Big Fan of Voris. Done with the "Lesé-majesté " policy
#21
(09-20-2014, 03:38 PM)DJR Wrote:
(09-20-2014, 08:18 AM)spikepaga Wrote: This Pope is a loose canon and a liability for the Church. It's like Vatican 2 on steroids and embodied in a single individual. If the Church can survive this Pope

I am 31...

"IF" the Church can survive this pope? 

There's no "if" about it; the Church WILL survive this pope, just like She has survived every other pope.

You are young.  Don't despair.  Read Church history.  I suggest reading The Oxford Dictionary of Popes.  It was written by a pro Catholic Anglican and is a fair and concise presentation of history.

The history of the popes is one long disaster after another. 

We've had popes openly contradicting past popes, digging up their bodies and excommunicating them (Pope Formosus episode), popes aligning themselves with anti-Catholic powers, papal elections erupting into physical battles, popes being elected by a handful of cardinals in secret, popes buying their offices, popes dying while visiting their mistresses (John XII), et cetera.

The Church survived them; She will survive Francis.  In fact, She will survive all of them until the end of time.  No "ifs" about it.

I was born during the reign of Pope Pius XII, lived through "the changes" and witnessed the destruction firsthand.  You want to talk about depressing?  Try rearing a Catholic family through the 60s, 70s, and 80s, when nearly everything in the Church seemed to be against you.

And yet... the Church is still here.  I'm here; you're here.  This pope could be gone tomorrow and be replaced with a pope that is more of a Traditionalist bent.  Although the pickings are slim, there are some out there.

I forget who said it, but a staunch Catholic once made the statement:  "Pray and punch."

Keep fighting.  You're 31 and living proof that the Church WILL survive... this pope and every pope.

Thank you for your reply. You are very correct in everything you have stated. Popes come and go. The Church is forever.

It just seems that with a Pope that thrives and relishes on the  media and public opinion, it is important he knows that people are aware of what he is up to. After all, I think that is what Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers did in their day and to a certain extent what Cardinal Burke is doing today.
Reply
#22
(09-20-2014, 08:04 PM)TerryCMTV Wrote: Your observations are understandable.  There have been, from the time of Our Lord Himself, examples of weak men and women within and leading the Catholic Church.  Judas was an Apostle.  There have been some absolutely awful Popes.  In fact, there doesn't seem to have been a time in the Church when there weren't serious examples of infidelity and decadence.  But, as you well know, the Church is still here.  The Passion of Our Lord continues in His Mystical Body, the Church, and our daily Vortex episodes are replete with contemporary examples of perfidy and malfeasance.  From the beginning it has always seemed that now would be a perfect time for Jesus to come again.

We choose not to subject the present Holy Father, Pope Francis, and his predecessors, to the same public criticism that we give to Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and "professional Catholics." It is understandable that you, and many others, judge this to be an inconsistency on our part. It is, but only if one fails to make important distinctions, not least of which is that the Church is founded on the Rock that is Peter and his successors and not on those who are merely successors of the Apostles.  Without Peter there is no Church.  Our Faith informs us that Peter can even deny Our Lord yet still enjoy Our Lord's protection and favor.  Not so anyone else, including one of the original Twelve.

So we draw a line, a very consciously drawn line, which we will not cross and criticize the Pope publicly.  We are as aware as anyone that there have been and even are troubling words and deeds of Popes, including recent ones.  Most people would become aware of these papal "failings" for the first time if they heard about them from us.  We do not wish to give that kind of scandal.  We also do not intend to be mindless cheerleaders for the indefensible (e.g., "Proselytism is solemn nonsense").  We choose to protect the good name and reputation both of the office and person of the Holy Father.

We have addressed the issue of “public criticism of the Pope” on several occasions:

FAQ: ChurchMilitant.TV Will Not Engage in Public Criticism of the Pope http://www.churchmilitant.tv/faq/papalcriticism.php

It Always Comes Back to the Pope

The Pope is Different

Tell the Pope, Not the World

Disobeying the Pope

In the Vortex episode “Be A Man!” ()  we do not address the issue of “papal criticism” directly but, rather, discuss the very related issue of “consequences” to be expected when anyone, lay or clerical, confronts a member of the hierarchy, even in private, with particular emphasis on the “consequences” risked by priests.

