Michael Voris Officially Still In The Dark

Sorry, mate: no criticism...

Sorry, mate: no criticism…

 

 

Last week, after the dramatic, midnight “breaking news” transmission from Michael Voris, I published the blog post titled “Is Michael Voris Finally Seeing The Light”? 

If you read the blog post again, you will see that I was not saying that he was; I merely observed that some circumstances – the highly dramatic broadcast, or the echo given, even if without comment, to the rather strong affirmations of the Cardinal – would well justify the suspicion that he might be at a crossroads, and having to choose now whether to side with 2,000 years of Truth or with 20 months of Francis. I do not think I can be blamed for thinking, in front of the highly dramatic broadcast, that he would perhaps be on the verge of choosing the former. 

I concluded with the following phrase:

“If Voris were to finally see the light, this would be great news. Another valid soldier choosing the right ranks. If not, I suspect we will just have to wait”.

Again, I  do not want to be seen as the one who cries “a miracle! a miracle!” as in a Monthy Phyton movie. I saw the facts, noticed that the  facts were not in line with the editorial line, and made some reflections on this. After which, I waited.

The video was removed from the site, a clear indication that it was considered embarrassing. Now we have, directly from Michael Voris, the clarification: the broadcast was wrong both in the impression it generated and in the precedence given to what I think he does not want to call “sensationalism”, and it has consequently been pulled out. Apologies everywhere, abundant ashes on Voris’ head, & Co. All normal, then. Or rather, all as wrong as before. Let us see why. 

—-

Michael Voris is, and remains, free to pretend not so see; or, which is much worse, to say or imply that he sees, but refusing to acknowledge what his eyes are seeing; because apparently there are cases in which to see it’s bad, and one has to blind himself if he wants to be “in communion with the Church”.

We can well see, but the ordinary pewsitter should not be told. To them, ignorance is strenght. 

Thanks but no, thanks. If I had wanted the Fuehrerprinzip, I would have sought the membership of some modern NSDAP, or perhaps of Scientology. I choose membership in the Church, which obliges me to think and see whether the alleged sheep might not be, in fact, a wolf. And no, I am not fooled by the clothes. 

This Fuehrerprinzip is, when looked at for mere three seconds, nonsense; a nonsense that blatantly ignores the most glaring contrast between what the Church teaches and what TMAHICH (which means The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History: let us state this clearly, lest when we die we are accused of following a White Calf with Black Shoes) goes around saying, and having said by his equally shameful minions.

Many of us have written ad abundantiam about the absurd contradiction in seeing all the heresies and heterodoxy  in the Prelates of the Church, without wanting to see the main propeller of all of them in the last twenty months. This willed, highly selective blindness is in nothing more intelligent than to condemn at every step Nazism, The Nuremberg Laws and the Holocaust, whilst stubbornly refusing to say a word against Hitler. With the difference – that I will allow myself to point out, with the usual lack of political correctness – that a Pope betraying Christ is infinitely worse than any massacre or genocide, for the simple reason that God being infinitely superior to men, the offense made to God is, in the order of things, infinitely graver than the offense – and be it a genocide – made to men; and that a soul being immortal, and therefore infinitely more important than everything perishable, a single soul is infinitely more valuable than perishable human bodies. 

Which is, before anyone should bark, not said at all to deny the scale of atrociousness of the Holocaust, but to put what Francis is doing in the proper perspective, the perspective in which sixty generations of Christians, none excepted, would have put what is happening now. A perspective not caught only by those who have obviously lost sight of the importance and rank of God, and think that God is a nice someone about whom we say fluffy words; whilst at the centre of everything is, in the end, man.

The question, to me, is very simple: is this Pope a threat to the Depositum Fidei or not? If you answer “no”, I question at the very least your discernment. If you answer “yes” I cannot see any way how you can escape a duty towards God that must, exactly as God is infinitely superior to any Pope, be infinitely preferred to any, at this point, blind and senseless loyalty.

