Well done, Michael Voris!

Gentle Reader: If it shocks you to hear me say this, consider the possibility that you’ve never really understood a word I’ve said.

How Everybody Will Misread the Encyclical on the Environment
Francis inspires rising tide of exorcists and exorcisms
Elizabeth Stoker-Bruenig has a Smart Look at Pope Francis
Pope Francis Minutes
  • Scott W.

    Not shocked at all. I’ve always thought you and MV were like two brothers in the same family that had a penchant for knocking heads. :)

    • Scott W.

      with the understanding that when someone attacks the mother, both brothers unite and open a can of whoop ass.

      • http://creativefidelity.wordpress.com Dan F.

        fantastic analogy

  • http://www.gaudiumdei.com Joseph Jablonski

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around that end part of his comments…is that a slight insinuation that “traditional” Catholics should not critique him and divide him from Benedict for the same reason the media is doing it?

    • Scott W.

      The media is in a rush to judgement, and frankly most of what we know about Pope Francis has come to us in drips and drabs from the media and I think MV is saying not to do their work for them. Much of the traditional criticism has been more like a game of king-of-the-hill: fulling accepting third-hand information, reading Pope Francis’ acts in the worst possible light, rushing to the top of the hill and planting the traditionalist and declaring, “I am the TRVE Catholic because I excoriate the Holy Father in the sharpest of terms!” who is then toppled by another traditionalist who ups the ante.

  • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com JoAnna

    Good video, but doesn’t he have any proofreaders? “NEALRY UNSPOKEN…”

    • rose1929

      JoAnna, as an editor in print but a reader online, I’ve learned that 99.9% of internet content is proofread by that little *spellcheck* tab. Ugh. There, their, they’re, it’s its, your, you’re…these common errors are on the blogs of very well educated people. It’s so painful. I try to offer it up…but yeah, it bugs me, too.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    That was the first Michael Voris video I have ever made it all the way through. I usually have to stop around the halfway point. This was excellent stuff.

    Does some of Francis’ movement on the liturgy make me uncomfortable? Sure. But maybe I need to be a bit uncomfortable. The one thing I keep coming back to is that the man is legit. He is not doing anything out of a shady motivation or a secret agenda. Francis is the real deal, and we can learn quite a bit from him.

  • bob cratchit

    I agree with Mark, Voris struck home here. I’ve always agreed with Voris on many of his points but I will still shun any Cult of Personality. I still find it odd when priests will recommend to me the Voris website during various and sundry discussions.

  • MattyD

    I just don’t see the sinister machinations that Voris sees lurking, apparently, everywhere. It makes perfect sense to me that non-Catholics (and many Catholics) were troubled, for example, by BXVI’s Prada shoes. Symbols matter. It’s hard for me to think of a lamer evangelizing symbol than expensive red Prada shoes. And I can’t think of a *better* evangelizing symbol than Francis’ washing the feet of AIDS patients. The fact that many secularists appreciate this difference is hardly sinister. On the contrary, it may tell us that, deep down, some of those secularists are attracted to that radically humble Jesus they’ve heard so much about. Does that tear down Benedict? No, it tears down the idea of popes wearing carnival shoes.

    • Dom

      Pope Benedict XVI didn’t wear expensive Prada shoes. They were made by an Italian cobbler who created them as a gift, first for Pope John Paul II and then Pope Benedict. And that’s precisely the problem: Somebody keeps advancing damaging myths as facts

      • MattyD

        I respectfully disagree. “The problem” was not the reporting on the shoes. The problem was the shoes. If your symbol requires footnotes, press conferences and loyal combox defenders, explaining that the shoes are the *opposite* of what they look like, it may not be a very good symbol. Pope Francis’ washing of the feet of AIDS won’t require that kind of defensive scurrying. In fact, it’s melting people’s hearts and, almost certainly, already drawing fence-sitters back to the church. Maybe we can learn from that, rather than perceiving sinister machinations from secularists who know, in their gut, that Jesus was never flashy and dolled up.

        • Betty

          Pope Benedict wore red shoes; Pope Francis wears black shoes. Whoopty-doo! God made red and black, (and a few more colours, to boot, (pun intented)). Can we move on?

        • Jon W

          Jesus was never flashy and dolled up

          Maybe not flashy, but he did allow someone to pour $20,000 worth of perfume all over his feet.

          However, that being said, I think you have an excellent point about symbols. When non-necessary symbols require – how did you say it? – “footnotes, press-conferences, and loyal combox defenders, explaining that the shoes are the *opposite* of what they look like, it may not be a very good symbol.” I think I agree.

    • Mark Shea

      They weren’t Prada shoes: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/devil-wears-prada-pope-article-1.1276154 That secularists invent urban legends and then believe them is a problem for secularists. And yeah, it is a nasty swipe at Benedict intended to foster division.

      • MattyD

        See above. If your symbol requires footnotes, press conferences and loyal combox defenders, explaining that the shoes are the *opposite* of what they look like, it may not be a very good symbol. Pope Francis’ washing of the feet of AIDS won’t require that kind of defensive scurrying. In my experience, the harshest critics of the church are distressed by symbols like the flashy red shoes, not to divide the church, but because they’re genuinely *intruiged* by Jesus. And they can’t square Him with those *seemingly* ostentatious shoes, *seemingly* flashy pope garb, etc. And, far as I can tell, they like that Pope Francis gets this.

        • Mark Shea

          So…. you’re saying, “It’s okay to judge and condemn by appearances”? Dude, you’ve written me on ocassion to (rightly) rebuke me when I’ve done that. Stop making excuses for this petty divisiveness. If people are distressed by a lie, tell them the truth. Some cobbler made them as a gift. So what? Benedict honored artisans? Big deal.

          • MattyD

            Not that it’s “okay” to judge. But that we — Pope included — should not evangelize with messages that seem to contradict the Gospel. Jesus was radically humble. Flashy red shoes are not (especially when combined with all the other non-humble sartorial trappings). If, for example, a loving jeweler had hand-crafted for the Pope a beautiful diamond-laced “Monacle of Christ’s Humility”, I would think it a poor evangelizing choice to wear it. I would *expect* the press to be confused by that. I would *expect* that it would confound good-hearted religious searches. I would not put the burden on those searchers to investigate why the diamond monacle is *actually* humble, even though it looks comically ostentatious. Pope Francis seems to get this. Many secularists get this. Voris doesn’t.

            • Betty

              God chose Pope Benedict to be His representative. Pope Benedict had the grace of office, and a direct line that you, dear reader, did not. Lay off the shoes. Our first pope didn’t wear red shoes or black shoes – but that was a different time, and he, too, was chosen by God.

            • Marthe Lépine

              I may be wrong, but it seems to me that when Jesus was invited to dinner, sometimes those dinners were rather sumptuous affairs organized by rich people, and Jesus was criticized for “eating with sinners”… There is nothing wrong with a touch of luxury here and there, e.g. enjoying some of the best things creation has to offer. What would be wrong would be to “live for these things” instead of living in the moment, whatever it has to offer. Oh… by the way, what about that expensive perfume that a woman “wasted” on Jesus?

              • Rebecca

                I’d be really hurt if I made someone a beautiful gift and he rejected it as a “poor symbol”. Maybe there is also true humility is graciously accepting a gift given in love and publicly using it, knowing people will say nasty things about you.

  • Barbara

    And yet Jesus allowed the woman to pour all that expensive oil on his hair. Being gracious *is* Christlike.

  • Mike Harrison

    Still, though, he really needs to do something about the hair.

    • Sean O

      Johnson’s baby shampoo, no doubt, will do the trick.

  • http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/ Terry

    Have you seen his “Kidnap the Pope” video?
    I have to say I still like his hair though.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00805469860229478026 Irksome1

    Voris may be right that modernists praising Francis now may be doing so in an underhanded attempt to criticize Benedict XVI. Ultimately, however, this video suffers from the same problem as his Corapi video. He makes damning accusations against an abstract construct, allowing his followers to fill in specifics with whomever they happen to dislike. Indeed, declining to name names, he acts as a coward (it’s not like specific examples would be hard to find, ahem). He encourages icy suspicion of even a genuine change of heart. As is common with Voris’s polemical style of evangelism, he creates a bright line dichotomy between an elect (his own “church militant,” perhaps) and a hazily defined reprobate (whatever abstract people happen to be the target of this, his latest diatribe) and then goes on to discover ways in which even the objectively virtuous acts performed by this reprobate contains within it some mortal sin. My assessment is that this is more Calvin than Christ.

  • anna lisa

    I was delighted to see that “Babette’s Feast” is our dear Pope’s favorite film. By all means see it! You will understand so much more about the man. He is not repelled by luxuries, especially when they are poured out lavishly to love our brothers and sisters.