We also encourage listening to the following sermons by a priest of the FSSP, who tackles the problem(s) of the Pope AND the crisis in the Church and tells us how to respond as faithful Catholics:

Christ is the Point http://files.audiosancto.org/20131020-Ch...-Point.mp3

Spiritual Contraception http://files.audiosancto.org/20131027-Sp...eption.mp3

Don’t Follow the Leader Over the Cliff http://files.audiosancto.org/20140504-Go...Sunday.mp3

Storm Clouds on the Horizon http://files.audiosancto.org/20140810-St...orizon.mp3

These videos and sermons say, in our judgment, all that needs to be said on these issues.  They provide much food for thought, prayer and meditation to help us find our way through the "devastated vineyard" in the "desolate city" of the Church today.


Thank for your work and your reply. I have and will continue to support what you do.

Nevertheless, I think your reasoning for not reporting clearly on Pope Francis is very flawed. I think your attacks on those who do choose to expose and discuss what is going on in Rome are a case of the pot calling the kettle black. How can you continue to rail against other media when you are guilty of the very same thing.

Reply
#23
(09-21-2014, 04:01 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(09-21-2014, 03:20 PM)missadeangelis Wrote: Look, you're on virtually every thread even slightly critical of the Pope telling people they're wrong and its just a bad translation or a misunderstanding or "this is what he really meant" or using some other tactic.
That's an exaggeration and I simply just post my thoughts on topics. The reason I seem to be on every thread "critical" of the Pope, is because almost every thread is a critical thread of the Pope.

Quote:That is what qualifies you as a Francis "apologist". I'm not saying Pope Francis is evil, I am chiefly suggesting that he speaks and acts imprudently and causes much confusion among Catholics.

No it qualifies me as a Catholic who simply disagrees with you. You do not hear me calling you a "Francis-hater"

Quote:I note that you didn't comment on the quote I provided in my previous post. I ask you now, do you concede that the Pope supports Cardinal Kaspers theology regarding communion for the divorced and remarried (since that is what the Pope was referring to)?  ???

I did not read anywhere stating that the Pope supports Cdl Kaspers specific theology on Communion for divorced and remarried...just that he read his work and found a serene theology...it could mean anything.

Quote:As for the notion that had Vatican II not happened the Church would still be in the crisis it finds itself in - that is laughable. We wouldn't have ecumenism, dialogue and near universalism or the "Church of Nice" for starters. And if there was never a "spirit" of Vatican II we likely wouldn't have "many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, liturgy trivialized." to quote HH Benedict XVI.

Then you are one of those who believe that there was no brewing crisis in the Church before Vatican II....even Ven Pope Pio XII admitted there was a problem.

If you don't think that we would not still be here with or without Vatican II....then you somehow think that a document most people never have read (even those who condone or condemn it) magically turned all these humble and pious priests and bishops into heretics.

The rotten fruits were already spoiling the bunch long before the NO and Vatican II.

Quote:You seem to have a genuine dislike or lack of respect for "trads" in general. Why you choose to post on a traditional Catholic forum rather than somewhere more friendly to anti-trads like CAF I don't understand.

Because much to probably your surprise, I consider myself a Traditional Catholic. I just try and avoid being what Vox labels as a "toxic trad"

I tend to see a lot of hair-pulling and gnashing of teeth among people her at Fisheaters regarding Holy Father and I'm simply trying to be a voice of reason, rather than fan the flames of scandal.

Here is a link to what one would consider a toxic-trad:

www.fisheaters.com/abouttheforum.html#radtrad

You are in fact in every topic as the self appointed apologist for the Holy Father. Your specialty seems to be sugar-coating reality and wanting everyone to see reality thru your extra thick rose colored glasses.

If you would actually be capable of putting your bias and ideology aside, you would realize that the reason there are multiple topics concerning the Pope are a reaction to the Popes actions and not the other way around.  Never mind, your job as clean-up man is more important to you than discussing the truth

Reply
#24
(09-21-2014, 05:35 PM)spikepaga Wrote: You are in fact in every topic as the self appointed apologist for the Holy Father. Your specialty seems to be sugar-coating reality and wanting everyone to see reality thru your extra thick rose colored glasses.

If you would actually be capable of putting your bias and ideology aside, you would realize that the reason there are multiple topics concerning the Pope are a reaction to the Popes actions and not the other way around.  Never mind, your job as clean-up man is more important to you than discussing the truth

That really is a very uncharitable statement. I have in the past posted my concerns about some of the actions of Holy Father and to be labelled as some "clean-up man" or apologist because I don't share your narrative view on the Holy Father, is simply calumnious.
Reply
#25
(09-20-2014, 02:10 PM)austenbosten Wrote: What good does it to constantly criticise a Pope
When he attacks the faith, it's good to do damage control.
Reply
#26
"I think your attacks on those who do choose to expose and discuss what is going on in Rome are a case of the pot calling the kettle black. How can you continue to rail against other media when you are guilty of the very same thing. "

Is anyone here, on this forum, unaware of the various disconcerting things said and done by Pope Francis?  I'm inclined to doubt it, for the simple reason that no one reads or participates in a forum like this who isn't already more aware of what's going on in the Church than the overwhelming majority of Catholics in the pews (not to mention those who are NOT in the pews!).  It's also highly unlikely that most viewers of CMTV are completely clueless about what's going on in the Church.  The problem, in the minds of those who want CMTV to engage in jihad against the Pope, is that, for some reason, they will feel better if CMTV is saying and doing what they are saying and doing.  Who needs CMTV, or The Remnant, or Catholic Family News, to tell them what they already know?  It sounds more likely that people want CMTV to affirm their anger, not inform them, and what's the point of that?

I'm not so naive as to think that everyone here will watch the five videos and listen to the four sermons to which I linked.  That would take too much time and, therefore, it's a lot easier to respond only to what was written rather than the totality of what is necessary to fully understand why we have chosen to adopt the policy that we have.  I also hope that no one here is so naive as to believe that, with all that CMTV does, we are either unaware or even less upset than you over these issues.  The issue is, really, whether or not it's a good idea to engage in a relentless attack on the Pope such that one risks either a) tempting people to leave the Church or b) reinforcing the decisions of those who have already left the Church.  It's really not a matter of "people need to know" because, for the most part, people already know!  They're just looking for others to say "Me too!"

The Pope is different.  His Office is different.  The Pope, not just his Office but his very person, is the "rock" on which the Church is founded.  He stands in the place of Our Lord Himself in governance of the Church.  It's CONSTITUTIVE of Roman Catholicism that one be in visible communion with the Pope AND submissive to his authority.  The schismatic Orthodox Church is very Catholic in its embrace of the Deposit of Faith, but that they are not in communion with the Pope is what makes them "not Catholic."  The Church has had an embarrassing number of Pope in Her history.  Communion with those Popes, submission to the authority of those Popes, did not mean "we must imitate the Pope in all things and be embarrassing like him."  Most here should be able to recognize that were it not for the promise of Our Lord, there's no way the Church could have survived the treachery and malfeasance of too many of Her Popes and Bishops. 

So, to attack the Pope, particularly in the way in which it is done today with all the means of communication at our disposal 24/7/365, is to do something historically unprecedented and that isn't sufficiently anticipated or addressed by those who have written on this issue in the past.  If Thomas Aquinas encourages people to confront their superiors, even in public if necessary, I question whether he would give blanket approval to what passes for public criticism today.  Those writers and publications today, who are almost indistinguishable from Protestants in their attacks on the Pope, are doing enormous harm to the Church in their support for one of the many forms of "independent Catholicism," i.e., Catholicism without visible communion with the Pope. 

Public criticism of the Pope, by which I mean an almost obsessive need to repeat and remind people of just how problematic is Pope Francis, undermines confidence in the papacy itself and, because "the Pope is different," undermines confidence in the Church Herself.  A state of mind is encouraged whereby one begins to believe and live as if communion with the Pope is something merely "nice to have" but not constitutive of one's identity as a Roman Catholic.  This process might be subtle but not, for all that, insignificant. 

One can almost discern a strategy worthy of the devil behind all this public criticism of the Pope:  the most committed, devout and faithful Catholics are tempted to flee the Church in the name of being faithfully Catholic!  These almost obsessive campaigns against Pope Francis (and, to be honest, his predecessors) seems to be so much "deja vu all over again" for those who support "independent Catholicism,  i.e., yet another justification and self-serving rationalization for fleeing the Church to some "safe haven" where they can live the Faith until the Church, somehow, comes to Her senses, and they can welcome Her back.  It's just "we'll be Catholic when the Church is again but, until then, we will loot Her writhing Body of Her riches and enjoy them while She suffers.  Call us when you want your stuff back and we'll help you rebuild."

We want no part of being an excuse for anyone to leave the Catholic Church.  Public criticism of the Pope not only risks this but encourages it.  Just as it is with Protestants, it is necessary for those who have already separated themselves from communion with the Catholic Church to reinforce and justify their decision and status.  Public criticism of the Pope is destructive in its consequences and we are unable to justify it.  We won't do it.  Not everything which is true needs to be shouted from the housetops.  I can't cite a single good fruit that can be associated with the relentless, non-stop hysteria about Pope Francis.  I don't consider any variant of "independent Catholicism" to be anything but well intentioned evil.

"Independent Catholicism" is like "no fault divorce" in the sense that once something is "thinkable" it can be chosen and done.  Before "no fault divorce," divorce was, for Catholics, "unthinkable" and, therefore, didn't happen as often as it does today.  Before "independent Catholicism" became available as an "option," problems in the Church were addressed and suffered from within (or people left the Catholic Church altogether for "none" or some variant of Protestantism).  Now we have the attractive "option," encouraged and reinforced by those most known for their relentless criticism of the Pope and the "conciliar Church," of "independent Catholicism" where one can "be Catholic without the Pope and all that goes along with the 'conciliar Church.'"  Public criticism of the Pope both enables and encourages the choice of this "option" which, since it is a "way of being Catholic" that is not in communion with the Church, isn't really Catholic at all but "feels like it" (see "theft of riches" analogy above"). "Independent Catholicism" NEEDS a Pope not worthy of obedience or submission, so it just makes sense to criticize him endlessly.  WE know that there are no life boats on the bark of Peter, so WE are not going to give people a reason to look for them.

And one last bit of psychobabble by analogy.  If any of us are members of families, and the head of that family is, shall we say, "dysfunctional," is it healthy for family members, on every and any occasion, to devote all their energies to discussion of "Papa's delicate condition"?  Is it healthy for various family members to separate themselves from the family and set up new families to protect themselves from "Papa's delicate condition"?  Yes, we have to be aware of "Papa's delicate condition" so that "Papa's delicate condition" doesn't wreck the family  - we mustn't follow the example of "Papa's delicate condition" - but, if we take seriously things like the 4th commandment, we must find a way to continue to show honor and respect for "Papa" and this end is not served either by endless gossip within the family or trashing of his person and condition in public.

The Pope is different.  Faithful Catholics know this.  If you take the time to listen to the sermons linked above, you will hear that, while it may make everyone nervous to see that the wheelhouse is occupied by drunken revelers, there's no point jumping off the ship into the sea.  Stay on board the ship, console each other during storms, reinforce what is true with each other, and trust in the Truth that "this ship can't sink no matter how much it looks like it will."



Reply
#27
Thanks so much for participating in this discussion.

I have not finished listening to the sermons. But I will.

Look, I get your points. I really do get that you don't want to foster a nefarious environment where all you do is validate and encourage people in their misery and despair. Message received.

Is the Papacy a unique office personally created by Christ ? Yes. This is more reason that we should be the more outraged when the occupant himself does not seem to appreciate the importance of this most unique office and disparage it thru their words and actions.

And no, people don't know. As its clearly illustrated in this discussion, people actually believe that the Holy Father's words are being "twisted" or that he is being "misunderstood".. Most people who live on the planet earth and are honest, know now this is not the truth. The Pope says what the Pope says. Am I saying we should dwell on it? NO. Am I saying that we should spend hours upon hours tearing him apart? NO. But when he says or does something that is clearly toxic, damaging and just plain wrong there is no legitimate theological reason to say . "The Pope said "a, b, and c, and he is incorrect. You can't condem others because of your personal reservations on speaking out and warning others on following potential errors. As a matter of fact that is exactly what Cardinal Burke has already done TWICE when he warned the faithful about  Evangelii Gaudium and more recently on his clarification on the "who am I to judge" remark. Is he wrong for doing this? Was Archbishop Lefenvre wrong for confronting the Assisi escandal on the face? If that is the case, this is where we have a disconnect.

I love your work. Keep on doing what you do. But you have absolutely no right to admonish others on imagined theological grounds.  As far as I know Christ did not say "Peter is perfect. Do not ever question his actions" .
Reply
#28
(09-21-2014, 09:12 PM)spikepaga Wrote: And no, people don't know. As its clearly illustrated in this discussion, people actually believe that the Holy Father's words are being "twisted" or that he is being "misunderstood".. Most people who live on the planet earth and are honest, know now this is not the truth. The Pope says what the Pope says. Am I saying we should dwell on it? NO. Am I saying that we should spend hours upon hours tearing him apart? NO. But when he says or does something that is clearly toxic, damaging and just plain wrong there is no legitimate theological reason to say . "The Pope said "a, b, and c, and he is incorrect. You can't condem others because of your personal reservations on speaking out and warning others on following potential errors. As a matter of fact that is exactly what Cardinal Burke has already done TWICE when he warned the faithful about  Evangelii Gaudium and more recently on his clarification on the "who am I to judge" remark. Is he wrong for doing this? Was Archbishop Lefenvre wrong for confronting the Assisi escandal on the face? If that is the case, this is where we have a disconnect.

I love your work. Keep on doing what you do. But you have absolutely no right to admonish others on imagined theological grounds.  As far as I know Christ did not say "Peter is perfect. Do not ever question his actions" .

Spike you can knock it off with these accusations on me. You have no right to call me dishonest because I do not share your narrative.
Reply
#29


In response to TerryCMTV's post:

First, hi, Terry! Nice to talk to you again :)

I'm noticing the language you're using when talking about those who do criticize the Pope:  "jihad against the Pope"; "relentless attack"; "attack the Pope"; "obsessive need"; "is it healthy for family members, on every and any occasion, to devote all their energies to discussion of 'Papa's delicate condition'", etc.  I have a few comments about this:

1.  I don't think that all people who engage in criticism can be characterized in that way.

2.  I do think that there are some -- way too many -- who can definitely be characterized that way, who go way out of their way to harp on His Holiness, seeing everything in the worst light possible, impugning his motives, believing media lies, never giving him the doubt whenever possible, behaving with utter disrespect and nastiness and bitterness, etc.

3.  There's a third category consisting of folks who refuse to see what is true in terms of papal imprudence (and worse), who refuse to call a spade a spade and, in humility, charity, and with respect for the papal office, say what needs to be said in order to protect the faith of those of us in the Church Militant. For ex., if a Pope were to kiss a Koran, talking about that as if it was just fine and dandy leads to error in the folks reading such an apologia. But there are ways of talking about such an act that is harmful, that speaks of the act as being a sign that the Pope is a secret jihadist or -- whatever -- and there are ways of talking about it that shows the act to be, on its face, an imprudent move, but possibly borne of good motives, or from the Pope's being caught up in the moment without really thinking, etc. But I think it's important to clarify for the faithful that Koran-kissing isn't a good thing to do, informing them that the Koran is blasphemous, and so forth. IOW, if no one says anything, the we end up with Koran-kissing Catholics sitting in the pews, perhaps even thinking that "Islam means 'peace'" (!!!) and all that rubbish. But if people speak in a toxic trad way, just as much damage is done but from a different angle. So it's my hope that such things are spoken about and clarified -- but with the attitude of those who've had/are still undergoing a conversion of the heart, who aren't addicted to outrage, etc.  (that page just linked to is, I think, the most important page on this website!)

My take on criticism of His Holiness (or any Pope) is that folks who fit category 2 are a menace, are addicted to their love of being "scandalized," and likely haven't had a true "conversion of the heart". That "type," which I refer to as "toxic trads," do the Church and, therefore, Christ Himself no favors whatsoever with their expressed attitudes and sheer "sour-ness" and lack of virtue. I really don't want folks who express themselves in that way to post here, believing they defeat the very purpose of this website.

However, criticizing papal actions without going about it in a "toxic trad" manner is, I think, a fine and even necessary thing to do. It's just sad that there is such a lack of prudence from some people with regard to all this.

All that said, I think I understand why Mr. Voris doesn't want to "go there" in terms of criticizing things the Pope does. Like I said, and as I'm sure you know, there is a general lack of prudence in some parts of the trad world, and, sadly, some folks have a weak faith and an incomplete understanding of papal power and what constitutes an infallible statement, and can be prone to seeing imprudence or even sinfulness on the part of a Pope as somehow being "proof" that that Pope isn't a Pope at all. But while I see sincere criticism of papal actions as a necessary thing, that doesn't mean that I think Mr.  Voris needs to deal with that himself. There are all sorts of things in the world that are necessary that not each individual is called to do himself. If I were to come down with a brain tumor, it'd be necessary to remove it, but I wouldn't want Gilbert Gottfried wielding the scalpel, if you get my metaphor LOL (hmmmm, my metaphor isn't meant to compare Mr. Voris to Gilbert Gottfried LOL Just making a point, man!)

My sense, though, is that the folks who post around here tend to be relatively educated and definitely tend to NOT be "toxic trads." Maybe if the "FE crowd" were different I might do things the way Mr. Voris does, but, praise God, I don't see that as necessary since the "toxic trads" have been pretty much cleared out. And if one or two do post, it incites conversation, allowing them to get set straight and showing folks reading over our shoulders HOW to talk about such things without being asses about it.

As I've said, I think it's perfectly fine and legitimate for different apostolates to have different ways of doing things. I don't see it as some sort of "black mark" or sign of a lack of "guts" or whatever that Mr. Voris draws his lines where he does (anyone who'd accuse Michael Voris of "lacking guts" hasn't paid much attention, that's all I have to say about that!). CMTV is a lot larger than FE now, a lot more financially viable, able to hire staff and all that good stuff, and not drawing a line in the sand like that would, I imagine, lead to headache after headache in trying to get folks to walk the path of subtle thinking. Having a staff, in itself, would be a good reason to draw that line, even aside from worrying about big audiences possibly being led astray or to a state of despair because of not being able to think subtly. I once had moderators, volunteer ones, God bless 'em!, but their "takes" on things were often quite different from mine, and, because of their position as moderators, it wasn't rare that their opinions were taken as "those of FE" (heck, I get THAT still from people who read regular posters' posts and take them as "FE's position" because I allow the post in question to stand and be discussed. So frustrating!). If I were Mr. Voris, I'd be very wary about such things, and just disallowing criticism of the Pope as a general rule would cut down on a lot of migraines and preserve the "face" of CMTV that he'd like to show the world (he seems to have a really good staff, though. Well, with one possible exception I won't get into talking about unless it's with you or him personally LOL -- and that person could well have just been having a bad week or something).

At any rate, I see the ChurchMilitant apostolate as one of the best things that's happened to the trad world in a good long while. So rock on!  :metal:

Reply
#30
(09-21-2014, 04:58 PM)spikepaga Wrote: Thank you for your reply. You are very correct in everything you have stated. Popes come and go. The Church is forever.

It just seems that with a Pope that thrives and relishes on the  media and public opinion, it is important he knows that people are aware of what he is up to. After all, I think that is what Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers did in their day and to a certain extent what Cardinal Burke is doing today.

One of the unfortunate aspects of living in "modern" times is the fact that we can know within moments what's happening in other places in the world. 

In our day, every time a pope sneezes, we have to hear about it.  In times past, there were Catholics who lived and died without having the slightest idea of who occupied the papacy.  Some popes only lasted a couple days, others made it a couple weeks, still others a couple months. 

The average Catholic living in, say, India in the third century (perhaps illiterate) probably had no idea about who was pope and wasn't all that concerned about who was pope or what he had to say on a daily basis.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)