Besides: it has always been a mystery to me that people our ancestors would have burnt without any qualm should be treated by us with a sort of sacredness they have long showed not to care for themselves. A Pope wearing a Red Nose, and making of himself a clown, should, and must, be called a clown and a buffoon besides a heretic and a hypocrite: firstly in order for souls to be warned from him, and secondly because he is. Being Catholic has never meant to throw one’ s brain in the garbage can.

—  

Voris also makes – not for the first time – some comments saying that those who attack the Pope will one day answer for it. Personally, I try to write every blog post as if it were the last one before a Boris Bus hits me on the head; and I would frankly be terrified of dying without having criticised the Pope, and without having criticised him in a way commensurate (not even remotely, in fact) to the offense and scandal he is causing. Oh, how I wish I were able to make him more ridiculous, more of a clown, more of an object of laughter and mockery! Ridicule saves souls! Ridicule is such a powerful weapon, that it has been used against the enemy since the dawn of time.

Wake up, people, and stop being pussycats. There’s heresy to fight. There’s Tradition to defend. Man up.  

And please, please excuse me, but at school I tried to pay attention, and was taught that when the Pope says the contrary of what the Church says they can’t be both right. The consequence of this is that every talk of “communion” made dependent of ignoring the propagation of heresy and lie is a satanical self-deception of the first order.

They can’t be both right. That’s it. This is reality no amount of “loyalty” talk will ever make any less real. Here or there. 

We, the vocal Traditionalist side, have chosen the Church of 2,000 years. We feel much comfort in this. So much comfort, in fact, that we will not cease one second to do so, irrespective of how many tell us that we are endangering our soul; because we criticise one so much more dangerous than Hitler. We are, in fact, those who would not believe it if an angel were to come down from heaven and teach us novelties, much less a buffoon with a red nose. I must have read this one of the angel somewhere, but I do not remember where. Probably among the writing of one who dared to sharply criticise a Pope (and what Pope!) in public. A Saint, true; but a saint whose behaviour has always been seen as a sterling example for everyone of us. This saint was not in communion, then. So much is, if we are logical, clear. If we deny it, it’s because we aren’t logical. 

Voris has chosen to believe that two and two is four, as the Church says; but also five, as Francis says. Which then leaves him in the impossible situation of having to attack Cardinal Burke (who at this point can only be a “spiritual pornographer”) for saying that it is four; whilst also attacking Cardinal Kasper for saying that it is five. 

This is too absurd for serious consideration. It does not pass the test of a seven-years old boy. It is as blatantly self-contradictory as anything under the sun. 

Astonishingly, many people are apparently ready to believe this nonsense, and think that they will be fine if, when they die, they are on the side of the Pope. This is exactly the kind of people who will, one day, enthusiastically be on the side of the Antichrist, or of the False Prophet. With the difference that even this red-nosed clown can fool them.

—— 

Then there is the little matter of money, and worldly consideration, and one’s livelihood. Many traditionalist bloggers write without receiving one penny for their many hours, gratis et amore dei. In some cases, not even their names are known. In my particular case, I can guarantee you that no one this side of heaven even knows that I blog. But I, like them, do not see a penny, only expenses. We “man and laptop” bloggers are, therefore, the last people who can be accused of having any self-interest in criticising the Pope: not a personal one (do you know “New Catholic”s name? Well I don’t!) and not a financial one. We stay here, in front of a keyboard in the hours of the night, – with so many videogames that could be played – without anyone even knowing what we are doing. Why? Because we really, really, really care. Compare us, if you please, with people whose very livelihood depends on their own activity, and who must think what part of this livelihood will go away if they start to take what is, alas, still a tiny minority’s position.

Mind: I am not saying, with this, that he who earns a livelihood from his activity must be therefore dishonest, or forced to choices of convenience; but I point out to the fact that those who do not make any money at all can then, even more so, claim honesty and independence, and demand from any honest person that he recognises their sincere faith and desire to contribute to the salvation of other people’s souls besides their own.  

We know, and I know, that when I kick the bucket I will have to answer for everything I write; and when the day comes I hope that my efforts will count against my sins, instead of amplifying them. Because I will be able to say “when a clown with a red nose came up from Argentina and taught novelties, I did not believe him”. Which may not seem much, but I assure you: it is more than many others seem willing to do. 

I think Christ would want us on his side, not Francis’. How stupid of me, I know.

But I want to die on the side of the Truth of 2,000 year, rather than of a buffoon of 20 months. 

Mundabor

P.S. and just so you know: professional bloggers have an entire day for, say, one or two articles. We toil at night writing without I do not say the support of a text editor, but most importantly without the time the professionals have. 

         

 

Posted on October 22, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 32 Comments.

  1. Mundabor, Thank you for this! This is “Very Serious Mundabor” and is reflective of exactly how many of us feel so deep in our souls. Voris’s “retreat” from reality seemed very juvenile to me and now he has locked himself into a corner it will be difficult to work out of. “The boy who cried wolf” comes to mind. While others whose eyes and ears are wide open, just keep consistently speaking the truth.

    Thank you for your anonymous passion…from an equally anonymous ATSA4YOU. God Bless you!

  2. God bless you Mundy for writing this:+) You should have heard me when I watched MV’s latest ridiculous report. What is WRONG with this man? TRUTH…TRUTH…we must trust in TRUTH…it’s the only thing that sets us free and is the person of Christ Himself. Where in the world does it say that we cannot admonish and criticize the Pope? Yes, we are called to pray for the Pope (and I do so almost daily)…I love the Pope too (which is that I will his good)…but I do not like what he is doing and like you am duty bound to call out his errors on behalf of the MASSIVE scandal and damage he is doing.

    Did you also notice the accusations against the SSPX? How can MV not see that the SSPX is the ONLY public clergy group that is authentically Catholic? The only difference between us and the SSPX is that we don’t have Rome insisting we sign a statement going along with Modernism and V2. Of course the SSPX isn’t in “communion” with Rome! I’m not either! As long as Rome is infected with Modernism, like it was infected with Aryanism in the 4th century, nobody can be reconciled…Rome has to convert back to the one true faith. Yes, Francis is still the Pope…but Christ is still the King and He trumps Popes every single time. Why doesn’t MV see the spiritual and basic visible bone structure of the Church?

    MV sees us criticizing the Pope as refusing his authority? Does MV not do the same to authority of every bishop and cardinal he criticizes? Does not Pope Francis do the same when he abuses the gift of the keys of Peter?

    I look forward to the day when MV has the courage to TRUST TRUTH and follow His king without fear of somehow losing all the papal idolaters. Educate them, lead them to not be dependent on a frail human but a divine office. And like you, I would more afraid to stand at my judgement with the sin of keeping my mouth shut as countless souls were led astray by the scandal of a Pope. Truth always wins out. What we say is not a lie…and sadly MV will see just how ugly this papacy will get…maybe…but I pray for the Pope’s conversion in the meantime.

    God bless you again Mundy for your fight, time and heart in this struggle:+) God bless~

    • I do am in communion with Rome. I always was, always will be.
      It is sad that Francis wants me to renounce to it.
      Sadly for him, I won’t.
      Thanks for your kind words. Let us keep fighting.
      M

  3. Voris obviously veered off somewhere in his Catholic formation in regards to his blind obedience to the pope. Excellent commentary…..if we dont call out apparent error imagine how WE will have to answer to God for it.

  4. Voris is as phony as his hair–a true false traditionalist who cares more about his prestige than the salvation of souls. Oh I know his pretext is that to speak scandal about the Pope might cause someone who is discerning the faith to walk away, but that is a faulty pretext. Why? Because, lets say the person is an active sodomite. He will go happily into the Church and feel there is no need to stop living as a sodomite. He will be damned not only for his mortal sin of sodomy (which he now believes is a gift to the Church) but for the countless acts of sacrilege when he takes the Body and Blood of our Lord as an unrepentant sinner. Who else will be marked for his sin? Those who scandalized him which includes Voris. Voris pretends to be a “a voice of Catholic truth” . By holding himself out as such he is accountable. If you notice his apology is for reporting the statement of Burke! So he is apologizing for not covering up the Truth–diabolical.

    • It is amazing that in modern world how people could react to some honest truth is considered more important than the truth itself.

      This reminds me of the “sister” blogging on patheos stating that if she had told as an atheist for her to stand on the communion line is a grave sin she would have run away and never come back.

      These people think we must say truth according to their whims. Truth is truth is truth.

      M

  5. I used to have hopes for Voris. But in that video, Voris has now put himself squarely in the ranks of those who are actively complicit with all the evil that Francis does. His mind is too tiny to realize that obedience and respect are deserved only by a good and just authority – not merely owed to any amoral boob who got himself elected. Voris crossed the line when he goes from personally refusing to criticize Francis to attacking those who rightly do criticize.

    Voris dares mention a “cottage industry”? I bet he makes far more money than anyone, and most of his videos smack of hucksterism. He even sells tickets for cruises? What a pompous hypocrite. He probably did this video because big donors objected to his first video. 30 pieces of platinum from each donor,

    Is his CMTV outfit a non-profit? If so, there must exist a yearly IRS Form 990 which details his salary and “other compensation”. Then the expenses for travel, also. I am tied up this week but will check when possible, using e.g. guidestar.org – unless somebody does that first.

    Keep fighting the good fight, Mundabor. Voris can continue with being a good little toadie.

    • “Voris crossed the line when he goes from personally refusing to criticize Francis to attacking those who rightly do criticize”.

      Voris doesn’t make much money: last time I looked, he headed a start-up company and paid himself a wage of less than USD 50,000 a year. He is lucky – or wanted to have it that way – the operation sits in Detroit, and must therefore be rather cheap to run. This could, obviously, change in future.

      But still: this is a startup, born just a couple years ago and on, it seems to me, not entirely solid footing. One cannot avoid thinking if the operation would be viable were Voris to adopt Traditionalist positions.

      Beautifully said.

  6. The “clarification” video statement by Michael Voris is irrational. Is there no such a thing as objective truth as regards a pope??? Does he think his viewers are so stupid?? How insulting to their intelligence, their ability to reason, and their understanding of the Deposit of Faith, and the pope’s role vis-a-vis the unchanging faith and morals! Is he on drugs? How can he say that stuff with a straight face? So he will continue to misrepresent the state of the Church, the position of the pope in respect to faith and morals, to people But be fully candid regarding other successors of the apostles? He is abusing his God-given gift of reason and ability to recognise the truth, never mind his duty to oppose public error pronounced by the pope on the Deposit of Faith and the moral law.

    • He will do all this.

      Then he will tell you that in you “are not in communion” if you criticise the Pope, and will have to answer for it.

      M

  7. I went to comment on Mark Shea’s article praising Michael Voris for his absurd, misleading stance as made explicit in his “clarification” video – only, to find – I have been blocked from commenting on his site! I very rarely read his blog, usually only on occasion if a piece of his is linked from a good site (I went there from a sidebar link on the Remnant website), and have very rarely commented. I’ve always been reasoned and never employed ad hominems. If he has gone to the extremes to block me from commenting on his blog, he must block almost anyone who says things that he does not like! In any case, he clearly has a very low threshold for blocking commenters!! So why have comments at all, if one is just going to allow those that agree with what you say??

    • Well I also have a rather strict comment policy… 😉

      In the case of Shea, I do not know but doubt that Shea can control the comments himself. My impression at patheos is that they have people doing that for their bloggers. I may be wrong.

      Many people criticise Shea on his blog (it seems to me).

      But you see, we are Traditionalists. To them, it’s the new leper.

      M

    • “I went there from a sidebar link on the Remnant website”

      They might be blocking anyone who clicks from the Remnant. Technically, that’s absolutely possible. Practically, I don’t know if their site software makes that easy to do.

    • Interesting!
      So “inclusive”, eh, Ah, no?

  8. Gervase Crouchback

    Thanks for this Francis has created a new pilgrimage From disappointment – put on a red nose to disaster ( beware when the media speak well of you) Is this the Argentinian Captivity of the church?

    On 23/10/2014 8:38 AM, “Mundabor’s Blog” wrote: > > Mundabor posted: ” Last week, after the dramatic, midnight “breaking news” transmission from Michael Voris, I published the blog post titled “Is Michael Voris Finally Seeing The Light”? If you read the blog post again, you will see that I was not” >

  9. Yes, Mundabor, a great post–but a sad one. How can Michael Voris be so thick? Perhaps it has to do with the backers of his site.

    • He says the site is not backed by Opus Dei (because this is what everyone else is thinking).

      Someone should be able to see the company’s accounts. Still, I do not think not being backed by Opus Dei is any excuse.

      Nicholson, by the by, is Opus Dei, too.

      M

  10. Voris’s stance and attitude toward Pope Francis is that of a cult member. I was a cult member for almost a decade during my younger years, so I can recognize the traits of cultic behavior. Defending the leader regardless of how stupid, immoral, or depraved he is is what I’m seeing in Voris right now. He’s acting as if his salvation depended on not admitting the truth in front on his own eyes. If Voris’s faith is so weak, I doubt if he has any faith at all in God. His God is the Pope, not the Holy Trinity. If Voris keeps this up, he will lead many trusting souls to hell by encouraging people to trust in the idol that is Francis.

  11. Dear, dear Mundabor,

    Thanks for all your good work. Keep it up.

    I have a smallish degree in history – a B.A. – and have followed a hobby of mine – Church history – for many years.

    I cannot recall a worse or more dangerous Pope than Francis in all those 2000 years. Alex Borgia, Julius II, the popes about 950-1000 AD all had serious moral “issues”. Very human I would say. Vigilius and Honorius were weak in the face of imperial pressure. Alex Borgia very weak (but threw great parties and loved his family very much.) He defended the Church all his life as Julius did.

    No previous pope ever followed an agenda against Tradition as this one. In the past, papal agendas have been to reinforce Tradition or to enforce traditional moral teachings. Not one set himself against the Church like Francis has done. Not Alex Borgia, not Julius, not Vigilius …. none!!

    Mike Ph

  12. Mr Voris is pathetic. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think the video was some skit from Saturday Night Live. We should play a drinking game. Take a gulp for every time he apologizes in the video. Actually, that would be a bad idea. We’d all die of alcohol poisoning halfway through it.

  13. St. Benedict's Thistle

    He’s caught in his own vortex, circling and circling…

  14. BTW, Mr. Voris indirectly said that Cardinal Burke is in grave sin and needs to go to confession.

    If Voris went to confession because he “sinned” by reporting what Cardinal Burke had said about the Pope as he told his followers in his video called “clarification” then it is only logical that Cardinal Burke has to go too because contrary to Voris´ alleged motive for his now deleted report Cardinal Burke obviously wanted to criticize the pope.

    Or do I understand Voris wrong and only “lay Catholics” are in his opinion not allowed to critizise the pope when he obviously to all – particularly to his friends the “progressives” who are cheering endlessly since his first Maundy Thursday – harms the church?

    • Strange. Difficult to know what he thinks. Is even reporting the criticism of a good Cardinal worthy of going to confession?
      This isn’t Catholicism. This is Scientology with a Pope.
      M

  15. If you want to get a good idea of what’s happening to Voris, look up cognitive dissonance. It will explain a lot of his foolish behavior.

  16. I guess the bit I really didn’t get was his sincere admission that he didn’t receive Communion on Sunday (due to mortal sin? which happened on Thursday?), and went to Confession to admit his guilt. What took him so long? There he was- in Rome!- and couldn’t get to confession in time for Holy Mass on Sunday! Sad times for the Church.

    I’m supposing this is meant to be a serious object lesson for us average Catholics: If MV won’t even receive Communion, it must be a Very Serious Sin indeed to say that the BofR might harm the Church (because that’s never happened in 2000 years). That’s obviously the point of that statement of his.

    I had to turn it off after the first few minutes, as I was rapidly becoming uncharitable. I don’t need to add to my list for the confessional…

    • I did not understand it this way.
      I understand it so, that he did not take communion as a penance for a (venial) sin of careless journalism, and went to confession to get rid of it.

      On an unrelated matter, I am always rather weary of people who tell us how they went to confession, made penance etc. I thought it should be a matter between his confessor and his, and Our lord. It sounded a bit off to me, but I assume it’s a matter of taste…

      M

%d bloggers like this: