26. February, 2014Blog Post 85 comments

The now infamous manifesto, ChurchMilitant.TV Will Not Engage in Public Criticism of the Pope, is causing a sizable stir among some traditional Catholics and one might reasonably wonder why.

We have bigger fish to fry than this, don’t we?

The visible structures of the Church have been crumbling for forty-plus years right before our very eyes, the pope himself belittles us on a regular basis, and changes are coming under this pontificate the likes of which one shudders to even imagine.

And yet, we still find time to fret over the opinion of Michael Voris.

That CMTV shies away from directly confronting the pope’s words and actions is nothing new. The crucial issue, as I see it, concerns the comments that are made in this document about the SSPX, the Remnant, and good men like John Vennari and Christopher Ferrara.

So, what to make of it all?

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

The document in question was forwarded to me (by someone I won’t name) back on February 6th – the very day Michael Voris took off for Ireland, a journey that was followed almost immediately by a trip to the Philippines, rendering him largely unavailable for comment as it made its rounds. How long it existed prior to that, I don’t know.

While I’m left to merely speculate about some things, here’s what I do know:

It’s been obvious for some time that Michael Voris is not interested, at least for now, in directly confronting the pope’s offenses against the Faith. That’s his call. Can it be frustrating? Sure, but as I sit here today I’m not going to make this the litmus test for whether or not his work is of any value.

I like Michael a lot. Are we in absolute agreement on all things? No, but who is?

While he and I aren’t exactly drinking buddies, I’ve spent enough time with him to know that his commitment to the Church is as genuine as anyone’s. Mine was as genuine as anyone else half a dozen years ago too, back when I pretty much bought the company line about the SSPX and Vatican II – hook, line and sinker.

Here’s the point: There isn’t a single person reading this post who hasn’t grown to the place they occupy today. This time next year, God willing, all of us will have grown in the Faith further still.

At some point in time, barring Divine intervention, I suspect that there’s a good chance Michael Voris will be forced by circumstances to publicly address the Pontiff’s shortcomings. In the meantime, why not cut the guy some slack on his papal silence?

These are not “normal” times in the life of the Church. People of goodwill, like Michael, who are far more brothers-in-arms than an adversaries, are sincerely struggling to figure out how best to respond to the crisis at hand in the most constructive way possible. Obviously, we’re not always going to get it right and we’re going to have disagreements, sometimes even on things that are crucially important. We can thank the Devil for that.

For my part, I decided to address the pope’s foibles directly. In return, even though I reach some people I may not otherwise, still, I reach far less on the whole. Diocesan and parish conferences are a thing of the past, one-time supporters among various bishops, priests and theologians have run for the hills like horses from a barn fire, Catholic News Agency (among other outlets) has dropped me after five years, and on and on it goes.

I don’t regret it in the least, but that’s the reality. Who’s to say that in the long run my approach is the be-all-end-all and Voris is blowing it? I’m not.

And now we get to the part of the manifesto where the scent of a rodent is nearly impossible to avoid.

As far as the Society is concerned, Michael Voris has never, at least insofar as I’m aware, used the CMTV platform to attack the SSPX as “sedevacantist” or even “soft sedevacantist,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.

Is he an SSPX supporter? No, but as far as I can tell (mystery document aside), there is nothing in his track record that indicates that this is the hill he wants to die on.

Michael kindly invited me to do a “Roman Forum” segment with him a couple of years ago in which I was able to freely offer, to the best of my own knowledge at the time, the Society’s case, during which time he asked pointed questions but never denigrated, belittled or insulted Archbishop Lefevre or the SSPX in the least.

Michael has had Christopher Ferrara on his air more than once, most recently (I believe) in August. He has also collaborated with Remnant publisher, Michael Matt, and he has been a good friend to me over the past couple of years in the work that I’m doing, having me as a guest any number of times in spite of my own vocal criticism of the pope’s rhetoric.

One should also note that Michael Voris has a lengthy track record of ignoring his detractors. Twenty-five hundred word essays explaining and defending his positions are not his style. Not even close. In addition to that, the only thing this document accomplished was slandering the SSPX and dragging friendly collaborators through the mud. Also not his style.

No, this isn’t Voris’ work. This is just my opinion, of course, but I don’t believe for a moment that Michael Voris wrote this document, nor do I believe he commissioned it as written, even if he privately agrees with much of its content.

This thing has been floating around for at least three weeks, unsigned. Even those who despise Michael Voris have to admit that this isn’t his M.O.

Like him or not, Voris doesn’t insulate himself from his own positions. His name and his face are attached to all of his opinions. He is CMTV, and yet, this goofy document moves about anonymously for nearly a month?

It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to recognize that someone else is pushing this envelope.

Who might that someone be?

Well, whoever it is has obviously deluded himself into believing that going to war with the SSPX, and denouncing the work of people like Christopher Ferrara (whom Michael Voris clearly respects) is an act of Christian heroism.

It also appears obvious, given the fact that the still-unsigned document is now on the CMTV website, that he has managed to insert himself into a position of influence over CMTV’s operations.

I would bet dollars to donuts that this person’s personal crusade is starting to wear pretty thin right about now. (If it’s not, it should be.)

Though it seems obvious enough that this person took liberties in speaking on behalf of CMTV, Michael is now left to deal with it. At some point, he may even feel “compelled,” for lack of a better word, to lay personal claim to its authorship. If so, don’t believe it.

In conclusion, I don’t think Michael Voris invited this, and to be honest, I doubt he’s given it nearly as much thought as many of my friends.

My advice? Pray for Michael Voris and just suspend judgment for the time being. He obviously has his hands full with the crusading ghost writer who created this mess.

  1. S.Armaticus. February 26, 2014 8:04 pm

    “It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to recognize that someone else is pushing this envelope. Who might that someone be?”
    Suspect Number 1. I bring you deacon Sandy!
    OK, It’s probably not deacon Sandy, but I just couldn’t resist. They say that truth is stranger than fiction.
    As far as the attack on the SSPX is concerned, not surprised. Case in point: “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.”

  2. Augustine February 26, 2014 8:46 pm

    I appreciate Michael Voris’ efforts. The prospect of navigating his way through this Papacy must be very trying for him. I don’t see how a bunch of sedevacantist or hard-identity traditionalist hate mail (atop the heaps of leftist hate mail he must get) could compel Mr. Voris to write such a vehement and broadly addressed statement.

    Perhaps working day-in-and-out at CMTV inculcucates a certain uniform apologetic “voice” in the employees, but much of this really sounds like Voris. If he did write this (which I more strongly suspect), it’s a sign that this terrible dichotomy of fighting for the Church and increasingly feeling undercut by the Pope is getting to Mr. Voris as much as it is to the rest of us.

    There are bumpy times ahead for CMTV. Mr. Voris always struck me as an son of the Church, but his combative posturing running up against topical taboos, his perplexing, oversized hipster-trad persona, and now self-alienation from would-be Catholic allies does not bode well for the long-term viability of his media outfit.

  3. Halina February 26, 2014 8:59 pm

    Louie, just today I have received a confirmation from a friend (one of the above mentioned), that the article is true…..and Michael is it’s ‘author’.
    I tell you why I believe it………for several years, I have been on and off thrown out of their email address. Why? Because, I have corrected him, every time he ‘criticized’ the bishops, reminding him that the sheep always follows THE SHEPHERD. Their response was always, that they will not tolerate any negative remarks regarding the ‘conciliar popes’.
    Also, as far as the SSPX……..they are NOT supporters of the SSPX, when some friends (including myself) have written to them in support of SSPX, they simply say….. NO Catholic should attend their Mass, because they are schismatic.

    ….how about Ms. Terry…….let us read her message from your blog again…….

    Terry Carroll December 24, 2013 10:13 pm
    Hey Spartacus,

    Please write me at ChurchMilitant.TV. We can help each other make the case against support, encouragement or participation in the SSPX.

    Louie doesn’t seem to recognize the irony in his analogy, that both neighbors are not members of “Pete’s” household. The SSPX are a bit like a wife who discerns that her husband is no longer worthy to be her husband so, for the sake of herself and their children, leaves him and, maybe, finds a different husband who will be better for herself and their children. Or, if she doesn’t leave him, remains “faithful” but attacks him relentlessly so that her children know that they shouldn’t respect him. In either case, such a wife contributes to the destruction of her family, either from inside or outside the family structure.

    Write me at terrycarroll@churchmilitant.tv

  4. Ziemek February 26, 2014 9:00 pm

    Mr. Verrecchio is out of CNA… It is seeming that not only for the Pope is something worse that being a open heretic.

    Mr. Verrecchio you are in my prayers.

  5. Alphonsus Jr. February 26, 2014 9:01 pm

    If it’s not Voris, it’s most likely executive producer Terry Carroll. A couple of years ago on Fish Eaters he was induced to craft a lengthy message, reading much like this, explaining their policy of silence on the Assisi scandals. Then again, a certain coarse quality to certain aspects of this latest NeoCatholic manifesto indicates that Voris did indeed write it, or at least had a hand in writing.

    At any rate, the comparison of The Remnant and Catholic Family News, along with the excellent Christopher Ferrara and John Vennari, to “ecclesiastical pornography” is truly base and despicable, as is the ignorant absurd suggestion that those of the SSPX are sedevacantists.

    Much more could be mentioned. I look forward to a thorough refutation, by Christopher Ferrara and/or John Vennari, of this nauseating screed.

  6. Mark February 26, 2014 9:16 pm

    What will be interesting is that CMTV’s Mic’d Up tonight will be partly on Patrick Archibold’s article on Pope Francis and the SSPX. Can’t wait to see what gets said…

  7. linda stella zentner February 26, 2014 9:22 pm

    dear earlier commentors:
    well, how do I say this? Through tears I say-how you speak is how Catholics speak. Clearly. Unambiguously. Pointed. With erudition. I thank you for it.
    one of the first things I thought was “I can’t wait to hear from Halina on this ! ” And you did not disappoint. God love you.
    dear Alphonsus Jr. ,
    yes, there is much more that could be mentioned. And I so agree with you, and stated well. Voris, Carroll or w h o e v e r —- say more about themselves in attempting to denegrate Mr. Vennari and Mr. Ferrara than anything negative they could possibly say about these two fine and outstanding Catholic men.
    Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us.

  8. Halina February 26, 2014 10:03 pm

    Sure, we pray for Michael, that one day he may (God Willing), open his eyes and see the light. Of course we should not judge him, BUT, nor should we overlook his silence, where ‘voice’ is most needed.
    Your observation on Cardinal Burke, Louie, can easily be applied to Michael Voris……”The point is simply this: Cardinal Burke has a toe in traditionalism and a foot in “newchurch.”

    He has a lot to learn (that was one of my messages to him…..in sincerity) about the Catholic Faith before he can rightly call himself a Militant Catholic. Otherwise, he misrepresents the ‘Church Militant’….no favor, nor help from Michael, for the true Soldiers of Christ!

    My dear sister in Christ Linda……God Love You!

    Viva Cristo Rey!

  9. Steve February 26, 2014 10:20 pm

    Why is it on all of these “Traditional Catholic” blogs that everyone insists on ignoring the “800 pound gorilla” in the room that would suggest that these times we find ourselves in are part of prophecies fulfilled that speak precisely about all of this? The False Prophet, The Two Popes, The smoke of Satan in the Vatican, Everything withheld from the world contained in the Third Secret of Fatima? All of these prophecies speak not of times gone by, but in my opinion reference these very times. I know that in my own family there is a deep divide between those who believe Pope Francis is wonderful and refreshing, and those including my wife and I who believe our eyes and ears are wide open to what we are witnessing in our generation as a fulfillment of prophecy, mostly by church approved sources! I would strongly encourage everyone to read Kelly Bowring’s latest book: The Signs Of The Times..The New Ark and the Coming Kingdom of the Divine Will, and do your own research. All of this has led us to seeking out and finding a Parish that offers a Traditional Latin Mass, shepherded by a Pastor who understands that something is “rotten in Denmark” or should I say, Rome, and yet who calls on all of us to pray hard for the Pope. Praise God, and Come Lord Jesus.

  10. Magdalen February 26, 2014 10:31 pm

    I am with Louie that MIchael Voris is a person of integrity and he does not hide behind anonymity. He is getting pushback from all sides. His opinions have been evolving. I believe he now attends a TLM. Some people point out the “irregularities” that are issuing forth from Rome. Some do not. Why are so many tearing each other apart?

  11. Catholic Militant February 26, 2014 10:48 pm

    Based on email “conversations” I have had with Voris spokesperson, Simon Rafe, I wouldn’t doubt this came from him. However, the buck stops with Voris. He should be keeping an eye on things and putting a lid on those who represent him.

  12. Bubbles February 26, 2014 10:51 pm

    You already know what I think of Voris’ statements. He refused to return my call about the lie he reported on the SSPX funeral of the ex-Nazi in France and he never retracted it. However, everything is confirmed for me when I saw who Voris had on as an expert witness against Medjugore (I believe it’s demonic, but prefer Fr. Luigi’s testimony). E.M.Jones debated Michael Davies on whether
    The Society of St. Pius X was schismatic or not. He lost the debate handsdown and then began to attack Davies personally. Christopher Ferrara was on the panel and also nailed him on some of his statements. He’s a jerk in my estimation and not a credible person. If. Voris is using him, it confirms everything I’ve said and believe about him. And if he refuses to make a statement on this entire situation that is happening now, then I also say he’s a coward!

  13. Pooh Bear February 26, 2014 10:55 pm

    I think that we all need to be very careful not to fall into hatred for the person of the Pope, and blog writers all need to be very careful not to speak in ways which encourage same, through sarcasm, for example. We must pray for him. Beyond that, I am trying (but blogs don’t help!) to distance myself, to cover my ears if you will, from anything that comes from Pope Francis. This is for my own good. Shocking that I can even say that, but I think we have enough to be getting on with as regards prayer, Sacraments, and reading the lives of the saints etc…

  14. Torquemada Tequila February 27, 2014 12:19 am

    It is simple, really. Voris is probably fire-walling CMTV against sedebenedictplenism, the latest pet theory for those among the “recognize & resist” traditionalist crowd looking to deny Francis is pope, but cannot bring themselves to embrace full-fledged sedevacantism. So they argue Pope Benedict’s papal resignation was invalid and that he remains the valid pope.

    In the past six months sedebenedictplenism has gained a certain cachet among the Fatima crowd as first Fr. Paul Kramer publicly embraced the theory on his facebook page, and then Chris Ferrara published the following article in the Remnant:


    Since both Vennari and Ferrara are connected to the Fatima crowd, it makes sense that Michael Voris target them to inoculate his viewers should he feel a split inevitable come the upcoming canonization of John Paul II.

  15. Torquemada Tequila February 27, 2014 12:25 am

    P.S. Louie, I believe John Paul II’s canonization will likely be the catalyst for you and many other R&R’ers embracing sedevacantism.

  16. Halina February 27, 2014 12:37 am

    Magdalen………Why are so many tearing each other apart?
    ………WHY? Because, neither the conciliar Popes, nor the Bishops, nor the Cardinals, nor the priests are ‘united in Christ’ to ‘save souls’!………apostasy, mistrust, deceit, blasphemy, corruption, sodomy (a perpetual scandal for the faithful, joy to the enemy).
    Catholics who love God, love the Mother Church, are frightened, confused, and even ‘bitter’, they no longer look up to the Church Hierarchy for shelter.
    The darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome is most frightening, almost hopeless to the faithful. Only with the grace of God and the help of the blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, is our Holy Hope.
    Did not Our Lord say…….’I have not come to bring peace, but division…….a sword’!
    This is precisely the reason that we had Crusades, Inquisition, Councils that pronounced ‘anathemas’………….to destroy the heresy, apostasy…… To preserve, and protect the Holy Faith, and the faithful.

    All must be restored in Christo Domino, in Christ the Lord, in Rome as elsewhere……including Catholic ‘hearts’.

  17. Fr. Robert Mann SCJ February 27, 2014 12:39 am

    Dear Louie, I have great respect for Michael Voris and have enjoyed many a program on CMTV including your own series on the documents of Vatican II. I think any truly faithful and devout Catholic instinctively recoils from criticism of the Holy Father, especially in the public arena, but it is difficult to see how one can remain silent in the face of continuous public utterances from the Pope that clearly undermine the content and force of Catholic teaching. As a priest trying to uphold the Catholic Faith in a city parish the sense of abandonment by the bishops is tough enough to bear but when the Pope also utters statements that are ambiguous and directly undermine the Faith the sense of abandonment by the Shepherds is powerfully reinforced and endorses the disastrous strategy that has been adopted since Vatican 2.
    Like yourself, Louie, I have seen many who I once counted as friends distance themselves from me because of the promotion of the traditional liturgy, and for seeking to defend the sacraments and promote proper reception of holy communion, have been lambasted by parishioners and been the subject of complaints to diocesan authorities. There was a time when we could look to the See of Peter to uphold our cause but that view is now obscured and the confusion and darkness enveloping the Catholic world is causing great tribulation. Of course, I believe that Christ will be true to his promise never to abandon the Church but I can see no earthly sign as to how she will be rescued from the grip of this apostasy, yet I know that God in his mysterious providence will bring it about in His own good time and in a way known only to Him.

  18. Nell February 27, 2014 12:53 am

    “It is our judgment that most Catholics should not read articles and essays such as those above by Christopher A. Ferrara and John Vennari, nor similarly themed articles and essays available elsewhere. We also believe that such articles and essays should not be published anywhere for public consumption but, rather, reserved for those capable of reading such without risk of damaging their faith in the Church and the Vicar of Christ.”
    This quote bothers me more than anything.
    I subscribe to Church Militant Tv and also donate and I happen to like Mr. Voris but on this point I disagree. If I didn’t have sites like this to come to or articles by stated authors to read I would leave or never have come back to the faith after listening to the Pope. I lost a good deal of faith listening to Cardinal Bernadine in Chicago. When I was young and I would hear Bernadine talk I would think to myself, “he doesn’t believe, this is all a sham”. Even though I attended Catholic schools, nothing of the faith was taught thanks to Bernadine so I had no outlet to go to to understand what in the world was happening. So of course as soon as I could I left the faith and lived a disgustingly sinful life. When I listen to Pope Francis or Bishop of Rome? I have the same exact inner response. He believes for sure but what I hear is “just be a good person and you’ll find God in your own way”. After having to sit through nauseating and to be honest creepy and repulsive Novus Ordo’s(priest has congregation do the hand signal while singing Alleluia) week in and week out and then on top of it having to listen to “just be a good person and you’ll find God in your own way”. I’d be the heck out. It is only because I learned the faith, understand what is happening and why there is so much bizarre goings on among the clergy, Bishops, Cardinals and Pope. Much of this is due to reading sites such as this, the SSPX and writer’s mentioned above. I do not attend SSPX service but I can tell you I greatly sympathize with them and most of the criticism I hear is blind ignorance.
    We all have to find our way and hiding the ugly truths isn’t a help to anyone. We must make our choices based on all of the truths(good&bad).

  19. Nell February 27, 2014 1:04 am

    “Torquemada Tequila February 27, 2014 12:25 am
    P.S. Louie, I believe John Paul II’s canonization will likely be the catalyst for you and many other R&R’ers embracing sedevacantism.”
    The devil is taunting but is a dupe because it is clear to anyone who reads Louie that he will never leave The Bride of Christ.

  20. Torquemada Tequila February 27, 2014 1:29 am

    @Neil – We will see once Francis canonizes John Paul II.

  21. Tradical February 27, 2014 2:03 am

    My first thought was this is a case of a ‘Blue on Blue’ engagement caused by the fog of war.

    Also, the sspx just posted a calm edifying response, that at the same time provides a response for Torquemada Tequila.


    Ultimately, the difficulty that the problem that I see with their ‘stance’ is that Pope Francis (in my opinion) is probably causing more people to lose the faith than CMTV is winning back to the faith.

    Oh well, just in time for lent!


  22. Tradical February 27, 2014 2:04 am

    oops – should have read:

    Ultimately, the problem that I see with their ‘stance’ is that Pope Francis (in my opinion) is probably causing more people to lose the faith than CMTV is winning back to the faith.

  23. Halina February 27, 2014 2:22 am

    ….from Fr. Franz Schmidberger (2005)…….sound truth yesterday, same for today and for ever……….

    Let us not be discouraged or be of little faith seeing the passion of the Church, but let us neither have illusion about the state of things. The overcoming of the crises of the Church depends much also on each of us, it must be surmounted in ourselves first. We must persevere in our battle like Gedeon who fought a large army with only 300 courageous men, or like the Maccabees where one father with his five sons restored the religious order in Israel, or like Gregory VII who died in exile with these words on his lips: “I have loved justice and I have hated injustice; that is why I die in exile.” He himself did not see the fruits of his courageous action, but later on his reform bore its fruits and granted full freedom to the Church.

    Virgo fidelis ora pro nobis — Virgin most faithful, pray for us.

    If I may, I would like to recommend to all http://www.sspx.org , please read a very good article “Sedevacantism: a dead-end error”.

    Dear Fr. Mann, I will remember you in my prayers.

  24. Tradical February 27, 2014 2:25 am

    A follow-up, some food for thought in these trying times:


  25. Torquemada Tequila February 27, 2014 2:34 am

    Of course the Bishop Fellay faction of the SSPX is taking a hard stand against sedevacantism at the moment. Sedevacantism, and its numerous variants, has pulverized the (Resistance faction of the SSPX since the resignation of Pope Benedict and the election of Pope Francis. Bishop Williamson, Fr. Chazal and Fr. Pfeiffer have basically lost control of Resistance laity, most of whom now openly embrace some variation of sede’ism.

    Hedging his bets, Bishop Williamson has even admitted that while he disagrees with sedevacantism, he believes it an acceptable theory for traditionalists to hold.

    Additionally, Bishop Sandborn (not sedevacantist strictly speaking, but as a leading sedeprivationist is often mistaken for one) is pwning Bishop Williamson right now in the exchange of public letters over sedevacantism.

    Having been around the traditionalist movement several decades, I have noticed that about every decade or so a large number of SSPX admirers and supporters defect to sedevacantism. The last major defections in the United States was around 2005-2006 when Gerry Matatics, Mario Derksen, Dr. Tom Drolesky, Michael & Cindy Cain, “Fr” Morrison at Traditio, and many other high-profile R&R traditionalists embraced sedevacantism. So we about due for another big wave.

    Very likely when Pope Francis canonizes John Paul II.

  26. Torquemada Tequila February 27, 2014 2:39 am

    P.S. Fisheaters has a good thread on the Bishop Sandborn vs. Bishop Williamson debate by public letter over sedevacantism:


  27. Halina February 27, 2014 3:03 am

    Torquemada Tequila……..for your information ‘the Fatima crowd’ are Soldiers of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Soldiers of Christ, who are simply following and defending, the ‘holy warnings’ from the Mother of God! Who predicted our times of the ‘diabolical disorientation’. Since her ‘requests’ were ignored by seven Popes…….mainly consecration of Russia in communion with all the bishops of the Universal Church, since their disobedience to Mother of God, the result is what we are seeing today……. that Satan has unleashed all the powers of hell to preserve his fluorising kingdom on Earth. And he has directed his primary attack at the Popes and clergy of the Catholic Church. These spiritual chastisements are far graver……for they have eternal consequences.
    These consequences are visible and crystal clear to all who have ‘eyes’, and ‘ears’ to hear. This is why Catholics have become ‘split pea soup’……….and yes, even sedevacantists. The scandals within are ‘shamefully scandalous’…….the hearts of many good Catholics are broken, but at the same time full of hope, remembering the promise of their Saviour…….’the gates of hell will NOT prevail against the holy Church! The dark clouds of their hearts are filled with the life of their Saviour……….this is not a curse on Catholics, but rather a ‘blessing’. The faithful must be tried in the fire…….as gold. To save our souls is the meaning of our life……our hearts desire ‘HEAVEN’.
    While Satan is tossing our hearts as he pleases, the good Angels are sifting thru, to save the good that is left in some Catholics. Ave Maria!

    May God give us the grace to ‘keep the faith’……..
    ‘Dum Spiramus Tuebimur”……’While We Breathe We Shall Defend’!

  28. Torquemada Tequila February 27, 2014 3:27 am

    Which seven popes, Halina? Do you subscribe to the same theory as many among the Fatima crowd that Benedict is still pope?

  29. Halina February 27, 2014 4:01 am

    ….a correction…..eight Popes…..here they are…..
    Pope Pius XI- (1922-1939)
    Pope Pius XII – (1939-1958)
    Pope John XXIII – (1958-1963)
    Pope Paul VI – (1963-1978)
    Pope John Paul I – (1978-1978)
    Pope John Paul II – (1978-2005)
    Pope Benedict XVI – (2005-2013)
    Bishop of Rome Francis – (2013…..)

    If, I may recommend for you to read “The Consecration of Russia” by John Salza and Robert Sungenis……trust me, as soon as you read and understand, your heart will be set on fire, your eyes will be opened, your ears cleansed. I kind of sense from your tone……that your heart is ‘restless’…….you are also tasting the bitter fruits……..welcome to the ‘Fatima Twilight’!

  30. Redfeather February 27, 2014 4:07 am


    The crumbs of Catholicism you experienced growing up has recurred millions and millions of times since the late 60s. Very little of the truth, power, beauty, intelligence and integrity of the Faith has been transmitted. I’m old enough to remember strong catechesis after school taught by lay-people on public school premesis in the early 60s. It was there I learned the tenents of the Baltimore Catechism, learned the Acts of Hope, Faith and Love, and was prepared in a sublime manner to receive First Holy Communion. The transcendence of the liturgy was palpable and I understood the parts of the Mass even as a 3rd grader–the Introit, the Collect, etc. My little mind was like a sponge seeking truth and beauty. Post Vatican II catechesis was bereft of anything profound, anything of value. I too, barely clung to the Faith and was swept away by the sexual revolution. When Benedict ascended to the Throne of Peter, it is as if the scales fell from my eyes immediately. I remember a young woman, joyous in St. Peter’s Square saying, “At last, an end to syncreatism” and not knowing what that meant! I was intrigued. Weary after 25 years of happy clappy Catholicism I read everything I could find written by Benedict, instructed myself in the Faith, and was on fire. I will never leave the One True Faith and if I must, will die in prison for her, or worse! (yikes!) I am bereft at the very thought of Pope Francis and he is in my daily prayers, but he, too will pass. How damaged Holy Mother Church will be I know not. I feel Benedict’s influence will echo down the centuries however, as the man who saved, yes saved Western Civilization with his Moto in freeing the TLM.

  31. Redfeather February 27, 2014 4:10 am

    That last line should read Moto Proprio in freeing the TLM.

  32. Redfeather February 27, 2014 4:40 am

    I subscribe to CMTV but did inquire of the organization why Michael Voris is not hesitant to criticize the bishops but is silent on the matter of the Francis, the Pope. A fellow named Simon, rather snippy with me in prior e-mails, must have felt he hit pay-dirt and dashed the piece discussed above to me. This occured about 3 weeks ago. I have mixed feelings, but do feel that CMTV remains good at diagnosing malady but is in some sort of delusional mode. I too, feel CMTV is not long for this cyberworld if they avoid discussion of Francis. . The truth matters. CMTV tries to explain its rationale by likening Francis to a drunk and naked Noah who needs our protection, but Francis has been impaired since day one and remains so. He has not uttered one word with the passage of child euthanasia in Belgium. Are we not the shivering lambs who need his protection!? I am not a sedevacantist, nor do I have no access to the TLM here in this hinterland diocese where the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter may just as well be Klingons, so I can be called a Traditionalist in theory only. I’m just a regular, long-suffering Catholic attending Protestantized, circus atmosphere Novus Ordo Masses where the priets, within their sermons, have called Obama “a good man” and “gay marriage is a matter of social justice”.

  33. Alphonsus Jr. February 27, 2014 4:45 am

    Torquemada Tequila, you say “the Fatima crowd” with a sneer. Kindly explain. Do you reject Fatima?

  34. Paul Folbrecht February 27, 2014 4:46 am

    God bless you, Louie, for willingly accepting this cross you have been given.

  35. Paul Folbrecht February 27, 2014 5:46 am

    “It is our judgment that most Catholics should not read articles and essays such as those above by Christopher A. Ferrara and John Vennari, nor similarly themed articles and essays available elsewhere. We also believe that such articles and essays should not be published anywhere for public consumption but, rather, reserved for those capable of reading such without risk of damaging their faith in the Church and the Vicar of Christ.”

    I agree with part of this statement.

    Catholics whose faith is not strong enough to not be damaged by the crisis in the Church should strengthen their faith before facing the truth of what is occurring.

    This group would seem to include Mr. Voris and others in the upper hierarchy of his organization.

  36. saluto February 27, 2014 6:23 am

    I agree, Louie, that Voris is not illogical and lead by fancy, he wouldn’t use the repeated phrase, ‘ecclesisatical porn’, ‘spiritual porn’, becuase it implies that the Pope and his cohorts are in fact publically spritually and ecclesiastically corrupt – which is further than any site Iv’e seen, save the Novus Ordo Watch. If the writer reconsidered what it meant to say that people being aware of the words and actions of Francis could damage their faith – nothing more need be said. Our betters are peddling spiritual and ecclesiasticl Porn and all with a smile and a new magazine cover. One would have to retreat to an Eastern Orthodox high mountain monastery to be untouched by this. How can a Catholic ignore and Pope, a Bishop, Priest – how can the sheep ignore the shepherd?

    CMTV will have to issue a formal apology to those good soldiers Michael Matt, Christopher Ferara and John Venneri who have been battling and fighitng for Christ’s Church way longer than Mr Voris. I think this had to have been written by a rogue ‘do-gooder’ who just doesn’t understand that any Bishop contradicting faith and morals and eccelisastical law in any way is promulgating ‘ecclesisastial porn’. To make any pointed remarks about sedevacantism and ‘soft sed,! the SSPX have never dismissed the Office of the Pope. For good reason they have built on the permissions of Popes and chosen to ride through the contrariness of those able to impact on the future of those decisions. If Voris comes out and says upfront that he wrote or supports this drive-by statement against Michael Matt, and Ferara, and Vennari then…well then we’ll see. It is interesting to note that those older soldiers are on the Southern Poverty Scam hate list. So far, it would seem CMTV has laid low enough to miss that bullet.

    p.s. Louie from the ‘it’s been obvious…all the way down to ‘vocal criticism of the popes…’ there is a list of pharmacy items as brown fields saying ‘buy’ ‘viagra…silagra…[and something called] ‘celebrix’. I think someone’s trying to corrupt the site. Hopefully your pharmacy groceries list didn’t slip in somehow. God Bless, good and worthly soldier, protector of sheeps and even shepherds.

  37. saluto February 27, 2014 6:31 am

    p.s. Tradical said: Ultimately, the difficulty that the problem that I see with their ‘stance’ is that Pope Francis (in my opinion) is probably causing more people to lose the faith than CMTV is winning back to the faith.
    I agree – Bishop Bergoglio, since his ‘reign; would have encouraged countless sasexsmars, countless abortions, countless lost opportunities to evangelise, countless pain and confusion amongst those who know and love their faith.

    People in media have said as much, and those in education are now faced in class with (to the teacher) but you’re wrong, Pope Francis said it was ok to…..

    by comparison, CMTV? at least they are building up, and not tearing down. I have a premium account – was terribly sad loosing Fr Pablo.

  38. Allworth February 27, 2014 6:36 am

    Imagine in a town in America, there is a police officer that patrols a particular neighborhood. Each day he is on the lookout for criminals as his job is to faithfully protect and service the taxpayers of this community. Because of his diligence as a cop, he has caught many thieves who were trying to break into people’s homes. He is well respected for his great police work.

    Then one day, he goes by a particular home and notices two crimes going on at the same time. The first crime is a case of some teenagers vandalizing the home with graffiti. The teenagers look familiar. The second crime in progress is at the same home, he notices someone with a can of gasoline setting fire to the home. He looks at the face of the perpetrator and notices that it’s his boss, the police chief. He then looks back at the teenagers and notices that they are the police chief’s sons.

    What does he do?

    Instead trying to stop the police chief from burning down the house, the beat cop chooses to apprehend the teenagers and gives them a stern lecture and puts on his “bad cop” face. He is well respected in the community for being a tough guy cop. Nothing ever happens to the teenagers but the cop feels good that he was able to stop the crime and help keep the problem of graffiti at bay. The cop thinks about having a talk with their father the police chief but decides against it.

    Why does the beat cop do this?

    He rationalizes to himself that if he turns in his boss, he will lose his job and the reputation of town will suffer because of the ensuing scandal. Many concerned citizens would probably leave this town if they knew how corrupt their police chief was. So the beat cop decides to stay quiet and watches as the house burns down.

    Meanwhile the police chief is in fact a habitual arsonist continues to burn down houses. Eventually all of the homes are burned down and the town is no more and the cop loses his job– all because he wanted to keep his job and prevent a scandal from happening.

  39. Barbara Jensen February 27, 2014 7:49 am

    Not to address the problem of the ‘pope of Rome’, while addressing the difficulties caused by the other bishops of the Church, is to ignore the root of the problem. Bergoglio has stated that he plans to delegate ‘doctrinal authority’ to the Bishops’ Conferences. This will shatter papal authority, as Francis knows well, and set the stage for a ‘new global church. Church Militant has lost credibility with its failure to deal with the reality of apostasy at the top. Shame on them.

  40. saluto February 27, 2014 8:03 am

    Allworth: nice analogy. To ignore sin is to make oneself to make oneself a party to it. While people in their ‘prudent’ silence think their obeisance it more important, they are lending themelves to all those abortions that tool place when Francis eased consciences on that (and he did, because when he came out with his ‘throwaway culture’ address where the unborn child was one in a list of possible thowaways – lefty media turned on him, for a bit, because they had felt certain he had , come over to their side. Not to mention samessex marigge bills – yep his opion tipped those scales to. But he doesn’t seem to care – probably thinks ‘ stupid people,that’s not what I meant.’ who care, anymore Mr Jesuit.

  41. Mark February 27, 2014 8:04 am

    Guys, the CMTV manifesto was revised in the last 12 hrs, since I first read it. There are whole statements removed… Please read the article again and let me know what you think…

  42. S.Armaticus February 27, 2014 10:19 am

    @Allworth: Spot on.
    Here’s what I think.
    1) It would appear to me that the great Age of Chastisement is coming to an end.
    2) Too many honest Faithful recognize the crime perpetrated on the Bride of Christ by the VII crowd.
    3) This Faithful remnant has stopped being cowed into remaining silent, while they see the modernist heretics “burn down” the Church.
    4) And they found their voice.
    5) At the same time, the modernists are dieing, literally, as we speak.
    6) And the modernist’s time of influence on all things Catholic, e.g. litergy, dogma, theology is OVER. (Even deacon Sandy is embarrassed by his ’73 performance – stupidity. :) )
    7) The only course left for the modernist heretics, before departing to their just reward, is to wreak as much havoc as humanly possible.
    8) This havoc is more in the hope of mobilizing a last stand, and hopefully creating a strain of the modernist disease that can survive the great cleansing that is taking place at this time.
    9) Since they are of the evil one, they use the evil ones M.O. (They murmur)
    10) And sometimes they can even influence the gullible, i.e. Voris.
    11) Their M.O. is divide et imperia, through a mix of popalatry and clericalism.
    11) On the surface, it is sad.
    12) But if taken into context, it is actually quite positive.
    13) The communists (being modernists of the evil one themselves) had a great saying. When confronted with objective reality, they tried to ignore the reality by asking : Why are you telling me this information and who does it serve.”
    14) Sums up the Voris letter.
    Anyways, that is how I see the lay of the land.
    I take heart in the above, since the objective reality of the matter is that the SSPX chapels are bursting at the seams, with a normal cross section of the population, while the last N.O. I went to, the congregation had a average age of 70 and 80% female.
    And I think that says it all.
    Archbishop Lefebvre, Great Protector of the Faith, ora pro nobis.
    PS As for the heroic remnant inside the conciliar church taking the battle to the evil one, here is a link: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/02/83-cardinals-and-bishops-who-have.html

  43. linda stella zentner February 27, 2014 10:31 am

    dear S. Armaticus
    Archbishop Lefebvre, most humble missionary priest and sound shepherd , whose soul never harbored the sin of human respect, pray for us.

  44. S.Armaticus February 27, 2014 10:40 am

    Thks Linda.
    More proof of what I wrote above. Joseph Shaw over at the LMS Chairman’s site has a great series about the Death of the Reform of the Reform. Without making any qualitative comments on this “modernist in disguise” liturgical movement, all I will say is good riddance to bad rubbish. It couldn’t happen fast enough.

  45. S.Armaticus February 27, 2014 10:49 am

    More on the taking the fight to the evil one. Over at Fr. Z’s blog, this:
    Money quote – “This is a letter I just sent to a priest friend. I wrote it because I don’t believe we priests should be frightened anymore. [OORAH!]”
    OORAH indeed!!!!!

  46. Edu February 27, 2014 11:17 am

    It’s ironic that Mike Voris should be scathing towards the SSPX when he himself benefits from the work of the late founder of the society, Arch Lefebvre. Mr Voris has praised the glory of traditional catholicism and the TLM in the past, and yet he will not acknowledge the man we ought to thank for in large part for us being able to be the recipients of all these good things. Isn’t this hypocrisy?
    Mr Voris is also scathing towards the “church of nice” and yet he will not criticize THE man who heads this “church of nice/church of man”, or “church of Francis” as a I like to call it.
    Anybody notice a contradiction/doublé standards here?

  47. linda stella zentner February 27, 2014 11:49 am

    dear Edu,
    I know.
    Once again, you are pointed and precise. Thank you.

  48. saluto February 27, 2014 12:23 pm


    passing on the good news, appreciate the Fr Zed link.

    as to Mr Voris, great soldier of Christ – what is most important to Christ? A good shepherd, the sheep, the hireling? we can’t pretend that a pope is the only human being who’s fruits may not be judged, good, or bad.

  49. Torquemada Tequila February 27, 2014 12:57 pm


    No, I am not interested in reading anything written by Salza or Sungenis, especially not after their goofy “Bible apologetics” treatises promoting geocentrism. Especially when a literal reading of the Bible yields more arguments for Flat Earth Theory than for geocentrism.

    And my confidence in the rest of “Fatima, Inc” – as Fr. Cekada refers to them – is quickly fading too, as one-by-one they seem to be following Fr. Paul Kramer (and now Chris Ferrara perhaps with his latest Remnant article) into sedebenedictplenism or the absurd theory that Benedict remains the true Pope and Francis is an antipope.

  50. erucolindor February 27, 2014 1:41 pm

    Ness says: “it is clear to anyone who reads Louie that he will never leave The Bride of Christ.”

    I think we already have a mess big enough, so please, at least try not to mis-represent the various sides of the argument here!

    The SVs are _not_ encouraging anybody to leave The Bride of Christ.
    They think that the institution in Vatican is _objectively_ _not_ the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore not the Bride of Christ, and therefore nobody should submit to it.

    That’s completely different than wanting to leave the Church.

    They might be right, or they might be wrong, I have not learned enough to decide it. But the question to analyze and argue about is whether or not Francis is Pope, and the institution lead my him is the Church; if that is decided, it automatically decides what to do.

    Nobody wants to leave the Bride of Christ here.

  51. Rodj February 27, 2014 1:49 pm

    Torquemada Tequila,

    I supposed it’s theoretically conceivable that if things get horrific enough, I could be convinced to believe sedevacantism, but I would never be a sedevacantist.

    What do I mean? I mean that if some way, some how, I were to be persuaded that sedevacantism were the only way to explain the current crisis and implosion, I would then simply conclude as well that Catholicism itself is false, and I would leave the Catholcism completely.

    Yes, perhaps some day, if things getting even worse, maybe, somebody could ‘prove’ sedevancantism is the only plausible approach by which to understand Catholicism. But in the process, that person would also be proving to me the falsity of Catholicism in general.

  52. erucolindor February 27, 2014 2:49 pm

    Rodj, I beleive this possible “answer” is also listed, and analyzed, along with the other possibilities, in the book titled “The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church”, by Griff Ruby. Page 149-150.

    Search for “Maybe Catholicism is wrong” here:

  53. erucolindor February 27, 2014 2:53 pm

    Better start reading from page 147… or from the start.

  54. c matt February 27, 2014 3:04 pm

    while the last N.O. I went to, the congregation had a average age of 70 and 80% female.

    I am curious if this is a regional thing. In the South/Southwest, the NO masses seem to be well attended by a healthy cross section of society. Is the 70yo/80%F a North/Northeast phenomena?

    As for Sanborn, he lost credibility with me when he claimed B XVI denied the resurrection of the body. Conveniently, he gave no citations. When I googled it, came across several articles debunking this claim.

    Fidecogitactio has a quote that sums it up well: “God gives some popes, tolerates some popes, and inflicts some popes.” As for the case for sedevacantism, I understand it to be that if a Pope/Magisterium teaches heresy, then they simply cannot be the Pope/Magisterium b/c the P/Mag teaching heresy is a logical impossibility if you believe the claims of Catholicism. The difficulty seems to be what, exactly, quaifies as “official teaching”. I still have a difficult time discerning which various utterances must be taken de fide, etc. Even V II, with its intentionally ambiguous wording, can be taken in a way consistent with Tradition (concededly with near herculean effort). But it seems we are still a ways away from a vacant see. It seems V II and the post-conciliar times are the Church’s “Job” moment.

  55. S.Armaticus February 27, 2014 3:30 pm

    @ c matt: North West side of Chicago.
    However, from what I seen, the Polish mass preceding the English mass was more representative.

  56. erucolindor February 27, 2014 3:47 pm

    @c matt:

    About Ratzinger vs Resurrection, see this article:

    Admittedly, this is nowhere near an unbiased presentation; the authors have obviously reached very strong personal conclusions about the matter in questions.

    But still, they quote the texts faithfully, you can go and see for yourself.

    It’s not so much a denial; more of a “reinterpretation” – which still seems to be totally contrary to Scripture and Catholic Dogma, if you ask me, but hey, I’m just a layman…

  57. erucolindor February 27, 2014 3:59 pm

    More about Ratzinger’s take about the resurrection, see here:
    This article is less angry than the previously linked one.
    If you ask me, the real meat starts at page 5, where Ratzinger effectively starts to diss St. Luke, and questioning his account.

  58. Paul February 27, 2014 4:54 pm

    I fully support Michael Voris, and CMTV. He has taken lots and lots of flack for just what he says about the Church of Nice. He does not need to have the weight of the hierarchy come down upon him again because he is echoing what many, many others are saying about Pope Francis.

    I suggested to one blogger that he turn off his computer and read the lives of the Saints rather than let Pope Francis scandalize him. He chose to become a sedevacantist instead. Go figure. Accuse the Holy Father of heresy, and become a publicly professed heretic yourself in reaction to his words.
    I think Michael is wise. His goal is to spread the entirety of the faith to those willing to listen. Confusing popes are not part of the deposit of faith, and to point out Pope Francis’ odd comments will not help Mr. Voris attain his goal.
    Though I am aware of the issues with Pope Francis, I do not discuss them with just about anybody, because I find that they are unaware of the situation. They are generally so badly catechised that they would not see the problem anyway, so would be left with the understanding that I am anti-Pope or sedevacantist (they would not know what that is either).
    Michael is doing good work, and if he does not want to be dragged into this, he should be respected and left alone.

  59. S.Armaticus. February 27, 2014 5:21 pm

    The Holy Ghost has deployed his forces in the great fightback against the evil one. We should not question his strategy. Even if one (or more) of those cavaliers does (do) a silly. All men on the ramparts, manning their battle stations.
    Oh and one more thing. Let’s not lose sight of the forest… The condition for salvation is not ones views about a pope, but rather possessing the Faith. The SV, in my humble opinion have the faith. The LCWR do not. And I think that is where the dog is buried.

  60. erucolindor February 27, 2014 5:32 pm

    @S.Armaticus, actually, the views about the pope (and the resulting behavior) is very important, and touching upon the question of one’s salvation. The SVs are very much aware that if they are wrong about the pope, then they are in very, very serious situation. See (for example) here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=87&catname=10

  61. Nell February 27, 2014 5:41 pm

    “erucolindor February 27, 2014 1:41 pm
    “Ness says: “it is clear to anyone who reads Louie that he will never leave The Bride of Christ.”
    I think we already have a mess big enough, so please, at least try not to mis-represent the various sides of the argument here!
    The SVs are _not_ encouraging anybody to leave The Bride of Christ.
    They think that the institution in Vatican is _objectively_ _not_ the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore not the Bride of Christ, and therefore nobody should submit to it.
    That’s completely different than wanting to leave the Church.
    They might be right, or they might be wrong, I have not learned enough to decide it. But the question to analyze and argue about is whether or not Francis is Pope, and the institution lead my him is the Church; if that is decided, it automatically decides what to do.
    Nobody wants to leave the Bride of Christ here.”

    Sorry but I think you’re confused. I was referring to the comment of mocking by the devil masked as T. Tequila. I’m not even sure who S.V. is?

  62. erucolindor February 27, 2014 12:58 pm

    @Nell: SV is an acronym for Sedevacatism. So SVs are the sedevacantists.

    I believe you have reacted to Torquemada Tequila’s post, where he mentioned that the upcoming canonizations might push some R&R over the board. (The reasoning here is that canonizations are infallible, but we have ample proof that the current one are fake, which proves that this is not done by the Church. Hence, the see must be vacant.)

    So, T.T. was presenting one of the line of reasoning towards S.V.ism, to which you have reacted saying that Louie won’t live the Bride of Church – thus mis-interpreting the S.V. position as a conscious decision to leave the Church. (Whereas in reality, their position is that what you see in Roma today is not the Church.)

    Is it all clear now?

  63. FeedieB February 27, 2014 1:22 pm

    Oh great. More fighting among the traditionalist crowd. Traditionalists get beaten bloody by everyone in the Church, including other traditionalists. Can we please stop this?! So I like SSPX and you don’t. So Louie V. will criticize the pope but Michael V. won’t. Is that seriously something to fight about? Come on, people. You are making the Church of 2000 year old tradition look very unattractive to the “neo-Cats” who hate us anyway. Stop with your petty bickering!
    Sheesh, I feel like I’m yelling at my sons. But at least they are still children.

  64. linda stella zentner February 27, 2014 1:49 pm

    dear FeedieB
    you’re kidding right?
    spend some time on Mundabor and desensitize. Then return. The way M speaks is the way Catholics always spoke before the culture became highly effeminate and B4 the NO was even a twinkle in Pope John XXIII’s eye.
    dear Bubbles,
    where are you when we need you?
    some of your marvelous direct speak is needed to appropriately respond to the commentor above.

  65. Hannah February 27, 2014 2:45 pm

    I respect and love Michael Voris for his defense of the True Faith. Very few speak the hard truth like he does.
    We all must remember that the apostasy in the Church began at the top, at the Pope. That’s just facts, whether Michael wants to acknowledge that or not.
    Fr. Mann- God bless you. I will pray for you. Please continue to spread the True Faith, even if the enemies of the Church persecute you. That’s a sign you’re doing the will of God.

  66. Halina February 27, 2014 3:13 pm

    Dear FeedieB……You are in no better shape then us. Please, put into practice your patience with us, and it will do you good…….especially, your children. The ‘bickering’ is because……the holy Faith has been tremendously shaken, we are divided in tears, in fear, and laughter (joy). WHY? We are witnessing the greatest betrayals ‘within’ the Church. We fear because the ‘apostasy’ has caught up with us. It is one thing to observe facts, another thing to interpret them, another thing to handle them……..obviously, we are not well equipped to handle it alone (the Shepherds are in ‘lethargy’, or the cause of it), we need Divine Intervention. Our holy Faith is NOT an event, that we just brush over and go to the next, TRUTH is the reason for the ‘bickering’.
    I do not know who said this, but it sounds very appropriate for our solution: “We should be a prayer warriors……and demon destroyers”……..

    Viva Cristo Rey!

  67. c matt February 27, 2014 4:41 pm

    Maybe it’s his German nature, but the Novus Ordo Watch article doesn’t quite doit for me. Ratz doesn’t seemt o be denying outright the resurrection, but saying it is not just a sort of mechanical restitching process of the soul back to the body. Not that it doesn’t include that rejoining, but it includes much more. I’d have to see the complete passages to fairly assess. I get the sense he may be trying to use modernist lingo to make a traditional point (which in and of itself is problematic). Like the term resurrection experience – doesn’t necessarily deny the historical nature. History, after all, is experienced. Modernists do use “experience” as a substitute for historical occurrence, but it does not necessarily have to be a substitute. Again, I’d have to go over the context before I could make an informed judgment, and the NOW article just didn’t provide enough within its own pages. I’ll take a gander at the other one.

  68. FeedieB February 27, 2014 4:45 pm

    Linda and Halina darlings. Please don’t prove me right. Or maybe I should say, please don’t prove Mark Shea right — that we who love Tradition are just bickering crybabies. (I hate it when Shea is right.)

  69. linda stella zentner February 27, 2014 5:01 pm

    dear FeedieB
    get on board, my friend.
    If you’ve been through Shea’s craven rants and still have the guts to come within a yard of a Trad, then you’ve got what it takes.

  70. c matt February 27, 2014 5:02 pm

    erucolindor: No worries, i am just a layman too trying to sort all this wackiness out. Sanborns article is better written, but again I get the sense he sees a dichotomy where there is none (if it was not “just” raising a dead body, then it is a denial of the raising of a dead body). What I take Ratz to be saying is it was the raising, and then some. That does not seem to be a denial to me. I also don’t see where Ratz denies physical resurrection because other folks who God raised later died again, but Jesus doesn’t (e.g., Lazarus). In fact, that is a good point straight from scripture that Jesus’ resurrection is, in fact, something different – in the sense of more than – the other resurrections. Resurrection+, if you will. Sanborn just seems to be trying to find something to criticize – “you say beer with pretzels is better, therefore you deny beer is good!”

  71. c matt February 27, 2014 5:21 pm

    I don’t have access to the sources, but as an attorney, I am very skeptical when someone quotes another who is quoting or discussing others, and attributes that thought to the first person. Thus, when Sanborn quotes Ratz saying “Most exegetes” believe xyz, and then says that’s Ratz’s position, I have to see the language where Ratz actually claims that position as his own, and it’s not Ratz just setting the “Most Exegetes” position on his anvil to crush it. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. Sanborn’s article does provide food for thought. Sanborn is correct that Ratz suffers from Modernist gobbledegook, and I wish his writing were simpler (German, what can you say). Sanborn’s bullet point list toward the end is pretty useful.

  72. MMC February 27, 2014 7:44 pm

    Dang, I’ve been waiting for this to happen. Michael has been ignoring the elephant in the room for awhile…and then he is quoting JPII in his new series “Moral Compass” too which makes me gag…holding JPII up as a model. I love Michael Voris…he is a hero to me…one of the most courageous men alive. He was a light in utter darkness when the insanity in the Church was suffocating me. I read the “manifesto”…it doesn’t sound like him at all. He calls us to be like the Blessed Mother under the cross and just stand there…confident that God’s will is being done. Aren’t we supposed to be the Church Militant? So it’s fine to do nothing while the enemy takes millions of souls via the mouthpiece contd’

  73. MMC February 27, 2014 7:48 pm

    that is Pope Francis? How can CMTV eviscerate Princes of the Church and priests, clergy, theologians etc. and yet for some strange reason the leader of them all, the ONLY one who can do ANYTHING about the madness gets a pass? The problems in the Church aren’t b/c of the Bishops…they are b/c of the LEADER of the Bishops who has allowed and encouraged the evil for decades. Something is going on at CMTV…and I don’t think Michael has a handle on it all. God bless him, he does SOOO much…I don’t want him to get burn out. All of the examples of the manifesto can be easily refuted…St. Paul and St. Catherine of Siena publicly corrected the Pope…and Church teaching cntd’

  74. MMC February 27, 2014 7:52 pm

    demands that we correct and fight back against the error spoken and encouraged by any pontiff. Of course you can “get rid” of a Pope…the Bishops can do so at any time. Dang, don’t these people read St. Robert Bellermine? The saint they noted in Australia can be contradicted by St. Teresa of Avila who walked out of her convent and began her own when they were infected with sin. Justice demands honesty which is truth…for only truth sets you free. I am grateful for bloggers who call out the modernist heretical statements of Pope Francis, it helps me ID truth better and calls out the truth of the insane world we live in. Pope Francis’ words impact me…the “do not judge” has been contd’

  75. MMC February 27, 2014 7:56 pm

    used against me by a eucharistic minister who brought me Christ while I was sick. He gave me Christ in one hand, and then the National Catholic Reporter in the other. *sigh* And the “Noah” reference? Scripture notes the reason for Noah getting drunk…it was the first instance that wine was ever made…in other words, Noah had no idea what was happening to him…and it only happened once. Pope Francis is leading countless souls to perdition…and I’m not supposed to speak against that evil? I will pray for Michael…for CMTV…something is going on there. God bless you Louie for your courageous work of truth. You are a breath of fresh air:+) God bless~

  76. MMC February 27, 2014 8:02 pm

    PS Sorry for the long posts…it’s been building up for awhile:+) Also, if hearing about the destructive words and actions of a Pope makes you lose your faith then you never had it to begin with. Faith isn’t dependent on some fallible leader…even a Pope. Faith is dependent on TRUTH who is Jesus Christ…alive and well on the throne of Heaven and Earth. You don’t stay with a Church b/c of it’s leaders or how it makes you feel…you stay b/c it’s true…regardless of the arrows and hits you get. Pray for our lost Pope, lost Cardinals and Bishops…and thank you Lord for heroic priests and awesome laity like Louie, the Remnant, SSPX, Mundabor AND Michael Voris:+) God bless~

  77. erucolindor February 27, 2014 8:31 pm

    @c matt:

    Yoou say this: “when Sanborn quotes Ratz saying “Most exegetes” believe xyz, and then says that’s Ratz’s position, I have to see the language where Ratz actually claims that position as his own, and it’s not Ratz just setting the “Most Exegetes” position on his anvil to crush it. ”

    An important point to note is that as far as I can tell, back in the old days, when the Holy Office was still functioning properly, and they were (for example) maintaining the index (the list of books deemed harmful to one’s Faith), they didn’t interviewed the authors to examine their internal thoughts behind the books they wrote. If they found that the book is wrong, or even if it’s ambiguous, and can give the readers the wrong impression, and if it was, then they put it on the index.

    The reason for this is that for books, it does not really matter what the author things, the important thing is what the readers get from it.

    So, in the current example, I think the key question is not whether Raz believes that Luke was exaggerating things; it’s a fact that he is spreading this view, and that alone makes this book highly problematic. Only God can sort out the soul, but even we can (and, according to traditional moral theology, we should!) recognize the effects of what one is doing.

    Which, in this case, is spreading heresy..

  78. Halina February 27, 2014 9:24 pm

    So there you have it…sometime between 716 and 687 BC when Isaias penned God’s prophecy, they knew the earth was a globe. And this knowledge that the earth was a globe wasn’t lost to the subsequent generations. The medieval scholars and scientists never doubted the earth is a globe or sphere and by the 15th century the fact the earth was a globe was fully grasped. Christopher Columbus was a devout Catholic and he knew the earth was not flat because he knew the Scriptures.

    Fr. Cekada is Sedevacantist and the SV do not give the Fatima Message much concern and we know why. The Sedevacant belief that we have no legitimate Pope since 1958 is, in essence, calling Our Lord and Lady deceivers because by saying we have no Pope is to remove the means or the person(s) necessary for achieving the Fatima Message made by Heaven. Our Heavenly father wouldn’t give us the task to do something and then remove the means of achieving that task.

    Viva Cristo Rey!………..

  79. Halina February 27, 2014 9:26 pm

    ….I do not understand why the first half of the comment is awaiting moderation, and only the second part is visible…….some mess up again. Sorry for this.

  80. Rodj February 28, 2014 7:55 am

    Amazing that both The Remnant and Catholic Family News, to date, have posted absolutely nothing about this.

    Something is definitely up and and stirring somewhere….

  81. sandra February 28, 2014 10:07 am

    The mystery manifesto seems very odd when considering Voris’ style of writing and way of running the CMTV ship. I’ll take Louie’s advice and suspend judgment on Voris and wait and see.

    Concerning Torquemada Tequila:

    No, I am not interested in reading anything written by Salza or Sungenis, especially not after their goofy “Bible apologetics” treatises promoting geocentrism. Especially when a literal reading of the Bible yields more arguments for Flat Earth Theory than for geocentrism.

    Your comments may have been modified because the subject is Voris, not Sungenis and Geocentrism is off topic. Even so, Thank you for the explanation correcting T T.
    Almighty God created the earth as a globe and a literal reading of Isaias 40:21-22 confirms the truth that the earth is a circular globe: “Do you not know? Hath it not been heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Hath you not understood the foundations of the Earth? It is he that sits upon the globe of the earth…..”

  82. Redfeather February 28, 2014 11:17 am

    MMC–I like what you write. Write more!

  83. saluto February 28, 2014 11:51 am

    but ‘flat earth’ wasn’t ever Catholic – it was introduced during the”Enlightenment’ by revolutionary-lets-pretend-nothing-happened-before-we-were-born lala landers. a few videos on history fro Terry Jones will set ya right.

  84. c matt February 28, 2014 5:16 pm

    erucolindor: I think you misunderstood my comment. The quoted passage started out “Most exegetes say:”. My point was that, is Ratz saying – in his book – that he agrees with them or praises it, or is he doing like St. Thomas and laying out the opposing argument in order to show its fallacy. I can’t tell from the portion quoted in Sanborn’s article whether B XVI agrees with the Exegetes or disagrees with them. All I see is that B XVI stated their position. Lawyers do the same when we write a brief: “My opponent claims XYZ is true” and then we state reasons why XYZ is false – the B XVI quoted portion only shows the first part “Exegetes say” – but then the REST of that part of the book isn’t quoted to say whether BXVI agrees or not with the Exegetes. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t – Sanborn needed to include more of the quote to establish that B XVI does. It has nothing to do with reading someone’s mind – everything to do with reading what someone actually wrote, at least enough of it to make a fair judgment about what he meant.

Only registered users can comment.