Well done, Michael Voris

Well done, Michael Voris October 22, 2014

He apologizes for his “Pope Harming the Church” video:

"So you inherently object to Shakespeare's ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA or JULIUS CAESAR or RICHARD III ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"I've not heard the radio drama, but the BBC, in general, seems to have a ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
""It will be boon to humanity when the boomers dies off."In case you haven't noticed ..."

Dear Prolife Suckers
"I'll generally try any new food I see, but I've not had camel so far. ..."

Simcha Fisher Has a Great Idea

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Matthew

    Here here.

    • Joe Blough

      The expression is “Hear, hear.”

      • Matthew

        Actually, both are acceptable depending on the context and dialect. In the rural Deep South, where I was both born and reside, we tend to have a funny way of using words to mean something other than what they actually mean. For example, the phrase, “I’m fixin’ to,” makes very little sense, but means, “I’m about to,” or “I’m getting ready to.”

        It’s the same in this situation. We often use the phrase “Look here” or “Looky here” or “Here now” to both instruct someone to physically view something or to express surprise. And like most slang/dialect sayings, they evolve or devolve. “Here here” in this context is a crude, country way of saying, “Wow, that’s interesting.”

        • Joe Blough

          I don’t believe you, but definitely a nice dodge…

          • sez

            I believe him, though I was skeptical at first. Belief came when I saw the etymological path from “Look here” to “Here now” to “Here here”. That, and my annoying habit of not accusing anyone of lying without both solid evidence and a clue about why they would break a commandment (what do they gain by it?). Especially on a Catholic blog!

            • Joe Blough

              I suppose we all have our annoying habits — one of mine is refraining from the overkill of pharisaically invoking the Decalogue to address cases of very obvious hyperbolic jocularity. Perhaps your wide phylactery makes it difficult for you to discern these cases.

  • SDG

    Anyone who can apologize as handsomely as that has my deep admiration. For that, and for his criticism of Pope Francis’s bitterest radical Traditionalist critics, I would hug Voris.

    • chezami

      Yeah. He really did the right thing here. I’m very impressed.

  • Dan F.

    The apology was good, straightforward explanation of his mistake with an apology for making it – the second half of that video in his defense of the Pope was fantastic.

  • ivan_the_mad

    God bless you, Mr. Voris. I for my part salute you.

  • Dcn Chris

    Not always a Voris fan… but credit where it is due. Hat tip Mr. Voris.

  • Fr. Denis Lemieux

    OK – I finally cracked and have now watched a Voris video, for the first time ever. Well done, Mr. Voris.

  • I think it is well to remember that Michael Voris is the same man who said Cardinal Dolan is going to hell. This is the same man who has told his listeners to starve the “Church by Nice” by withholding financial support from their parishes and dioceses. This is the same man who said the vast majority of bishops and priests are evil and should either resign or be fired. This is the same man who constantly attacks Father Robert Barron and Father Thomas Rosica as being “bad Catholics.” Voris’ own bishop refuses to allow him to even use the word “Catholic” in his organization. Why do you think that is?

    I really don’t know what game Voris is playing by saying he is supporting the Pope. He did a Vortex just the other day when he played a “what if” game. The litany of “what if” included such things as bishops with their own agendas to destroy the church, whole dioceses that have lost the faith, etc., and he also included the “what if” of a “bad pope” while showing pictures of Pope Francis He tells people to be “faithful” while at the same time trying to destroy the establishment Church.

    No, I don’t believe this one video deserves a “well done” when you consider all of the other ways in which Voris constantly attacks the Church.

    • JJG

      “The quality of mercy is not strained; it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven”. Perhaps you might give it a shot.

    • Marthe Lépine

      I have not had the time to follow this last crisis, and if you read Canadian media I might now have the time for a while, being preoccupied by what is happening here, However from the little I know, this video may seem to be a baby step, but it probably IS a first step towards repentance, and that does at least merit some “positive reinforcement”. And God’s Mercy is bigger than our own personal opinions…

      • Here, here (or if you will, hear, hear). Let’s hope the grace of the confession Voris mentions in the video really works on him. He has quite a bit to repent for, but I think this apology and the confession represent a good first move.

        • Brother McPatrick

          It is never a good move to act in the manner of a proud Pharisee and announce publicly what spiritual actions one has taken to “repent,” etc. Sincerely asking an internet audience to forgive for an alleged wrong is fine, but then mentioning not receiving communion, going to confession, and so on smacks of some holier-than-thou pride that looks like this:

          “Gee, look what I did to purify myself.”

          Sincerity in a Mea Culpa requires humility, and if Voris is completely humble in this regard, he should not have acted like a Pharisee in announcing his spiritual actions for all to see and applaud.

          • sez

            I dunno. Seems to me that it is never wrong to remind people about confession, et al.

  • chrisinva

    Thanks for this – and a link to the Original Sin, please?

  • Michael Fuller

    What a sissy. Clearly a bi-product of the heretical Vatican 2 council and conciliar education.

  • Michael Fuller

    St. Athanasius had no jurisdiction and no “official mission”. Voris would have skipped a saint´s Mass to attend the Arians´ Mass I do sincerely believe.

  • This only goes to prove that Michael Voris is no St. Paul. May God save us from cowards and “respecters of persons”! Voris only reported what Cardinal Burke said – which was, in fact, true. It was pure reporting. Final score: Michael Voris, 0, Church of Nice, 1.

  • This leads me to repent as well. I will from this moment on, accept the “God of Surprises” that has dominated my thoughts for far too long over the last 72 hours, as yet another bit of Jesuit spirituality that my autism means I will never understand. Enough people have tried to convince me otherwise that I will accept that it is legitimate orthodox teaching, even though due to human sinners in my past it scares the heck out of me.

    I still don’t like surprises, and pray that none of the thoughts I have had about sacramental surprises ever befalls me again outside of my nightmares.

    • Joseph

      Admittedly, I don’t like the language in the phrase “God of Surprises”. It’s a bit creepy. Makes me think of a big clown in the sky laughing ominously while Pee Wee Herman music is playing in the background. I don’t like “surprises” either. I’m no reactionary either, but I don’t think someone with a theological understanding would ever say such a thing. I’m trying to imagine Pope Benedict XVI saying, “here comes the God of Surprises!”, just before he made the Extraordinary Form more available.
      Yeah, it completely freaked me out when Pope Francis said that. I don’t like it.

      • Joseph

        Also, that phrase, to me, is a bit condescending. Not that I believe that I should be treated with any bit of respect… but… I *am* an adult.

        • The more I read into this “God of Surprises” stuff, the more I am struck by a profound disregard and disrespect for the human victims of sin.

          In the whole “let the divorced and remarried go to communion” plea is a hidden disregard for other family members and neighbors that are irreparably harmed by divorce. A divorce of a popular couple in my parish due to mental illness, ended with several parishioners leaving the parish and some of them leaving the faith over the scandal caused (a good man accused of mental and physical abuse that turned out to be entirely a hallucination, the children and several parishioners took the stand to defend him, but of course, the damage to the faith was already accomplished).

          We need something better than the God of Surprises, we need the Rock of Peter’s faith, and for his successor to be equally a rock.

          • HornOrSilk

            God of Surprises is more than that one book. What you are doing is rejecting the mystery of God. God transcends our comprehension. What God does that transcends our expectations is a surprise. When we limit God according to our understanding and force him to be constrained to our understanding of him, he is not God but an idol.

            • I do have a tendency to reject mystery cults. When I was doing my comparative religion studies in my early 20s, in search of the genetic components of religion in the species homo sapiens, I usually found mystery cults to be run by self-proclaimed prophets who were more into profit (fiscal, sexual, or both) than into the spiritual health of their followers.

              This description of the “God of Surprises” that you give, a God that is random and transcends even the physical universe he created, including the poor finite human minds that struggle to comprehend even that, makes me wonder if you’d be better off as an Islamic. What you describe is NOT Catholic teaching, but it is a central dogma of Islam, that we are but dogs unable to comprehend the universe or God- and that God is ever changing and never stable, bringing in new truth. The new Caliph preaches such- and also preaches that God has commanded him to execute Christians. Perhaps tomorrow somebody will believe that God has commanded him to execute the Caliph, and this too is the will of Allah, the God of Surprises.

              • HornOrSilk

                Christianity keeps talking about the great mystery of God. God transcends our comprehension. God transcends us: we are finite, he is infinite. He is beyond us . And yes, this is Catholic teaching. It’s basic Catholic teaching. The incomprehensible nature of God is basic Catholic teaching of the divinity. And this connects to the fact God in his essence is a mystery to us:

                This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s
                revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding,
                but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are
                not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present
                condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease,
                with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.

                40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our
                language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking
                creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited
                human ways of knowing and thinking.

                234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is
                the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of
                God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of
                faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and
                essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”. The whole
                history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the
                means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals
                himself to men “and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn
                away from sin”.

                2558 “Great is the mystery of the faith!” The Church professes this mystery in the Apostles’ Creed (Part One) and celebrates it in the sacramental liturgy (Part Two), so that the life of the faithful may be conformed to Christ in the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father (Part Three).
                This mystery, then, requires that the faithful believe in it, that they
                celebrate it, and that they live from it in a vital and personal
                relationship with the living and true God. This relationship is prayer.

                • Our knowledge of God is limited, but that is not mysterious to me. It is in fact expected by a certain knowledge that I am a finite being.

                  This is significantly different than a mystery cult where we can’t understand anything, for in fact “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves arenot beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present
                  condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease,
                  with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.

                  One of those certainties for me is that God doesn’t change. Our understanding of him changes, but any surprise is OUR fault for misunderstanding, not God’s fault for lying to us as the Jesuits and other liberals seem to be preaching.

                  I see no sense whatsoever in worshiping a liar.

                  • HornOrSilk

                    But God acts beyond our comprehension, and where he does, it ends up being a surprise. And, if you look, Scripture calls the faith a mystery. I’ve given references to this in the Catechism.

                    • It’s only a surprise to me if God acts *AGAINST* his nature, not if he merely acts beyond our comprehension.

                      Acting beyond our comprehension is within the nature of God. Acting *against* his nature of an ordered and ordained universe, in truth and love, would be a surprise.

                      And that’s what scares me about a “God of Surprises”- because that supposes a God that can act against Truth and Love.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      Presumption is a sin, and that shows why the end result is a surprise. Even Jesus shows the surprise of salvation in his parable of the Last Judgment.

                    • If we can’t even define that God is Good, and that Jesus actually brings salvation, then I see no point left to Christianity.

              • HornOrSilk

                No one is saying God is random. Surprise is not random. Surprise is about God’s transcendence, beyond our comprehension. Great is the mystery of faith! I would suggest you look up mystery in the Catechism, as well as opening sections in it about our limited ability to comprehend God. Saying God transcends our comprehension is not make God random, and what I said is precisely what is taught in Catholic theology, from the fathers onward.

                • “No one is saying God is random. Surprise is not random. ”

                  Since when is surprise not random?

                  If it is not random, you should be able to follow the causal chain and not be surprised. Our limited comprehension should not cause surprise, it should be EXPECTED that we will have limited comprehension.

                  • chezami

                    Stop being silly. Recognizing that God surprises (HELLO? THE RESURRECTION?) is not to affirm Islam. You are having hysterics. Stop it.

                    • Yep, that’s your answer for anybody who has problems understanding- just shut up and go along with the program, regardless of the damage it does.

                  • HornOrSilk

                    Surprise is not random. A father who gives their child a gift out of love does it for a reason. It’s not random. Just because the child is surprised and did not expect it does not mean it is random. You are really all over the place here. We do not place expectations on God: that is called presumption.

                    • I always expected the love of my father. I find it baffling that you would not have the expectation of love from God the Father.

                      If you can’t even expect love from God the Father, if that is the sin of presumption, then the Atheists are right, and you worship a monster.

    • Paul

      I can understand why somebody with autism would mistrust the phrase, but is the expression “the God of Surprises” not just an arresting way of expressing Proverbs 16:9?

