It Always Comes Back To Christ

When good people do not express their scandal, evil people go on undisturbed.

The person of the Pope and the Papacy are separated. Of course they are. The latter is a divinely appointed office, the former is a fallible man elected by fallible men; men who may, or may not, ask for the guidance of the Holy Ghost during a Conclave.

Therefore, logic demands that it be allowed to criticise the fallible man – harshly, if his shortcomings are so extreme as to make it necessary – without this impinging on the sacred institution. On the contrary, the Pope is criticised exactly because of the damage he causes for the sacred institution of the Papacy and, by extension, of the Church.

It is rather disingenuous, and devoid of logic, to say that those who criticise the Pope damage the Papacy. They damage the Pope's credibility as a person – particularly if he has none, as in this case – but they do it to protect the Papacy, and by extension the Church and, ultimately, Her Bridegroom, Christ.

If, therefore, anyone were to say that the Pope cannot be criticised because this damages the Papacy, this would be tantamount as to say that the person of the Pope cannot be criticised if he damages – the current occupier, actually, insults or very obviously misrepresents – God. This borders on Papolatry, and makes no sense at all. Particularly then, when at the same time all the other ranks of the Church are considered fair game for criticism, and harsh criticism whenever necessary; only not the Pope, who does pretty much the same that the others do, but with infinitely more scandal as his every word is far more widely read and listened to.

Furthermore, it is not to be seen why criticism of the Pope would damage the Papacy, but criticism of the Successors of the Apostles or of Princes of the Church would not damage the Church. The Pope isn't a demigod on earth. In fact, the actual occupier of the office insists in seeing himself as a Bishop, and calling himself that way.

Either the Church is damaged by criticism to his prelates even when they are justified, or she isn't. Either it is allowed to criticise the Pope, or it is not allowed to criticise the bishops. Compulsory blindness when the line to the Pope has been crossed has never been the Church's way. Ask St Paul. Or St Peter, come to that. I wonder how many, today, would say to Paul that he can criticise everyone and everything, but he must stop in front of Peter.

——

It does not make any sense to compare traditionalist Catholics to Luther. The proof of the pudding is, as always, in the… Truth.

Traditionalist Catholics would stand the test of every generation of Catholics of the past. Luther wouldn't, and neither would Francis. You measure a Catholic according to his loyalty to Christ's Truth, not to his blind refusal to criticise the Pope.

Nor can it be said that the Pope is misread, the Cardinals aren't. Kasper is wrong, but Francis who supports him isn't. Homos within the Chutch are wrong, but Francis who shamelessly and publicly defends Ricca isn't. Liturgical wreckovators are wrong, but Bergoglio committing liturgical abuses – yes, it's a liturgical abuse even if one is Pope – isn't. I could go on.

—–

It also does not make any sense to accuse friends of the SSPX to have “left the church”. They haven't, unless one is deranged enough to think that 2,000 years of Catholicism have left the Church. Again, adherence to Truth is what counts. Admirably, the SSPX practices this adherence to Truth in everything, including their obedience to the Pope whenever possible. But like every Catholic generation of the past, they do not let their obedience become blind Papolatry. Ask John XXII, or Pope Liberius, or Pope Honorius, whether this was the thinking of Catholics of the past.

—–

Finally, it is very disappointing that someone who has been criticised in a very charitable way should accuse his opponents of outright malice.

Firstly, it is not clear why the same accusation could not be made to the same person when he criticises, say, Cardinal Dolan. Secondly, it has no basis in logic.

I do not accuse anyone of, say, not criticising the Pope because, say, his sponsors and donors – like, say, the Opus Dei - would stop giving money to him. I understand the thinking could simply be aligned. Similia similibus solvuntur. But I am rather grated when one who takes contributions to defend a certain line – contributions out of which his own livelihood is paid – accuses of ulterior motives many bloggers – and getting more numerous – who criticise the Pope out of sincere love for Christ and His Church; after working hours and sacrificing their own free time; and without any hope of monetary reward for their effort. Gratis et amore Dei.

It is astonishing, and utterly devoid of any logic, that one who is criticised for telling the Truth about anyone but the Pope should move the same accusations to those who do the same as he does, but with more coherence, and following 2,000 years of Church history from St Paul down.

I go as far to say that when such a malicious criticism is levelled, a breach of trust has occurred.

Avoid Michael Voris' channel.

