His job, properly understood, is not to defend traddies but to defend the Faith. He can be faulted for attacking trads but no more than any other member of the circular firing squad we all inhabit.
He compared the most mainstream and mild R&R figures - like Michael Matt, John Vennari and Christopher Ferrara - to pornographers merely for reporting on the numerous Bergoglian scandals. All the while he pats himself on the back for sweeping those scandals under the rug and laying 100% of the blame at the feet of the bishops.
For this and many other reasons, we can accurately say that he defends neither traditional Catholics nor the Faith, but does grievous public harm to both. He's not a member of a circular firing squad, he's a well-placed and well-armed sniper, picking off his victims with impunity.
So Voris employs valid criticisms against those on his left while backstabbing those on his right by resorting to logical fallacies that serve primarily to establish his bonafides for not being too "extreme." Again, how does this differ from conventional trad rhetoricians, including those "mainstream and mild" examples given?
Voris criticizes bishops and "the leadership" but not the pope directly. Moderate R&Rs criticize the pope but only mildly and respectfully. Hardcore SVs lambast and deny the pope without reservation. The differences are in degree, not in kind and these are differences in speculation, not in doctrine.
Determination of whether Voris is inside or outside a circle is necessarily subjective. He might not fit in an ultra-trad circle but might well fit within a circle described as traditional minded. Voris' errors should not be excused but most of them should be recognized as systemic among traditional minded Catholics rather than particular to him alone. Why not criticize everyone who backstabs to the right from any position rather than only those who do so from a position to the left of one's own?
Topic: SSPX are Vision chasers according to Voris. (Read 3877 times)