Vorisgate: The Lowdown On The Letdown

Pope say it's a fashion.  I am no St Paul.  Should I, therefore, be silent?

Pope says it’s a fashion.
I am no St Paul.
Should I, therefore, be silent?

The first two instalments of the Vorisgate on this blog are my stance on CMTV’s video  “It always comes back to the Pope” and my publishing of the message they addressed to me, with my own reply.

Yesterday a third video appeared, “The Pope IS different”. I have examined Michael Voris’ last effort to square the circle. Predictably, he failed.

Preliminary consideration

I have found in Mr Voris’ video no word of public excuse to the people already publicly blamed by him: Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari, Michael Matt, and Louie Verrecchio. Whilst these four gentlemen may be extremely charitable people and invite the Vortex viewers to not abandon Voris, or may have had private clarifications and reconciliations directly with him, I continue to be of the opinion that we should draw a line in the sand in front of such a behaviour; a behaviour damaging and insulting not only to the four gentlemen in question, but of Catholic Traditionalism as a whole. Therefore, I personally encourage my readers to stop the subscription to Mr Voris’ effort, and to cease any form of financial support if they were giving any.  I suggest them to direct any help that they feel ready to give to authentic Traditionalist causes instead; first and foremost the SSPX itself, but also the ones of the four above mentioned gentlemen. You can’t call yourself a Traditionalist and keep feeding those who bite them. At some point, lines will have to be drawn.

For what it’s worth, I will be very glad to retire this suggestion when Mr Voris publicly gives sufficient satisfaction for the offence given to the Traditionalist cause.

On the matter itself

In his video, Mr Voris makes several arguments. I will allow myself to render them as well as I can, and to give my two cents on each.

1. “Pope equals Church”, because he has a pre-eminence of a very special nature.

This is a slogan. As every slogan, it may sound good but it does not say much. If the Pope says “atheists are saved if they follow their conscience”, does the Church say so? No, it doesn’t. The brutal truth is that the Pope is no incarnation of the Church, merely the first (the most pre-eminent) of God’s servants. A servant serves, he does not dispose of the teaching of His Master as he pleaseth. A servant who does not serve well is a bad servant, and love for the Master demands that this be said.

2. To criticise the Pope is perceived as an attack to the Church. Therefore, we must not criticise the Pope.

Perceptions can never be the metre of what is right and what is wrong. Particularly so, when the perceptions are wrong themselves. If this were so, then Cardinal Kasper would be justified in asking that communion be given to public adulterers. Not doing so is, very clearly, perceived by many horribly instructed Germans as intolerant and non-inclusive, so with this train of thoughts we should give communion to public adulterers.

If perceptions are allowed to become the metre of what is right and wrong, Mr Voris and all of us can pack our things and start dedicating ourselves to Classical Guitar, or Origami. On the contrary, I say that if the perception of the Pope is wrong it behooves every well-instructed Catholic, particularly if in a public role in the media, to work towards its correction. Otherwise, I can see no difference with the above mentioned Cardinal.

It is nothing less than astonishing that a sender constantly lamenting the dismal state of instruction in which the Church hierarchy leaves the faithful should justify its position with the same lack of instruction it ceaselessly condemns.

To counsel the ignorant is a work of mercy. To adapt to his ignorance is the work of the devil.

3. Our first duty to Christ is to lead souls where the Church is fully present.

I disagree again. I see my first duty as to contribute as much as I can to the salvation of my readers’ soul, not only amore Dei  but actually in the hope this will help towards the salvation of my own one. Love of Christ and His Church and salvation of souls – which is the first law of the Church – is also the first inspiration of many of us who, in their free time, decide to sit at a keyboard instead of playing with the X-Box. If the Pope confuses souls and leads them to possible perdition I will most certainly not help Francis to confuse them further. On the contrary, whenever the Pope gives scandal, it is absolutely necessary that the faithful be alerted to it, so that they may follow Christ instead of being led by the blind. And in fact, Mr  Voris’ suggestion amounts to this: that we should allow countless others to be led by the blind, because this blind here is a very special one.

Truth is non negotiable. Error has no rights. Whether they come from the Pope or not is neither here nor there. 

4. Not everyone can understand nuances.

We are not talking “nuances” here. We are talking of dozens of occasions in which reckless, shameless scandal was given, and continues to be given without interruption. The confusion that Francis words’ spreads is so thick that, as the Italians say, can be cut with the knife. One year on, there is no sign whatever this could change. Not once has the Pope retracted one single word of what he has said. For one who listens to the confused and embarrassed explanations of Father Lombardi or Father Rosica, one thousand are already confused. The Holy Father just does not care.

5. Publicly criticising the Pope is dangerous for the souls.

The Pope’s scandals are not private ones. He is very, very public in giving scandal. A pope who privately entertains a mistress might well be rebuked privately so that no worse scandal ensues. But a Pope who publicly defies and sabotages the obvious understanding of the very basics of Christianity (like the ultimate destiny of those who die in their atheism, or a very basic fear of the Lord, and of our judgment) and everything that has been sacred to more than sixty generations of devout Catholics (from the Rosary to the Traditional Latin Mass) must be criticised publicly so that the very public confusion he engenders may be contained as much as we can.

To instruct the doubtful is a work of mercy. When Francis spreads so much doubt in public, the remedy cannot but be a very public one.

Similarly: silence is a way to be accessory to another’s sin. I have never known this comes with the qualification “unless you are silent concerning the Pope”.

6. Only the Great Saints can criticise the Pope.

Nonsense, obviously. Let’s keep this short: Pope Francis himself disagrees with this vision, as his phone call to his harsh critic, the great, late Mario Palmaro shows. I hope Mr Voris does not want to publicly disagree with the Pope in a matter from which, he says, salvation of souls may depend. 

Besides, I doubt there was even one great Saint who in life ever thought “I am a future great Saint, therefore I can criticise the Pope”. Actually, great Saints are notable for this, that they are acutely aware of being wretched sinners; and the fact that they were, in fact, far less sinners than us does not change anything in the fact that not one of them would have stood up and said: “Look! I pass the Voris Standard! Therefore, I can criticise the Pope!”.

7. CMTV will not do anything that has potential to cause people to leave the Church. Therefore they will not criticise the Pope. Not going to happen. 

Fair enough.

With the same metre, all those who are persuaded that Mr Voris’ stance will cause the loss of infinitely more souls must feel bound in conscience to cease every form of support to his initiative. Because he will continue to watch as Francis leads countless souls to perdition.

8 (various warnings of the dangers of damnation of those who criticise the Pope).

Everyone can quote the Gospel, from the Devil down. The real question here is whether we are supposed to shut up whilst a Pope leads countless souls to confusion and possibly hell, or not.

I care very, very much for my salvation. Actually, there’s nothing else about which I care so much. There is no doubt in my mind the answer to the above question is an emphatic: not! If I were to be struck down today, I would infinitely prefer to die on my side of the barricade, than on Mr Voris’. I am, though, not saying he is being malicious. I believe in his good faith. It’s the reasoning that it’s flawed. 

9. The matter of degrees.

We all know Popes are far more widely read and listened to than Cardinals or Bishops. We all know the public effect of Francis’ statements absolutely dwarfs the effect of every declaration made by a priest, a bishop or a Cardinal.

Therefore, Mr Voris’ work is absolutely dwarfed by Francis’ public scandal, and is therefore – as it is now – perfectly useless. If Mr Voris is of the opinion that when a Pope makes such a mess he feels bound not to react, in my eyes he should fold and wait for the next orthodox Pope, at which times his work might still make some sense. As it is, his criticism of, say, Cardinal Dolan whilst Francis has an infinitely wider audience makes as much sense as a child trying to chase away the coming tide with a small bucket.


Posted on March 18, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 51 Comments.

  1. Thanks, Mundabor, for your breakdown of CMTV’s reasonings and your rebuttals. Crystal clear on your part, as always. I have hopes that perhaps someday he’ll have a change of heart. Maybe it’s just because I agree with you but I can’t help but think that this little piece of yours might help. Wishful thinking but there’s always hope.