Mundabor

 

About these ads

Posted on March 14, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Good Shepherds and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 38 Comments.

  1. The “lefties” not only hate the Office of the Papacy but the WHOLE Faith. The so-called “Not in Full Communion” not only LOVE the Office of the Papacy” but are simply preserving the WHOLE Faith. Michael Voris said, “Does the Pope sometimes say things that are confusing or could be said better? Sure…EVERYONE does…” then you should not criticize Cardinal Dolan because I’m sure he could have said things “better”.

    “The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is
    an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society
    is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the
    meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass
    and Sacraments administered by the priests of the
    Society are valid. ”
    — Letter from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity
    Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President (3 May,1994)

    “This fact was confirmed again just last year, when the Diocese of Richmond was forced to retract its own previous statement that the SSPX was in schism.”
    Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist Feb. 2014

    SAFE
    CHURCH

    In the middle of the Church
    There’s a very safe spot
    Where it’s not very cold
    And it’s not very hot.

    You can say a little prayer
    In a Latin cant one day,
    On another take the Host
    Serve yourself, walk away.

    It’s the middle of the Church
    And a very safe spot
    Where it’s not very cold
    And it’s not very hot.

    There are no schools for minds
    Or for little Catholic souls
    But at least there are no fights
    How to clean the toilet bowls

    For the classrooms they are empty
    And the lavatories too,
    No daily Mass, no Catholic class
    For little Don and Sue

    But it’s really very middle
    In a very safe spot
    Where it’s not very cold
    And it’s not very hot.

    Approved, they have their many
    The New have many too
    Like “full communion” governors
    A Cuomo in the pew.

    The REC brings in much money.
    The New says “that is great!”
    And priests who say both old & new
    Can really celebrate…

    For he’s really in the middle
    In a very safe spot
    Where it’s not very cold
    And it’s not very hot.

    Full communion say the Old,
    Full communion say the New,
    And many in the middle just
    Accommodate the two…

    For they’ll keep you in the middle
    In a luke warm spot
    Where you’ll never fight the cold
    And you’ll never fight the hot!

  2. Excellent post and the same thought I have been conveying for some time to my fellow Catholic friends who have blindly sung his praises ad nauseum. Voris needs to really examine what his purpose is on this earth and then ask himself if he is doing his best to fulfill it. If he is a good man then its time he started calling a “spade a spade”. The faith has enough problems, both internally and externally, as it is….its a darn shame when even the “good guys” cant get it right. BTW….I gave up the “vortex” long before the infamous manifesto. Voris now needs to prove to me that he is a legitimate defender of the Faith and not just some media clown….and until he does I will never again give him a second’s thought.

  3. Couldn’t have said it better. I’m very disillusioned by Voris’ comments on this subject. You’re right, it simply does not stand up to a logic litmus test. Michael Matt’s video comment was so charitable (and logical!), and I found Voris’, well, bitchy and illogical. Not to mention a personal attack on the Traditional camp, which, as Matt says, needs to pull together rather than bicker.

    Solange Hertz, an author I admire, once said that the problem of Papolatry is the reason for not only the catastrophe we find ourselves in today, but also the sedevecantists on the other side of the spectrum. When you set the Pope up as a demi-god, you are bound for confusion, one way or the other.

    Bull in the china shop, indeed.

  4. I’m very disappointed in Michael Voris. His harping criticism of those who dare to point out Francis’s mistakes and errors reminds me of my years in the Worldwide Church of God cult. You were not allowed to criticize Herbert Armstrong because he was “God’s Apostle” . So sthu about his lavish spending, his drunkenness, his gross sexual immorality, which included the incest of his own daughter, his changing of church doctrines at whim, etc. Voris thinks he’s defending the Papacy by telling the Catholic people not to point out Francis’s failings. Actually, he settling up those folks who are blindly following Francis for the destruction of their faith. I saw this happen when people found out the truth about Herbert Armstrong. If MV simply told folks that not all the Popes were decent people, so grit your teeth and hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride, I would have been okay with that. But no, he says, see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. That may work for monkeys, but it doesn’t work for Christians. We do see and hear evil in the world and the Church. We should not speak evil in the sense of committing slander or libel, but we must speak out against it. I hope Voris will change his mind soon, if he doesn’t, his CMTV will become just another Vatican II parrot.

  5. I completely agree with you, Mundabor. I used to look forward to M.V.’s Vortex, but ever since his hypocritical stance surfaced, I have stopped contributing and watching him.
    It’s sad but there it is!
    God bless you in all you do!

  6. Voris is still one of the best on this side of the pond where the conservatives, both clergy and lay seem to be increasingly either gay or stupid, or a cafeteria Catholic at heart and you will have some of each variety in any Catholic organization…the pro-life movement has them all as Voris pointed out during the most recent Washington, DC March for Life. Voris is deluded by some of these types and he will only go so far with the clergy with criticism..remember he too has to deal within constraints of Church hierarchy. One has to consider other sources to check Voris’s blind spots and get a sense of his constraints.
    Voris is a lay evangelist and much of his site is dedicated to instructing poorly catechised
    Catholics, and giving vacation retreats involving recreation and spiritual formation.
    Voris at a young age had a successful TV career when he was re-converted to his Catholic Faith and studied for his STB degree in Rome. His TV career and the fact that he is a revert
    are some protection to him otherwise I doubt he would have come so far or lasted so long.
    He was not accepted to the priesthood which serves to dispel some doubts that some people might have had about him…he is not gay or stupid and he sincerely strives for orthodoxy and the conversion and sanctification of others. Sometimes one needs to tune him out but not turn him off.

  7. This is a great post, Mundabor. It is the hypocrisy of above mentioned person that really gave me clarity about the double-speak in the conciliar church. My mind can’t handle the constant contradictions anymore. One has to exercise pretzel contortions of the brain to make sense of what some Catholic apologists are saying. I’m tired. I just want to be a Catholic. The only place where I find consistent Catholic teaching is in the SSPX. I plan on attending a chapel regularly. Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us!

  8. Oh Mundy…well done as usual:+) I have always been a fan of Michael Voris…I considered him one of the bravest men I ever saw. Still do. He was a light in a dark place for us over here…still is on many days. But something is “off” about this…it lacks as you noted, logic. It saddens me that this has happened at all and I will pray that Micheal opens his eyes and continues on the courageous road of total surrender to the truth.

    Finally, this morning it occurred to me what he did on a spiritual level. The analogy that hit me was: What if a young, good, devout, honorable boy had a father who although let him stay underneath his roof, fed him, clothed him and even went to a couple of his games also mercilessly beat him to a pulp once a week? This young boy would be confused, hurt, betrayed…and rightly so. So this young devout boy goes to Michael Voris/CMTV, tells them of his abuse and gets angry that it is happening…even calling his father a “bad” father and his “enemy”. And what does MV/CMTV respond with? Do they console the honorable yet afflicted/betrayed boy? Use it as an opportunity to teach him about bad vs good fathering? Teach him about forgiving, loving and praying for our enemies? Helping him recover from the wounds and confusion and pain? No. They beat him to a pulp just like his father.

    I don’t care if you are SSPX, sedevacantist, or recognize but resist trads. You would never betray one bloody DOT of the deposit of faith, never betray or abandon Christ who is TRUTH and would and have suffered and died for the restoration of the one, true faith that was hijacked at V2. So to compare these future saints to Martin Luther, to call them a disgrace, to compare them to the evil perverts who want to destroy all that is good and holy? Michael Voris is lost somewhere…which doesn’t make sense since he seems to have logic in his brain…and a devotion to Our Lady and Our Lord. I need more time to discern whether to drop my subscription or not…I want to wait and do it in peace…give him time to wake up. But if he continues on creating some bizarre neocath who just happens to like the TLM yet avoids the elephant/truth that is the cancer of V2 and the Popes? That is destined for failure…and that is creating your own “church”. Without truth, you’re sunk. I will pray for him…and that he wakes up before his ship has sunk. God bless you Mundy:+)

    • “No. They beat him to a pulp just like his father”.

      ha!

      Yes, to compare us with the freaking nuns on the bus is outrageous.

      To continue your analogy, it is not the voluntary blindness that offends me.

      It is the insult to those who refuse to be blind.

      M

  9. It looks to me as if Voris has made essentially a business decision: he hopes to secure a certain ‘market share’.

    Unfortunately for Voris, his gamble looks destined to fail spectacularly.

    He might find himself once again applying for a job at ‘Catholic Answers’.

  10. I think Voris might have made a bit of an icky decision here. Surely the people most likely to support his views would have been Trads, many of them SSPX or at least SSPX friendly. He will now have pretty much lost that market….so who’s going to pay his bills now? Mainstream people? I doubt it, somehow. Look what happened to Protect the Pope.

    • The bills will be paid from the people who already was paying them. He is Opus Dei, so I think it is not very adventurous to think they – or their friends – might be involved.
      I would consider it strange if CMTV were already self-sufficient, I’d say it’s far more probable they had sponsors helping them in the first years and seeing where to go from there after a while, probably 3-5 years from start.
      I can imagine his readership as consisting both of neocon and trads, but Francis obviously forced him to choose.
      He chose the wrong crowd.

      M

  11. Brilliant per usual, Mundy. 2 things:

    1. So glad to finally see some Long Skirts posts – I’m sure i speak for many that we’ve really missed your wit and poems since Rorate stopped comments.

    2. I think you nailed the Opus Dei angle. Is MV Opus Dei? If he is, then that could explain it as i know many of them believe in this crazy vow of never, ever saying anything “bad” about the Pope… If that’s the case, i think MV should say so, otherwise it is disingenuous. I really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the logical inconsistency of his position is staggering…

  12. An excellent post, Mundabor. I also wrote on this issue in my blog a few days ago. If you and others are interested, you can find it at the following:

    http://vlogicusinsight.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/only-god-is-beyond-public-criticism-not-the-holy-father/

    Keep defending the Truth above all else.

    God Bless!

    DB

  13. It seems to me that Voris’ main error is that he and those at ChurchMilitant TV refuse to say anything that criticizes the pope. However, I think that his concerns about the snide attitudes from people who deny the pope is justified. A lot of people are downright snotty about this current pontiff, and it seems that they take every opportunity to disrespect his authority.

    I’m not a fan of Pope Francis. I do not like how he is bungling the image of Christianity. My co-workers think he’s going to transform the entire Catholic Church–even if I tell them that the Church’s teachings have not been changed and are in no danger of being changed. The Church is very undermined by this pope.

    But I still acknowledge the fact that Pope Francis is pope, and so does ChurchMilitant TV.

    Those who are so disillusioned by this current pontiff despise him so much, that they go to extreme measures–such as, in a way, cutting themselves off from the Church by denying Pope Francis’ authority. And then, they mock and deride this current pope with disparaging remarks that are of the same nature as one could read at an atheist forum. These people are poisoning themselves, and Voris is calling them–the pope-deniers–out.

    Unfortunately for Voris, he fails to acknowledge anything wrong the pope might be doing. He once called Pope Francis “messy.” But that just ain’t going to cut it. And so, Voris’ position is muddled up because he is afraid to call out the pope’s faults–as many saints have done before. Yet, even if Voris DOES start calling out the pope, the difference between him and pope-deniers will be that he would likely do it with respect to the office, and not with the kind of slander that is seen on the “far right” of the Traditionalist world. At least, that’s the impression I get.

    • He can’t be justified in avoiding any criticism to the Pope merely because of the Sedevacantists. The issue is whether the Pope is right or wrong, not who criticises him.

      Many who aren’t Sedevacantists also criticise the Pope. The Remnant has an excellent series of articles, to which I have linked, just this week.

      M

  14. I agree with your comment about breech of trust with Michael Voris and have, as you said, avoided contact. It was grossly unjust and uncharitable and remains simply a personal ideology Voris follows, not a Catholic ideal, teaching or Canon Law. Many have refuted his position using very clear and concise Catholic texts, something that surprises me that Voris did not research or seemingly understand, considering his obvious intelligence and Love for the Faith. Hopefully, he can see the reason, logic and Catholicity in what others have rightfully and dutifully pointed out and re-consider his rigid position.

    • I can’t imagine he will backpedal now. It is obvious to me the issue has been brewing for months now, and he must have been receiving a growing amount of emails about the matter, until silence was no longer an option.

      This is not a spontaneous or ill-reflected decision. This is the editorial line he is going to follow.

      I can’t imagine it will work, but hey: his publishing house, and his viewers.

      M

  15. Voris shows a lack of ability to reason and use logic. He also needs to review some documents and history of the Church regarding the subject of criticizing the pope. Does he really expect faithful Catholics to stand by silently while this pope causes damage by misleading and confusing so many people? It is for the common good and for the good of the Church that the pope is criticized and corrected.

  16. When good people do not express their scandal, evil people go on undisturbed.

    Yeah, inferring that the Vicar of Christ is evil is … soooo Catholic. Your gold-standard of Catholicism is very tarnished Mundabor.

    Really, you don’t see how calling the Vicar of Christ evil, PUBLICLY, doesn’t push illiterate Catholics out of the Church? If you can’t see that, you shouldn’t be blogging. You are spreading confusion, and guilty of impugning the Vicar of Christ.

    • Rash judgment is a sin too, Father.
      There are two people in the picture.

      As to whether Francis is postively evil or merely extremely confused, I have written very often the jury is out.

      If I were to call a Pope evil, it is because I would clearly see that he is evil. You are very deluded if you think a Pope can’t be evil.

      You simply have no argument, and your fantasy idea that one shouldn’t criticise the Pope… because, is exactly the contrary of what can be expected by an orthodox Priest.

      I choose the Church of 2,000 years. You choose as you please.

      M

      P.s. As you are a priest, for this time I have answered your comment with some civility. But it must be clear to you that I do not welcome on my blog those, like you, who spread confusion about the Church.

      Write your comments on the Tablet instead. You will find more attentive ears.

    • Father…..what about the souls, who depend on the Church to teach them right and wrong, who are quite possibly being led down the path to hell because they ignorantly believe that nothing wrong can come out of his mouth? We worry so much about verbally “abusing” the pope…..what about the immortal souls dependent upon him and the Church for their spiritual guidance??

    • This is a rhetorical question, Arwiv, though I fully agree with it.

      Father has been encouraged to sow his confusion elsewhere.

      M

    • Father Nicholson, I don’t say the pope is evil, but if he erred by, perhaps by way of contradicting a doctrinal pronouncement of a doctrinal ecumenical council, how would you respond?

      We are in an age that has been called by the Mother of God the last days. We know from Holy Scripture, the writings of the saints and approved apparitions that the end times will be filled with apostasy. We have been told that Rome itself will fail before it is rebuilt. Our Lord told us to watch and judge in our hearts the events around us. What if our observations led us to believe something very wrong is occurring? Aren’t we called to put our observations into perspective by judging it with past events?

      There appears to be a demonic disorientation taking place in the world right now. In every way we can judge there is empirical evidence that the Church is burning out like a falling meteoroid. Shall we sit back stupidly and do nothing? Avoid using the powers of observation and thought given to us by God for the purpose of discovering the truth? If in good faith, free of ideology and self-interest, we discovery something rotten, what shall we do? It is difficult for us to know what to do and how to do it because none of us in our lifetimes have witnessed such moral devastation. Our only real weapon is prayer, but we need good priests, offering the sacraments to the troops, to gain victories.

      Father, your reply to Mundabor (who was I believe was rash) was not helpful because it didn’t offer anything positive to work with. Your comment was merely sarcastic. You might want to join me in checking every word we say that will appear before us when we meet Christ as judge. You even more so, father because your vocation is to lead the people of God to God. Believe me father, I am not calling into question your commitment to God and his people, but all of us can profit by slowing down and considering what we say and how we say it. My two cents.

    • Gee, father, and I thought Catholics they were leaving in great numbers over the last 20 years to join evangelical Protestant sects because of the homosexuality of the clergy. Dummy me.

  17. I think your commentary is spot-on in its logic, but misses the point when suggesting that Voris and his work ought to be avoided. It may only have been a sarcastic tit-for-tat aimed at Voris’ statement that some Remnant-like blogs are occasions of sin, but it is not well serving orthodox Catholics who need to gather as many friends as possible.

    Let’s assume (as I do) that Michael Voris has become confused about the issue of when and how the pope might be criticized. His internet broadcasts are 90% refreshingly truthful. He has nailed many unorthodox slight-of-hand tricks performed by our unfaithful or unenlightened bishops to the board. This is good work. We don’t throw away the good with the bad.

    Orthodox Catholics are in a hard place and must, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, allow lots of water to roll off their backs when it comes to making and keeping friends. Voris is in our foxhole–although an irritant at times. (I assure you, no more than my Uncle Paul!)

    The pope and his backers have send more than a few salvos over our heads. We must sit back and assess the best way to respond. But before that, we must make certain that the pope is doing what we think he is doing. He has shown himself to be an unusually unclear speaker. His every third word requires reinterpretation by a staff member. Odd, but not a deal breaker yet.

    If our efforts are not led by pray we can be certain we are not going about it the right way. A well said rosary is much more persuasive than a dozen arguments.

    • I have explained why I will avoid his work, though I understand that others might do otherwise.

      I see in his behaviour a breach of trust. Therefore, I will not help his venture to thrive.

      Let us reflect on the consequences of the contrary behaviour: we think he is being illogical, but we all keep visiting his site.

      In this case it is not he who is being illogical, but we. He is being entirely logical, avoiding problems with his sponsors or avoiding the thorny issue of the Pope, whilst keeping his audience substantially intact. So we would have not only the refusal to see reality – which I could still have overlooked – but the attacks to sincere Catholics at absolutely no price.

      M

  18. *sigh* The only reason we even have illiterate Catholics is b/c of the lax hierarchy making them dumber than dirt and fodder for wolves. I for one am not going to follow the irresponsible example of the clergy and assume the permanent stupidity of sheep as well as Our Lord’s lack of power and faith in their lives. Stop it with the fear mongering…”we are not given s spirit of fear, but of power love and a sound mind” says Scripture. If a Catholic would leave b/c the Pope turns out to be evil, then they weren’t truly Catholic to begin with but Papal idolators. Truth is truth. You are Catholic b/c it is Christ’s Church. Period. Historical fact and the four pillars prove that point. Let us trust in the grace Our Lord gives ALL people to follow Him in truth…nasty as it may seem at times dealing with fallen man. God bless you Mundy…and thank you for being a true man of Christ.

    • “If a Catholic would leave b/c the Pope turns out to be evil, then they weren’t truly Catholic to begin with but Papal idolators. Truth is truth. You are Catholic b/c it is Christ’s Church. Period”.

      How very beautifully said.

      M

  19. I am a long time premium subscriber of CMTV. I visited the old studio and sat in the audience for the taping of one of his CIA/FBI episodes a few years ago, prayed with him, shook his hand. I’ve applauded his work and saw what I thought was a growing affection to all things traditional in the church. He also seems to have/had a growing number of more traditionally minded Catholics supporting him as well.

    I emailed his staff after the manifesto was released, questioning why the harsh comments against our brothers in Christ? I received a rather annoyed response from some staff member who accused me of listening only to other blogger’s interpretations of the manifesto and questioned if I had even read it. The explanation I received for the manifesto was less than satisfactory but I decided not to cancel my premium subscription awaiting further developments. Strike 1.

    Fast forward to Voris’ Vortex about the pope and “far right” Catholics being no different than the leftists. Leftists who are pseudo-sedevacantists with their denial of Church teaching and pseudo-disciples of satan with their desire to modernize and liberalize the Church. I found this video highly offensive because of this comparison. It’s almost like he sees this situation as if he is still the “unbiased” news reporter he once was. Strike 2.

    Next Wednesday at 8pm is Voris’ Mic’ed Up show where he plans on going in depth with this issue. This will be his last chance for me. I’m going to give him that hour to convince me that we are still on the same team, time to clarify his statements, and apologize to those whom he has wrongfully offended – his supporters. If not; Strike 3.

    He would have been smarter to avoid this topic altogether instead of opening his mouth and inserting his foot directly in it. I just subscribed to The Remnant newspaper a few months back and it’s great. I can definitely find somewhere else to put the 8 bux a month Voris is currently getting. Sad that it would come to this.. I don’t want to but it’s like Michael Voris said, “You have to vote with your feet”.

    • So we will have to listen to a one-hour special – if we are subscribers – to know whether he apologises?

      Wouldn’t a six-minutes “Vortex” viewable by all by the way to do it?

      M

  20. †JMJ† Pope Francis is no different than Barack Obama, IMHO. They BOTH have caused incredible division in record time. I am a premium member of ChurchMilitant.TV. I notice that MV has a few orthodox Bishops on his side. Perhaps he has been advised to not speak ill of the Pope by them. Or, perhaps he realizes he may lose their support if he says anything negative PUBLICLY about the Pope. I don’t know. I’m trying like heck to give him the benefit of the doubt & am utterly distraught over the division & angst this Pope is causing.

  21. Mic’ed Up isn’t part of the premium services – it’s free. I hardly use the premium site, i’ve used the membership merely as financial support.

    • There’s an answer from them on the site in the meantime. I have made an extra blog post.

      I still refuse to listen to one hour of Voris to know what is what; but again, what you do with your time is not my business.

      We shall see how this pans out.

      M

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,982 other followers

%d bloggers like this: