http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-03-13
I did not know there is a RIGHT (WING?) Catholic, did you? I know there is a LEFT-(WING) Catholic. I thought a Catholic is a Catholic who adheres to the faith and defends this Catholicity out of Charity. To defend tradition against the utterences of a pope's modernism - one is RIGHT WING - 'responsible for the souls one causes to be lost.' Since when did tradition lead souls to be lost?
I wonder what VORIS considers himself, a middle wing Catholic? Sit-on-the-fence Catholics?
What do you think after watching this?
From the outset, Voris tells a lie. He speaks a falsehood when he says the following:
Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia: Where Peter is, there is the Church. [So far, so good; but then he goes hog-wild and makes a fool of himself, when he says......]
Without the Papacy, there is no Church.
Apparently Michael Voris was absent that day in Logic class when they talked about the fundamentals of thinking (but wait, that was the ENTIRE CLASS!!)?
Let's take a closer look. "Where my wallet is, there is my driver's license." Okay, but what about the flip side of this coin: "Without my wallet, there is no driver's license." Uhhh, no, sometimes I carry my license in my pocket without my wallet. Sometimes I empty my wallet to clean it out. Sometimes I throw away my wallet and get a new one, &c.
During an interregnum, for example there is no pope. Does that mean there is no Church? Likewise, the pope could be
non campus mentis. Does that mean the Church itself is not of sound mind?
There are many possibilities, obviously, but to say that "Where Peter is, there is the Church," does not translate to the Church's non-existence in the absence of a competent pope on active duty. It just doesn't.
Further on, Voris say that it is a "sin of disobedience" to notice when the pope says something scandalous (not Voris' words). He's talking in context of the Pope "coming out and saying something definitive against abortion or in defense of traditional marriage..." But wait. When has Pope Francis EVER said one thing definitive about ANYTHING? His first priority, it would seem has been to AVOID DEFINITION AT ALL COSTS. Everything he says is so deliberately VAGUE and AMBIGUOUS, that he gropes at straws to find some nuance of unexplored triviality yet to be untouched by his predecessors. At some point we must ask, "How could there be anything else left to misinterpret?"
"But, when he says something that needs more clarity -- and he does; he is a MAN, after all -- then they POUNCE, distort, mistranslate and so forth, and make sure it gets on EVERY SINGLE PAGE of the Internet you can find!"
Really? When Francis is vague, ambiguous or otherwise "says something that needs more clarity" (Voris' own words), it's excusable because he is a MAN, but when anyone ELSE speaks out against it, suddenly THEY are committing SIN of DISOBEDIENCE because they seek a clarification of that which "needs more clarity" (Voris' own words)?
"Does the Holy Father's STYLE give them FODDER? Sure! But they are being DISINGENUOUS in their actions, and for those in the Church, they are committing the sin of disobedience, because behind their manipulation is their DESIRE to so DESTABILIZE the Church that most Catholics will simply IGNORE the TEACHING."
GOOD GRIEF.
This is just NUTS.
Voris has simply LOST IT. The Holy Father's style gives them fodder, okay, but then Voris presumes to know their intentions, that is, a desire to destabilize the Church!!
So when the Pope says things that objectively destabilize the Church, without anyone being able to prove the contrary ---- do we need a list here of Francis' destabilizing statements, like "I believe in a God but not in a Catholic God?" or, in regards to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, "Who am I to judge?" when he has NO PROBLEM judging the Franciscans of the Immaculate when they start to convert and become actually Catholic, or when he says that "No, no, no" (wagging his finger) that Catholics should not encourage anyone to convert and be Catholic to save their soul ---- this is his own "style" of "teaching" the faithful, and anyone who dares to THINK and to NOTICE that the elephant in the middle of the room is dumping a load on the white shag carpet, it's a "sin of disobedience?" Why? Because they're IGNORING THE TEACHING?
KYRIE ELEISON.