  2. Every excuse Voris gives to not criticize the Pope are the very same ones I heard when I was a member of the cult of Herbert Armstrong thirty years ago. Voris sincerely(?) believes he’s going to stop heresy and schism, but I can tell you from experience that’s not going to happen. His measures will increase the possibility of those things happening. The honest people will continue to say “the emperor has no clothes”, the folks in the middle will be tossed back and forth, with many of them leaving the Church, and the hard core Vorisites will cling to Mike’s “The Pope is Soooo Special” BS even as the castle in the sky falls down around them. I hope and pray that Francis will give Voris a shock that will bring him to his senses soon, for I’d hate to see CMTV go to the trash heap.

  3. I see no benefit in asking the faithful to pull their donations from CMTV. You know, you are quite a bit like Voris; direct, faithful, do not mince words even when they could offend those whom you are trying to help (i.e. the pro-life cause) to begin with.

    Also, has Pope Francis officially changed Church dogma/doctrine [yet]? If he does, I believe Michael Voris will jump on board [with verbal criticism of our pope]. Until then, I enjoy reading both your postings and those of Michael Voris, but ultimately am encouraged by the words of Fr. Carota when I’m in a tither as to which way to go or what to do in this grand fight we have on our hands: “Fight all your battles on your knees.” http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/03/15/traditional-catholics-canonical-sspx-and-sedevacantist-work-together/

    • If you don’t see any benefit, then ignore the suggestion.
      It is, though, rather astonishing that Voris should recognise that so much will happen, but I should not be allowed to say what he himself has understood.

    • “has Pope Francis officially changed Church dogma/doctrine [yet]? If he does, I believe Michael Voris will jump on board”

      This is your supposition, and it is very arbitrary. It is clear Voris does not criticise the Pope because he is the Pope. He truly couldn;t say it any more clearer than that.

      If, therefore, Truth comes first, he must speak now.

      If Francis comes before the Truth, there’s no seeing why suddenly the Truth should be allowed to overcome the Pope.


  4. Mundabor, you obviously have nerves of steel. I couldn´t stand watching this video longer than four minutes. When Mr. Voris misinterpreted the “millstone and scandal”-gospel I stopped.
    Thank you for this excellent analysis.

  5. Seeing as everyone is criticizing everyone, I thought I would put my tuppence worth in. To be honest, I don’t always appreciate the “rugby club” language here, and I don’t always agree with everything you say, but having said that I am quite capable of having a private cringe and maybe giving it a break for a couple of days, and then back I come. I have just “unfriended” CMTV on my FB. It’s the logic of it. You are right Mundabor. Just because people (including myself) are not theologians, it doesn’t mean we are stupid…we notice things and think about things. When I see the institution of the Church, the bishops, the Pope behaving like a political party (specially Dolan the other day toeing the party line) if I were to get confused between the “real” Church and how they are behaving, I would lose faith….but that is unthinkable. I don’t lose faith if I see you cussing about the state of things…the worst that is going to do is make me cringe….but I can shrug that off. Maybe I don’t always like how you say things, but I do agree with the content of what you are saying. I think the way the clergy (including to the highest ranks) are behaving is likely to make any thinking person doubt the Church (institution) and those clergy need to be called out. Refusing to criticize the Pope when he is giving scandal is illogical and more likely to damage people’s faith. You carry on, Mundabor. I can shrug off a bit of a cringe….I can’t shrug off Holy Mother Church being ransacked from the inside. Yes, with this stance MV has become part of the problem. It is a betrayal. It is like being part of “the Church of nice” that he criticizes in others. I hope you will excuse my criticisms….my point was that even from someone who doesn’t always like your way of saying things, yes, I am with you on this. I still come here…..I have given Voris the chop….unless he changes his stance.

    • My dear Doncurlyhorne,
      I think the language used was very moderate.
      Still, away from me the idea of making you cringe.
      If the reading of my blog causes you so much cringing, by all means avoid the one and the other.
      There are so many excellent blogs out there that will not make you cringe.

  6. How many of us followed the paederast Maciel because the pope “approved” of him? Ignoring enormous red flags and squelching the conscience all the while. That Movement understood “the cult of the pope” and traded on it for over 60 years. An object lesson for our times.

  7. I have to say that I am getting entirely sick and tired of people who defend the pope by saying “well, he hasn’t changed any doctrine/dogma yet so what is he doing wrong?”. He cannot change anything to begin with but this is not the point regardless. He SUGGESTS things and THAT is what leads people, weak in their faith to begin with or devoid of faith entirely, to think that it is POSSIBLE that things can change….and even worse, that thoughts and acts strictly condemned by the Church “really aren’t that big of a deal”. People who frequent sites like this may know their faith pretty well and may be easily able to identify the wrong things that come out of Francis’ mouth….BUT most Catholics do NOT know their faith and these souls are the ones most in peril.

    • Well said.
      There is no need to (try to) change any dogma to confuse millions, or hundreds of millions.
      It is enough to tell them they have nothing to fear on the day of judgment, & Co. .

  8. Voris can do as he pleases, and I defend his prerogative to act accordingly. The accusations against specifically named persons, on the other hand, are absurd, as a layman creates a complete new doctrine on whom and what can be the object of comments, that he himself is enforcing.

    Thank goodness there are those like you who have been willing to speak, this sounds just so parochial and smallminded (and strangely puritanical and detached from any firm sensus catholicus, in the way you ably described it yesterday) that we just could not bring ourselves to commenting on it.

  9. Hello Mundabor. It doesn’t cause me that much cringing :-D. And no, there was nothing in that post that worried me at all. I just meant sometimes. What I meant was, even for the more faint-hearted of us, I still prefer the truth, even if it’s a bit harsh sometimes….it’s better than avoiding it and pretending it’s not happening. That’s why I still come here but I have stopped watching Voris. I do read other blogs too, but I always come back to yours. 🙂

  10. I am continued in amazement that the Pope worshipers (not respecters) have no clue what was taught in the last dogmatic council, Vatican I, on the matter of the limits of papal infallibility and impeccability. Go read that lowly female doctor of the church, St Catherine of Siena, who minced no words in correctling an erring pope, or St Paul when he resisted an erring St Peter to his face: http://wp.me/p145io-zE

  11. Voris’s antics smack of desperation. CMTV might limp on for a while yet, but Voris is done as a Catholic commentator.

  12. Superb insights and analysis, Mundabor. If we truly love the Pope, then we must indeed point out the errors that he makes in public concerning the Faith. On the other hand, if we choose to simply ignore or dismiss his errors, then we become facilitators of his faulty behavior, and we do not help the Church or the Holy Father in the process. To be sure, anybody of good will can offer respectful fraternal correction to anybody else in the Church, including the Pope.

    By the bye, are we not all potential saints in the making until the day we die? Let’s ask St. Dismas. 🙂

    One more thing to ponder: If Michael Voris received a phone call from Pope Francis, and the Pope asked him to stop publicly criticizing Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests in public…”because when you criticize even the least of my brethren who act as I do, you also criticize me,” do you think that Mr. Voris would cease his criticisms of the brethren?

    God Bless!


    • “One more thing to ponder: If Michael Voris received a phone call from Pope Francis, and the Pope asked him to stop publicly criticizing Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests in public…”because when you criticize even the least of my brethren who act as I do, you also criticize me,” do you think that Mr. Voris would cease his criticisms of the brethren?”

      How beautifully said.


  13. I Noticed that Voris’s priest friend and companion lay travel companion evangelist, Fr. Paul Nicholson has done a complete about face regarding clergy and lay critiquing the pope, so I wonder who has been tugging on their coattails.

    • Ah, is that the priest that always talks as if he were speaking to 5 years old?

      I might give him the honour of a blog post, then…


  14. It is interesting that Mr. Voris and Mr. Caroll succeeded in pointing out that the Pope is “bad”: Quote Mr Carrol (in his E-Mail to you): “We have had far worse Popes in the past than Pope Francis”.
    And Mr. Voris didn´t say in his statements that there is nothing at all to criticize only that he and his team won´t criticize the Pope´s words and actions.

    So, after their attack on good and Church-loving tradionalist Catholics who reasonably criticize the heterodox statements of Pope Francis and the last videos about “Popewars” I´m sure there is no Catholic left who uses the internet and who today doesn´t know that Pope Francis utters a lot of non-Catholic statements most of his time.

    Thanks for this much needed wake-up call, CMTV!

