with the bishops (by which they usually meant the French bishops).
I didn’t realize that Voris’s organization is called St. Michael’s Media. St. Michael isn’t a communicator, he’s a warrior. St. Gabriel is a communicator. That sums up Voris perfectly – he never seems to grasp the whole picture correctly. It also fits him in that he thinks an attack is the proper way to communicate.
Pinky
St Michael is the patron saint of grocers (amongst others)
Michael Voris is “Trapped and Exposed” in his own “Vortex”, in this video. His Backer must have dressed him down and now Michael is as if, a Crying Cocker Spaniel, who infuriated his “Master.”
A post I can respect for Voris …. now, what kind and type of bloggers could he have been referring to? Hmm.
I was a supporter of Voris until his dumb-ass must not criticize the Pope statement came out eight months ago. As a former cult member, I’m alarmed at the blind obedience this idiot is demanding of his followers. Hasn’t he ever read church and world history on what happens when people give that type of obedience to a man? Voris’s CMTV has become a Papolatrist cult. And, fwiw, I believe that his contacts with Opus Dei members has something to do with it.
I seriously doubt that every tom, dick and harry are qualified to pass judgment on the actions of the pope.
and, most of what is see on the internet are every tom, dick and harry offering their opinions like they were delegated by God to give them.
and, most of the opinions I have read suffer from a lack of knowledge and understanding related to matters that are NOT black and white.
for example, nowhere and at no time have I read or heard that any member of the hierarchy is advocating eliminating the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage, but, boy are a lot of people writing as though such a thing is imminent.
another example, nowhere and at no time have I read or heard that any member of the hierarchy is advocating that some sexual acts performed outside of a Christian marriage may be moral.
fear of the pope does not come from the Holy Spirit.
This did it for me. I liked Voris but he is now part of the Church of Nice. Watch Remnant TV for the REAL Catholic News
The part about not receiving communion was really weird. Ostentatious and TMI. I interviewed Ann Barnhardt for the podcast today, and we talked about this (somewhere near the end…don’t remember exactly where.)
http://www.onepeterfive.com/podcast/1p5-podcast-episode-9/
Personally, I think the CMTV decision to avoid any criticism of the pope — even when that means simply saying what another cardinal said in a news brief — is a major strategic misstep. People are waking up to what happened at the synod, and who is pulling the strings, and it’s time for some candor.
To me it seems only logical to conclude that if Voris believes he sinned by quoting Burke, he must think Burke sinned by saying what he said. And Cardinal Burke doesn’t need any more enemies right now.
Very apt title.
Very true comment.
I loved Voris trying to pin Forte down on the gifts gays bring to the Christian community ( I believe repentant gays alone bring incredible gifts and they do in humble demeanor)… but this no criticizing the Pope on content is off the wall but was supported by a lady at Patheos because that’s what some ladies do within family…they stop all criticism at dinner.
Bill, I loved the exchange with Forte also. Cardinal Forte’s first few words in response were revealing. He drew from is holster the word “ontological” and claimed it was a difficult question. We all now know he wrote the few paragraphs in section of the relatio. This was a clear attempt to do the proverbial tap dance. Voris nailed him with a precise and concise question. Forte was rather embarassing to watch and Voris was fantastic!
I get tired of these ‘over the top’ mea culpa scrupulosities. We are called to ‘criticize’ or maybe as the Bishops have indicated in the Synod a change of ‘language’ maybe to ‘correct’ irregular Catholic mutterings from our prelates. (all in the name of political correctness, of course) What is wrong with ‘calling a spade a spade?’ If we do so in charity with no personal attacks, isn’t that what we are called to do?
A second thought…….are Catholics so ‘sophisticated’ that they don’t give a second thought (or a first) to the possibility that we are in fact living in critical times in Church history? Many mystics have prophesied about such times and about the Popes in such times, but maybe they are all to be dismissed? Padre Pio for example, one of the greatest mystics of our times, and one of many: ‘Masonry will evade the Vatican all the way up to the Pope’s slippers.’ I guess no one takes any of that seriously. Padre Pio was just a loon? We are to trust that ALL Papal elections are valid and Popes are ALWAYS infallable even to the time of Jesus second coming? Somehow, there is not much awareness that any time, including now COULD BE ‘end times’. Not saying that it is now, but no one watches? There will never be a ‘bad Pope’ that needs ‘correction’ ? Incredible. That the mysticism of the Church has been terribly damaged since Vat. ll is so very evident, even among ‘traditional’ Catholics.
Watch and Pray…..my motto.
Mr. Voris lost his way …
Donald R. McClarey well said!
Mu comments were not published. The question I asked remains unanwswered. What was offensive or OTT about my post? Why was it not published?
ton@unasancta.com
I have no idea what happened to your comments Tom. They are not in our Trash or Spam files and I did not delete them.
[…] In Charge – Donald R. McClarey JD, TACth A Hegelian Papacy? – Brian Miles, One Peter 5 Michael Voris, Say Hi to Saint Paul – Donald R. McClarey JD, TACthlc Numerical Defeats Never before Witnessed by Any Pope – […]