And it came to pass Bishop Schneider gave a wonderful interview to the Spanish version of Rorate Caeli, stating that the SSPX are not in any schism whatsoever, praising their orthodoxy and wishing that they were brought again (I use Vatican terminology here) in “full communion”. Your humble correspondent reported.

After which, Michael Voris embarrassed himself once again with a series of “improvements” of the Bishop's thoughts. The manipulations and misrepresentations were painful to behold. Your humble correspondent ignored them, and so should you. Spend your time on Rorate, not on Voris' outlet.

Now Bishop Schneider has addressed Michael Voris with a very dry clarification on Voris' misrepresentation of his interview. There are no open criticisms and no emotional tones in the Bishop's answers, but as they say, intelligenti pauca.

Now, if Voris were one of the many wannabe “c”atholic incompetent hacks who go around writing rubbish about Catholicism (or about me) I would, life being too short for hacks, simply ignore the whole thing. But the problem here is that Voris is – and there is no doubt about this in my mind – a good and sincere Catholic soul who has been led on the wrong path, if you ask me, on three issues: the matter of criticism of the Pope, the position of the SSPX, and the shameful attacks to great Catholic writers – and true Catholic men – like Vennari, Ferrara, Matt, and Verrecchio. A great shame, because the man has heart and talent, and he is wasting his credibility away.

I understand Voris has his set opinions on a couple of matters, as I have mine. Reasonable people will also be able to disagree in matters that have no sure answer in the history of the Church. The situation of the SSPX (sidelined for being pure Catholics as the Vatican smears itself with Protestant thinking) and of the actual papacy (too atrocious for words, and absolutely unprecedented in 2,000 years of Church history) are two rather obvious points in case. But when Voris looks at the matter coolly, he will see that he has misrepresented a bishop in a way that moved this bishop to correct him in a very decided way. All this, because his emotional investment in the jihad against the SSPX has now gone out of control, and the man just can't think straight whenever the issue is touched.

I wish Voris would stop embarrassing himself, and free himself from the influence of horrible priests and misleading, if very probably good intentioned, donors. If an interview of a bishop goes against his grain he can, in my eyes, do one of the two: openly criticise the bishop, or simply ignore the matter. He does the first all the time with the other bishops, and he does the second all the time with the pope. Therefore, it should not have been too difficult.

A great pity. We have a very sincere Catholic soul here, misled by people he should do without.



Posted on August 20, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, FSSPX, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. CMTV sought the “clarifications” from Bishop Schneider, so apparently his words in the original interview were not adequately clear or believable for them. I don’t think anyone else needed “clarification” of his words. Unfortunately, CMTV did not publish the questions they posed to Bishop Schneider.

    • Next we will have Voris asking clarifications on how much is 2+2.
      However, if Voris thought the words of the bishop needed clarification he should have said so, instead of misrepresenting his first and ask for clarifications when he gets the flak.

  2. sixlittlerabbits

    Mundabor, Michael Voris has done excellent work on Cardinal Dolan’s horrendous choices, such as being Grand Marshal of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade he allowed to be opened to self-proclaimed sodomites.

    It is terribly sad that the ill-advused Voris attacks the “little ships” of the SSPX, etc, and refrains from seeing that all of us little ships are fighting for the Faith. As Archbishop Schneider wisely writes to Voris:

    9. The current situation of the Church is similar to that of the Arian Crisis in the 4th century: there is a naval battle in the night, where the enemies of the Church attack vehemently the big ship of the Church, whereas in the same time little ships of several true Catholic groups attacks one another, instead of make a common defense against the enemies.

  3. I’d like to believe Voris is sincere, but when someone lies, distorts, and tries to intimidate others who disagree with him as “spiritual pornographers”, I hve a very hard time buying his sincerity.

  4. I have no problem with the SSPX until I watched this recently released video here . They are telling people not to go to Mass if it is a novus ordo. I don’t like the novus ordo, I walk out of most because it bothers me, but I will always at least sit through it for my Sunday obligation because that has been a Mortal Sin in the Church forever. Now the SSPX tells me that I don’t have to attend if it isn’t holy enough for me. Sorry, they just stepped over the line on that one. I pray they will recind this. I could agree with a statement like, if there is a Latin Mass within an hours traveling time, you must attend it instead or something to that effect but saying that you just don’t have to go to Mass. That is over the top.

    • You have, in fact, mentioned the only matters in which I disagree with (parts of the) SSPX. I attribute their reaction to the damage made to them by decades of persecution. I thank God anyway that they exist.

  5. Concur with the recent SSPX advice on avoiding Sunday Mass if a TLM is not available. So wrong on many levels. First, terrible timing. Right in the midst of intense scrutiny and debate, they put red meat out for their enemies. Secondly, that’s a very problematic viewpoint, if you say the NO is so deranged as to be positively evil in and of itself, leaving alone any abuses, it is difficult to disassociate this position from that of a sede vacantist. I haven’t assisted at a NO in years and go far out of my way to keep from doing so, but how can they call the NO valid if it is manifestly evil in and of itself?

%d bloggers like this: