Does anyone here think Michael Voris is UNAWARE that the pope is a modernist and that the post-Vatican II popes are the cause of the crisis?
The novus ordite cheerleaders act as if it's open season on cardinals and bishops and priests but once the heretical cardinal is elected pope, then his error filled ways are now "above reproach".
No. Which is why it's hard to entirely agree with John Grace's post.
He's absolutely right though concerning the unaware; prayer, charity, and personal patience are key when it comes to explaining the crises. There comes a time though, when a man must look at another man and explain to him the error of his cowardice.
I have been a coward many times, it's a choice a man makes.
I agree with you.
I think Michael Voris sees himself as being extraordinarily heroic in his obfuscation of the fact that these errors and abuses are being issued from the very office of the Papacy - and have been since Vatican II.
Michael Voris must see what we see. And since he doesn't post about why we are missing the big picture then he must be engaged in deception.
I'm surprised you guys are so hard on him. Some of his presentations have been excellent, particularly the ones he did on Saul Allinsky and Notre Dame. As far as Allinsky's role in the infiltration of the Church I don't think anyone else has covered that as well as he did.
Also, I wonder how he could do any of this if he left the mainstream Church, and if he did he would only be preaching to the choir anyway, it's the people on the inside who need to be educated. If you are going to operate within the Novus Ordo Church, there are certain rules you have to play by, acknowledging the Pope is one of them. He's exposing the the USCCB and the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network, actually he's hitting every target except for the pope. And, you could say he doesn't go all the way when he criticizes the new mass, but, if anyone who watched his presentation carefully would still attend the new mass, unless they had no other choice, then that's their problem, not his. I mean he covered the protestant ministers who helped produce the new mass, covered Bugnini, talked about Masonry. The only thing he left out was the changing of the words of consecration obviously because it would bring up the validity issue.
No, he's not perfect but he's waking a lot of people up on the inside, and once they see his stuff they'll move on to other things. He's got my respect anyway.