  15. I just send Voris&Co. an e mail to complain about the Papolatry of CMTV. I told Mikey that I was a member of a cult three decades ago, and I didn’t see any difference in the way he was acting from the cult leader I used to follow. I’m going to give Voris a month to reflect and hopefully to change. If he persists in this course of action, I’ll drop him.

    • We are different characters.
      I would drop him now, with the promise to reconsider in one month if he has made amends.
      If he makes amends, I would then send additional money to make him whole of the lost month, as an added “bravo”. I personally prefer to affirm good behaviour and sanction wrong one.
      But hey, it’s just me: as a child, when my father threatened to punish me in one month’s time I was never very impressed, either (which is why he never did).
      By all means, though: to each his own.

  16. Not sure what post you are referring to.

    Conclaves have often been held under pressure. Actually, they started to be held cum clave exactly in order to minimise the problem. It’s part of the human nature than by the election of the most powerful man on earth pressures by applied. We both would, if we could, try to influence as many Cardinals as we can – in ethical ways, of course; but we would still try – to elect a better Pope next time.

    I have lost you as to the blaming the pope for the developments things.

    The problem here is Voris. In all the rest, the problem is the Pope.


  17. Today ( 3 – 18 ) Michael Voris tried and tried again to square the circle in the Vortex , but he failed. It seems to me that , I don’t know why , he can’t understand the difference between the Popes Borgia and Medici and Pope Francis . Those were despicable Popes in what concerns private matters , but never touched the Depositum Fidei . Pope Francis , as you Mundabor noticed, does , at the very least DE FACTO , exactly the opposite. That’s what concerns ,worries ,gets angry ,make us at times lose the temper , and causes many hours (it’s my case) of lost sleep. The example made by Voris about Henry the Eight , Thomas More
    and the likes , in my opinion,actually confirms the historical reality : More And Fischer had their heads cut off because they defended a Pope who didn’t want to ‘ allow pastoral variations’
    on the issue. The other bishops didn’t probably ‘attack’ the Pope ; they just requested an ‘aggiornamento ‘-and now they are ,I suspect , in a very hot place. The example brought at the end of the Vortex of the ‘christian orthodox ‘ who became Catholic because he likes those who never criticitize the Pope , is …..how can I say …a bit strange ? improbable ?rare?

    • I used to stay awake at night because of that man. At the beginning it was truly shocking.
      Then I have read Garrigou-Lagrange’s book about Providence. It truly sank in.
      I can sleep now. But this does not mean that I am less committed to do my best to avoid this mess.

  18. Mundador, the reason I’m giving Voris a month to change is because it’s Lent. I want him to reflect on his bad decision and give him a chance to repent. If there’s no change by the end of Lent, I’m dropping him.

  19. greatpretender51

    I think Mr. Voris would do much better as a Protestant fundamentalist.

  20. Mundabor, I am sorry but I think you have been way over the top on this one. At least Mr. Voris airs his views without hiding behind an nom de plume. I have meet him personally and find him a genuine fighter of the Catholic Faith. Sorry but you have lost a reader over this one but no loss to you, I am just a humble sinner trying to fight the good fight and go where the Holy Ghost leads me….

    • Yes, no loss to me.
      You haven’t discovered today that I have a nom de plume, have you?
      P.s. I always have some mistrust from people claiming they are remotely controlled by the Holy Ghost, btw…

  21. My debit card changed from MasterCard to Visa recently. After an unpleasant exchange of emails with CMTV, I will not renew my subscription now. I agree with you: I can easily subscribe again if they change their approach; perhaps they will quit biting the hands that have been helping to feed them.

  22. Mundy – nice job, per usual, of refuting rubbish point by point. One objection i haven’t seen expressed, however, concerns Voris’ assertion that because of people’s association with the pope and the Church, criticism of the prior may cause people to leave the latter… Has anyone EVER met ANYONE (convert or otherwise) who has left the Church because of some criticism of the pope??? Was there a mass exodus after Assisi 1? Or after the Koran was kissed? There were plenty public criticism of both. This assertion is mind-boggling to me. For a couple reasons:

    1. Seems to me, the attrition rate is inversely proportional to hierarchical rank. I, sadly, have come across several people who left the Church because some local priest was a creep or spewed nonsense, or somesuch. Should we thus not criticize a pastor if he happens to be a heretic? Despite not having global relevance, seems to me the local pastor is orders of magnitude more directly correlated to people staying or leaving than the pope in Rome. Same logic, i think, holds true with local bishops (specially the more “popular” ones) who we were told time and again won’t be publicly censored by Roman hierarchy because of fear of their followers leaving the Church or some schism (I’m thinking here of Cardinal Mahoney where i live in los angeles). Given Voris’ logic, we should be less critical of those pastors “closer to the sheep” for fear that it may cause people to leave the Church / lose faith.

    2. If the issue is people’s inability to disassociate the person from the office of the papacy – if this is the big problem – well then wouldn’t prudence simply dictate that CMTV USE THEIR PLATFORM TO EDIFY ON THAT POINT? Wouldn’t all fears cease if they dedicated a few “special dispatch” programs to the ignorance of their viewers about the basic nature of the Papacy? If not that, how about spending the first minute of any Vortex critical of something the pope said or did with some massive disclaimer “we are not against the office” “don’t lose faith folks” “this doesn’t mean peter isn’t peter” etc.

    CMTV is not acting on principle (as all Catholics are called to do at all times) because the only applicable principle is that public scandal requires public response (there is no “papal” exception). Thus all the confusion and falling back on random potential consequences and red herrings from Scripture. Deo gratias the Church, in its wisdom, gives us principles to fall back upon when this sort of nonsense creeps in.

    • Ah, yes I forgot.

      Well it’s easy: those who say “I have left the Church because” (follows excuse) were just looking for an excuse.


  23. You know, dull knives are more dangerous than sharp knives because they can slip and cut you.

  24. In a relatively recent video Michael Voris warned against bishops who were dragging the faithful to hell. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome as Francis himself reminded us shortly after his election. I am trying to keep an open mind about Francis but he is making it hard.

  25. Thanks Steven! I noticed from the clicks coming from his page to mine.
    A small milestone of sort.

  26. Mund, I’ve decided to drop Voris now, instead of waiting for the end of Lent. Remember those remarks I made about his cult-like behavior? Well, on CMTV’S Facebook page, CMTV went after one commentator who mentioned Voris’s former backer who happened to be a member of Opus Dei. CMTV made a great big fuss about that remark, bellowing that the business relationship ceased two years ago. Curious about this mention of Opus Dei, I did a web search on them. I discovered many Catholics consider them bad news. Apparently, cult like is common in the group. there’s even an organization called ODAN that battles with OD. This fuss about OD made me wonder about Voris’s possible links to it. So I did a web search on MV and OD. Within minutes, I had my answer. Michael Voris did a video about four years ago where he recommended Opus Dei as a fine organization for Catholic clergy and laity to belong too. He himself stressed he wasn’t a member of OD. Well, he may not be a member, but his recent behavior is to me, a former cult member, extremely cultic. I believe Mikey must have some close ties to some OD people, even if he’s not a member. And his former backer for Real Catholic TV Brammer is an OD member. And I’m willing to bet some of his wealthiest supporters are OD folks, too. That’s a possible explanation of why he won’t criticize the Pope, and why he’s attacking the papal critics. OD is noted for doing both of these things. I hope Voris has a change of heart, but I’m doubtful he will, because his behavior has become extremely duplicitous in such a short time.

    • I find it legitimate that anyone would support Opus Dei if he thinks they are worthy of support. IN this case, of course, everything should be transparent.

      You will remember my blog post in answer to Mr Carroll’s message, where I suggested that the Wikipedia entry is modified to take account of the fact that CMTV has no links to Mr Brammer anymore.

      Where the donation money comes from we obviously do not know, but I would be ready to believe Mr Carroll when he says it comes from the wider base of the members, who seem to be very attached to this kind of criticism blind from one and a half eyes.

      I approve of your decision to terminate the membership now. If you think the membership is not well-spent money, Lent will not make it so. Of course, others may have a different view on things.


  27. OD had, and may still have a reputation in New York City as being an elitist and secretive organization that actively recruited wealthy and influential members.

    I had read somewhere that Fr. Paul Nicholson ,a priest who has worked in evangelization travels with Voris is an OD member, but I am not sure that
    it was the same Fr. Nicholson I read about. Fr. Nicholson commented on your blog that we should not criticise the Pope because people will then leave the Church and then I found a video of Fr. Nicholson preaching just the opposite…so one wonders why he changed his position.

    By the way, Michael’s present donated TV studio building is located in a gay neighborhood according to Michael himself speaking around the time they were moving in.

    • Yes, that’s the same chap. The one talking in the camera as if he were speaking to 5 years old. I recognised him from the photo.

      As to Voris, I expect this is a low-cost operation, I would not blame him for being in an unsavoury part of town. Actually, it would make his work more worthy of support; if it were worthy of support, that is.

      Yes, OD has this reputation, but I think many good and sincere Catholics are also there.


  28. As far as Fr. Nicholson is concerned, I find him creepy. I watched a video he did about marital chastity. The first half really put me off. He behaved like a scenery-chewing actor and treated his audience with condescention.

    Second, Stephen Dalton is right about papolatry. “The Pope is the Church”? Really? Seriously? Isn’t the Church the Bride of Christ? If Voris is right, then the Pope is the Bride of Christ. Talk about theological ignorance!

    Third, if criticizing the Pope will result in people leaving the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church deserves no members. The soon-to-be-canonized John Paul II can be legitimately criticized for 1) appeasing Islam 2) refusing to discipline bishops who enabled sexual predators in the clergy 3) engaging in arbitrary revisionism concerning the teachings about capital punishment — a revisionism that directly contradicts both Scripture and Tradition and 4) calling the abominable Maciel “an effacious guide to youth.” Fr. Nicholson’s suggestion smacks of nothing but blind groupthink — which,if taken to its logical extension in any philosophical context — is nothing but idolatry.

    • You come late to this party, but with a bang…


      Yes, Fr Nicholson seem to think we are all five years old in need of being entertained by him in a way we can understand. I haven’t seen the video you mention, nor do I plan too.


    • I have not seen the video you speak of..but I did see the video where Fr. Nicholson DEFENDED criticising the Pope, Bishops, etc.! Somehow he has now suddenly changed his position on this topic. Granted he spoke as if speaking to young children but I did not take issue with the content of that particular video, about criticism. Father Nicholson seems to be typical of the country-bred orthodox USA Catholic who appear childish to more cosmopolitan Catholics. Father N. was raised on a dairy farm near a small town in a rural area. So if you believe what many are saying , that is that one has to be gay or stupid to get through the seminary and get ordained, then maybe Fr. Nicholson was judged to be in one of these categories, particularly if he kept quiet or did not notice dissent at the time.

      As for JPii, I very seriously doubt that he was in the know about all the dissent going on or even the scandal re Legionaries. Even people very closely involved with Legionaries , who should have known better refused to believe the complaints that had been going on for years.

      Mundabor was correct about the” letters to Santa” that Voris suggested writing to the Vatican.
      I was told that these letters were sent back to the diocese of origin and things became difficult for the letter writers. The removal of the dissenting Fr. Charles Curren from Catholic Univ. of America came ( late 1980’s), after years of letter writing , only after Catholics United for the Faith was formed, and this included irate orthodox Catholic parents of Catholic Univ. of America students .

    • Fr Nicholson: well: not “gay”, then… but boy, that was a u-turn…

      I do think JP II was in good faith. I can’t imagine him “covering” Maciel in any way. Rather, it is obvious JP II wasn’t very good at picking people, and was easily deceived. A trait common among innocent people, easily deceived by those who have a particular instinct for manipulation. Rare is the man – like Pius XII – who is both innocent and extremely smart, and I note here the devil got very near to Pacelli too, as he had near him a man who was to become, more or less unwittingly, the main architect of the disaster of the Sixties and Seventies. Bugnini came to great power under him, too. But again, both Bugnini and Montini “revealed” themselves only in the years following Pope Pius XII’s death, because he would have never allowed any antics remotely similar to what his two successors allowed.



  29. Mundabor, one does not need to be a ‘sede’ to believe in Montini A and Montini B.

%d bloggers like this: