Author Topic: Michael Voris (Read 9896 times)

Chus Brea · « **Reply #25 on:** April 06, 2013, 09:42:10 PM »

Quote from: TerryCMTV

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Why does Michael Voris (or, CMTV) not criticize any of the public and scandalous sins against the faith committed by the post-conciliar pontiffs?

I'll try to give you a reasonably short but still truthful answer: Because there is no authority over the Pope to whom we can complain or appeal, so all that would be accomplished by criticizing the Pope is to facilitate a loss of Faith in the Church by already troubled Catholics. And then, Quo Vadis? If any other religious person or office abuses their office in some way, there is an appeal process that at least allows the hope for correction. So we choose to emphasize whatever is good in the life and actions and teachings of the Holy Father, and pretty much ignore everything else, at least in public.

The reality is that we who frequent settings like this are all more aware of things going on in the Church than most of the world around us. The typical Catholic in the pews is not a "Catholic news junkie" and they don't need to know what they don't need to know, by which I mean "news" that would make them feel hopeless and possibly cause a crisis of faith.

We are absolutely aware of things that we choose not to report. We (CMTV) were attacked during "The Assisi Events" for not criticizing them. We know as well as anyone that those "Assisi Events" were capable of causing (and did cause) great scandal because, even if not intended, those events looked like "religious indifferentism on display." The participants, of course, would all reject this interpretation, so reporting on this "awkward" moment would merely stir up trouble among people who most likely didn't even know the event was happening and then they would hear (maybe) that what looked like "religious indifferentism" really wasn't. We would be causing confusion, not providing helpful clarity.

We deliberately ignore "Uncle Billy"moments out of a desire to maintain as much unity as possible within the rather fractured Catholic family. The crisis in the Church today is beyond description. It's important that people know this. It's not important to know what they can do nothing about. We maintain union with the Holy Father and encourage others to do the same. We don't see any other alternative as either workable or consistent with Our Lord's promises to His Church. We seek to fraternally correct our brothers and sisters, which includes elder brothers and sisters in authority, but we are not leaving the family or attacking the head.

Does this help?

“It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.” pope St. Gregory the Great

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #26 on:** April 06, 2013, 09:50:44 PM »

Quote

We know as well as anyone that those "Assisi Events" were capable of causing (and did cause) great scandal because, even if not intended, those events looked like "religious indifferentism on display." The participants, of course, would all reject this interpretation, so reporting on this "awkward" moment would merely stir up trouble among people who most likely didn't even know the event was happening and then they would hear (maybe) that what looked like "religious indifferentism" really wasn't. We would be causing confusion, not providing helpful clarity.

I don't understand this. Catholics have a duty to tell the truth, no matter what others may think.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #27 on:** April 06, 2013, 10:14:02 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

I don't understand this. Catholics have a duty to tell the truth, no matter what others may think.

I'll take the counterpoint for the sake of argument:

1)This is not always true we are to everywhere, all the time *volunteer* the truth.

I mean, if someone is seriously overweight, and they didn't ask you, you don't need to tap them on the shoulder and point it out, charitable as it may be if you're seriously concerned about their health.

So, as far as 'the crisis' goes, let's say nobody asked you. The NO parishioners did not inquire. Are we obligated to proactively inform them? Perhaps. Probably even, but they did not, in fact, *ask* us. Any of us.

2)Then there's the notion that if we know for certain it will change nothing, or quite likely to change nothing. Are we obligated if they'll shrug it off and continue to attend the same Mass, live the same life. Shrug either because they don't care, or think you're niggling, or simply don't even understand what you're talking about. There are simpler folks who will just say, "The Pope said I should pray these Luminous Mysteries, how can a Rosary be bad?" or whatever. Or they figure their priest is a 'nice guy' and who'd want to keep altar girls out of assisting in the Holy Mass?? Etc.

3)Lastly, consider mental reservation. We can reserve portions of the full truth if we feel it will do more harm than good or no good at all and significant harm. I understand some good and holy priests have used this under Godless totalitarian regimes. So consider the case our poster Terry of CMTV has brought up: Some people, when informed will simply despair. They might just stop attending Mass rather than finding a trad chapel, Society or independent or whatever. They might apostasize ("If we're so fractious, I may as well go protestant") or simply abandon the Faith ("We're supposed to be the true Church but it appears the gates of Hell have prevailed, ergo, we are not the Church Christ spoke of"). When you make a video and it is distributed to the masses, you don't know who you are talking to, who is on the receiving end. It could be a hazard to the simple minded, etc.

Terry's approach here seems prudent and has considered several angles all things considered.

They lack brevity, but not sound intentions.

Drumshanbo · « **Reply #28 on:** April 06, 2013, 11:49:39 PM »

Terry Carroll said on October 26, 2012 on Philothea on Phire

Quote

Please take seriously my comment left on the other post: http://bit.ly/RnkcGZ

I could not be more sympathetic to the SSPX as a temptation for those suffering through the insults to Our Lord at so many Novus Ordo Masses. But it is terribly easy to rationalize one's participation on a regular basis as if we were recusants during the period of the English Reformation. The Church Herself has not declared a "state of emergency" and it is hubris to assume that WE can.

SSPX priests are validly ordained, their Masses are valid, but they are in all cases acts of disobedience to the Church. SSPX priests do not have faculties to hear confessions. I, personally, do not wish to "gamble" on "Deus supplet" on a matter so urgent. I, personally, experience even MORE pain at the idea that a priest of God offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in persona Christi disobediently than I do at the worst excuses for Mass that I have experienced in Novus Ordo settings.

Suffer through Novus Ordo Masses, even refrain from receiving Holy Communion, rather than rationalize your participation in a Mass that quite likely is even more insulting to God than the Masses you now endure. The cry of Satan was "Non serviam," the penultimate act of disobedience. It is conceivable that SSPX Masses are as offensive to God as Black Masses. God is not mocked, and God does not bless disobedience. Stay with the Church and, in the best traditional sense, "offer it up" as an act of redemptive suffering within the divine chastisement that we all so painfully experience.

The SSPX are not formally in schism. But the consecration of bishops was declared by Pope John Paul II as "schismatic." This is just a case of hearing "quacks" before definitively concluding that it's a duck. SUFFER through the Novus Ordo Mass and fulfill your obligation to keep holy the Lord's day. Don't pamper your spiritual needs with rationalized disobedience. Pray that the SSPX responds to grace and enters into communion with the Church. This is what the Holy Father asks. As faithful Catholics, THIS is what we should be doing, not reinforcing disobedience.

Philothea on Phire

Mr. Carroll, do you still hold this belief regarding SSPX masses? Is it not hubris for you to assume this?

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #29 on:** April 07, 2013, 01:33:45 AM »

Wow, nice find.

That's a pretty interesting opinion to hold while deciding to register and post here.

I suppose I *am* the one that defended mental reservation though, aren't I?

Reserving this, were you?