      In the homily in which he used the phrase, the pope said: “They did not understand that God is the God of surprises, that God is always new: he never contradicts himself, never says that what he had said was wrong, ever, but he always surprises us.”

      Have you ever forced yourself to do something out of a sense of duty, only to find it become a joy? Or had what seemed a misfortune that put you in a position unexpectedly to help another person who was worse off? In retrospect it might fit a pattern and a plan, but in the moment it is a surprise. I can only think that this is the kind of surprise that is meant. Not sudden changes of what duty is, or what misfortune, and certainly not of doctrine or morals. For as the pope says, in the very same sentence: God never says that what he had said was wrong, ever.

      • Everything I do is out of a sense of duty, and doing one’s duty is what brings joy. Not doing one’s duty is what brings misfortune. Is it different for neurotypicals?

        • Paul

          If I understand you rightly, I’m going to have to say “yes”. The knowledge that one has done one’s duty can bring satisfaction, but the actual doing of it can as often be with feelings of irritation or resignation as with joy. And misfortune can come whether one has done one’s duty or not.

          • I find the process of doing my duty to be joyful in and of itself, because I know I’m promoting a better world instead of a worse one by setting such an example. And every time I’ve ever run into misfortune, it is specifically *because* I’ve neglected my duty to either myself or other human beings.

  • Dick Prudlo

    Poor Michael. He just doesn’t get it, period. The Bishop of Rome, by what ever name used, can say and do anything he wishes in Michael’s world. He can dispose of doctrine, step on the words of Christ and His Apostles with his “higher criticism,” all the while smiling and being humble. Nothing yet to see for Michael.

    • Marthe Lépine

      I think that you are wrong. As Bishop of Rome, and as promised by Jesus himself, the Pope would be protected against “disposing of doctrine, step(ping) on the words of Christ and His Apostles”. Of course he can be, and is, a sinner like any of us, but the Church herself is, according to Jesus’ promise, protected by the Holy Spirit against making false teaching. I think that many people have said, but maybe not in those precise words, that things like dumb mismanagement, out of place comments or criticisms, inside misunderstandings and political conflicts, etc… are proof that the Church could not have survived for over 2000 years if Christ was not ultimately in charge Himself…

      • Dick Prudlo

        I may be wrong, but I may be right. Where did Jesus say that, by the way? He did say, the Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth. The Bishop of Rome is in possession of that truth, but there are no guarantees he will keep them.

        The recent dance in Rome led by our Holy Father, as demonstrated by all the note passing to the secretary (leader), was clear who was determining the dance cards. He didn’t get what he wanted, but still may come next year.

        The Pope has three jobs to perform, Marthe, the first is defend Holy Tradition, the second; Church discipline, and the third; administration. So far his is wanting in all three, but mostly the first.

        • Marthe Lépine

          Go back and read the Gospel carefully without just looking for what justifies your opinions. Plus, it has been part of the Magisterium teaching (the Holy Tradition, actually) since long before Vatican II. And there IS Jesus’ guarantee that the Pope will indeed keep the Truth. And who instituted you as the expert to measure the Pope’s job performance? It is usually done by someone who is higher in the hierarchy of any organization.

          • Lukas

            Never in scripture did Jesus state that Peter or any of his successors could not commit heresy or make errors regarding teachings with respect to faith and morals. Jesus only stated that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. As long as one Catholic Christian does not leave the Roman Catholic Church (excluding schismatics such as SSPX followers) and holds onto the LONG STANDING truths of ancient Catholic tradition, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

            In this respect, the first Doctor of the Church, Saint Athanasius, in his “Epistle to the Romans” stated — “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

            • Lukas

              Further, a number of Popes and Saints have stated the Popes are capable of committing heresy and making errors with respect to teachings with respect to faith and morals (see quotes in next post).

              We generally accept that all teachings of popes are morally valid; however, unless those teachings, promulgated through papal bulls, encyclicals, motus proprios, catechisms, etc., are issued “ex cathedra” — infallibly, they potentially have error in them even if released with an imprimatur. An imprimatur does not mean the document containing it is infallible unless the Pope also states, in the document, that its teachings are infallible. Two examples of infallible teachings of the Catholic Church — the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

              • Lukas


                Pope Innocent III (quoted from “Sermo 4”):

                “Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'”

                Pope Adrian VI in Quaest. in IV Sent. (quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908):

                “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when HE TEACHES HERESY BY HIS OWN JUDGMENT OR DECREE. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (emphasis added).”

                Venerable Pope Pius IX (quoted from “Letter to Bishop Brizen”):

                “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”

                Pope Honorius I Posthumously Condemned as Heretic by Roman Catholic Church:

                “Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1).” This Council’s Acts were confirmed by Pope Leo II. The reason for excommunication was Pope Honorius I “promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures. Honorius actively maintained the heresy in official papal letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople in reply to a formal consultation and to several other individuals.”

                Heresy of Pope Liberius Who Caved to Arian Heresy:
                “The first doctor of the of the Church, St. Athanasius (+ 373), told us that Catholics faithful to Tradition can be reduced to a handful. He wrote during the Arian crisis, when the global episcopacy defected to Arianism and Pope Liberius (+ 366) went into heresy, signed a heretical Arian creed and invalidly excommunicated St. Athanasius, as did the heretical bishops of the east.”

                • Lukas

                  OTHER WARNINGS:

                  “St. Vincent of Lerens (+ 445) is the Father of the Church most associated with the defense of unchanging doctrinal tradition. It is the subject of his main treatise, the Commonitory. He foresaw that if the whole Church should go into heresy we must keep the traditional Faith handed down from the Fathers.” He states:

                  “What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if some new contagion (Pope Francis’ modernist docternal gradualism which will make many ancient Church traditions meaningless for most lukewarm Catholics, comes to mind) attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once (Voris and other normalizers come to mind — I call it the heresy of denialism)? Then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty (‘God is the God of surprises, comes to mind). He also stated:

                  “When foulness invades the whole Church, we must return to the Church of the Past.”

                  Pope St. Leo the Great:

                  “The devil is always discovering something novel against the truth.”

                  Saint Robert Bellarmine:

                  “Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs the civil order; or, above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. It is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution.”

                  • Marthe Lépine

                    I have a problem with this multitude of quotes: What proof do I have that you are not taking some of them out of context, in the same way as many, many people are taking “Who am I to judge” out of the complete sentence of Pope Francis? And as well, how do I know that not only are they out of context, but put together without enough attention to the times and circumstances when they were written or said. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time or the means to carefully verify each of the quotes you have given, and I hope someone can do it and clarify them. However, the sheer number of them, posted all together in what seems a hasty way, raises some doubts in my mind.

            • Marthe Lépine

              No, but He did say that He would be with the Church always, which sounds very clear to me…

          • Dick Prudlo

            Marthe, please tell me where in the scripture I can find that quote from Jesus, please.

            • Marthe Lépine

              Keep reading… I don’t have the time to do your research for you.

        • Petey

          I’m sorry, Dick, but you may be wrong.

          • Dick Prudlo

            In what way, Petey?

  • ImTim

    I always like hearing, “I’m sorry” instead of “I’m sorry if you misunderstood me.”

    Thanks Mr. Voris.

    • Brother McPatrick

      In the video, Voris takes great pains to point out that it was not his intention to give a wrong impression of his position by airing the views of Cardinal Burke, which is another version of “I’m sorry if you misunderstood me.”

      • Jared Clark

        True, but he also took blame for posting it in the first place, so it was ultimately something like “I’m sorry that I gave the wrong impression.”

        • Brother McPatrick

          “I’m sorry that I gave the wrong impression so that you misunderstood me.” Any way you slice it, it is not a simple “I’m sorry” praised by ImTim. The video also contains some nasty and hurtful comments toward others who faithfully and respectfully criticize the Pope by lumping them in with those people who disrespectfully mock the Pope. Do you suppose Voris will ever apologize to these more respectful people for exercising appropriate fraternal correction instead of wrongly warning them about going to hell for levying any kind of criticism of the Pope?

          And while I am at it, why does Voris mock and belittle other prelates instead of simply criticizing their views? Where’s the appropriate form of fraternal correction in his approach toward them?

    • Tim

      He has nothing to be sorry for, he accurately reported what Cardinal Burke said(which is also accurate)…..period. He’s sorry that his neo-con modernist buddies where threatening to end the gravy train.

  • Giuseppe Di Montagna

    We will see what the future brings vis-à-vis the utterances of the self-styled “apostle, Michael Voris.

  • JJG

    I’ve been critical of Michael Voris in the past, so I’m pleased to see him say this. It’s the rarest of things: a true apology and acceptance of responsibility, rather than the sort of evasive blame-shifting rhetoric which so often is masked as an “apology”. While I’m sorry to see Cdl. Burke removed from the Apostolic Signatura, and not given an equally influential posting (e.g., the Chicago archdiocese) I do think he went overboard in his remarks to the secular media. Mr. Voris is right to distinguish between his concerns as a journalist and his concerns for his apostolate. It takes humility to make this admission, and I commend him for it.

  • Cypressclimber

    I think Mr. Voris was very classy here, and probably did the right thing. (I say probably because I didn’t see the prior video that occasioned the concern.)

    Yet this raises a question. Mr. Voris said, in this video, something like, no Catholic should ever criticize the pope.

    Do all agree with this?

    I did not agree with every decision Pope Saint John Paul II made, yet I loved him greatly. He had his weaknesses; is one not allowed to say that? The same of Pope Benedict and Pope Francis?

    Obviously, there is a line. Is the line really, no criticism whatsoever?

    • Andy

      Being critical – having a reasoned concern is one thing and I think acceptable, reasoned means based on theology for example and not pure emotion and distrust – comments that say that this pope or that pope or this bishop or that bishop is out to destroy the church have no place. Creating a false impression that Francis is trying to destroy the church is not criticism – it borders on lunacy.

      • Cypressclimber

        I agree. The issue, I thought, was Burke’s comment about “great harm” from the pope not offering desired commentary. Are you deeming that comment from Burke as the equivalent of saying Francis is “trying to destroy the Church”?

        • Andy

          I look at the recent synod as a conversation – I personally didn’t take what was presented in the “first document” all that seriously and didn’t take what came out later all that seriously. I am more interested in what happens next year when a “final document” is produced. History and my personal experiences tell me that when wrestling with thorny issues of humans that lots of conversations have to take place.
          On a personal level I think that what Burke said did not reflect well on what the “preliminary synod” was designed to do. I think that Burke missed what the pope was trying to do – trying to lay all cards on the table if you will so that the choices are clear. By the way I had to go and look up what Burke said.
          I am concerned that Burke’s comments display a sense of distrust and perhaps disdain for the man, with all his warts as we have warts, elected to lead the church. I guess I have faith that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church – maybe a naive view, but mine none-the-less when it comes to doctrine and the like.

    • Brother McPatrick

      You can respectfully criticize the words or actions of any Pope, and in fact, if such criticism is based on solid Catholic teaching, it is actually beneficial to the Pope who can also gain from respectful and well-reasoned fraternal correction. Let the example of St. Paul (there are also others) lead you in this. See Galatians 2:11-14.

      • She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

        I don’t think that passage in Galatians means what you want it to mean. St. Paul was, if you will, on the same fraternal level with St. Peter inasmuch as they were both preaching, teaching, and sacrificing their whole selves for the sake of the Gospel. As much as I love Our Holy Father, I am in no way on the same fraternal level with him as one of his brother priests, brother bishops, or even perhaps a fiesty mother superior might be. It isn’t to say that I cannot tell him what I think about what he has said if we meet face to face, but that I don’t have the authority to call him out publicly. You said that if I, in my vocation as a wife and mother living in the United States of America, “respectfully criticize the words or actions of any Pope” that “it is actually beneficial to the Pope who can also gain respectful and well-reasoned fraternal correction” from what I have to say. I am sorry, but that is completely illogical given that I have absolutely no inside track to His Holiness or way of conveying such a respectful and well-reasoned fraternal correction — and nor should I. Fraternal correction is supposed to come from your brothers — in other words, the people who are around you, doing the same work you do, who are within your closest circle of influence. Fraternal means “brotherly” and a brother is someone who is close to you. St. Paul was able to publicly call St. Peter to task because they were brothers, working together in the vineyard of the Lord to spread the Gospel and minister to the Church through preaching and teaching. You cannot interpret that passage from Galatians in such a literalist manner in order to give yourself (and everyone else) carte blanche permission to publicly decry and criticize every church leader who you believe is doing something that goes against “solid Catholic teaching” because then you miss the point. The point is that it’s not your job to fraternally correct the Holy Father. It is the job of his fratres — or brothers. We have a hierarchy for a reason. If you are gravely concerned about something the Pope has said or done that you feel contradicts Catholic teaching, then instead of publicly criticizing him, why not talk to your priest about it and then your bishop if you are not satisfied? Learn the hierarchy and how to use the proper channels for any grievances or criticisms you have.

    • Jared Clark

      Sure, if done with respect and love, and preferably done privately. However, in the digital age, public criticism of all clergy is impossible to stop, so sometimes we may have to give an example of respectful, loving criticism publicly in order to counteract spiteful criticism without contradicting the faith (though I’ve yet to see anything from Pope Francis that actually needs that kind of action)

  • David Ninemire

    The elephant in the room: His Eminence Cardinal Burke needs to act NOW and assume the Throne of St. Peter. Send this one into retirement. It is time for this nonsense to stop.

    • ivan_the_mad
      • HornOrSilk

        That’s all folks

    • chezami

      Reactionaries have taken to picking a folk hero, anointing him their Spiritual Pope and then treating everything they say as revelation from Sinai. Crazy.

    • Jared Clark

      I’m not sure you understand how a man becomes pope…

    • Tim

      Cardinal Burke should call Bishop Fellay and become the 1st SSPX Cardinal. Marcel Lefebvre….pray for us!!!

      • HornOrSilk

        And there you prove, once again, you are not following the Catholic Church.


  • EditorCT

    Is this guy for real? What a numpty! I actually thought he’d seen the light – at last – when I heard of (but didn’t watch) his “breaking news” video. Now he’s apologising for doing what top and highly respected cardinals have done – laying the blame where it belongs, with the Pope.

    He seeks to add chaos to his already confused position by referring to those who question the papal election and implying that only this minority are scandalised by Pope Francis. Wrong. Please return to Planet Earth, Michael Voris and anyone else who by now, at this late stage in the crisis, cannot see that in Pope Francis we have, not “no pope” but the worst ever pontiff in the entire history of the Church to date.

    Voris & his ilk are part of the problem now not part of the solution, because an elementary part of solving any problem is to recognise the problem. And the problem right now is Pope Francis, described, rightly, by one African cardinal as “an agent of disruption” which he is, manifestly so – and then some.

    Michael Voris needs to mature in the Faith – he really has a totally UN-Catholic view of the papacy. Or, to put it in more common parlance – he hasn’t the proverbial clue.

    • HornOrSilk

      Anyone who says “worst ever pontiff” really have no clue to history.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        That’s just an American fashion, it means nothing. I remember hearing people call Bush fils the worst president ever, in a country which produced Jackson and Lincoln and Roosevelt (you can pick either and the point stands).

        Americans have the attention span of a gnat.

        • Elaine S.

          None of those guys comes close to beating Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan (both of whom allowed the nation to slide toward civil war in the 1850s and did absolutely nothing about it) in the historic presidential race to the bottom. Though Obama might be gaining on them more quickly than I expected, I still don’t think he’s there yet.

        • Andy

          Are you sure it is a large as that of a gnat? I lean more toward the fruit fly attention span.

    • Mary

      Michael has confused the church and the pope with God’s Word. Jesus taught us well to rebuke the leadership, not bow to obvious errors!

      • Marthe Lépine

        Your comment sounds like “sola scriptura” raising its … head in some Catholic circles. This used to be called Protestantism.

        • Nathaniel David

          God’s Word is divinely revealed truth according to Catholic Doctrine and can never be changed. Yes, the Pope is bound by God’s Word and cannot change or cancel out one word of it. This is light years from “sola scriptura” which proposes that any person can read the bible and decide for himself what it means.

          • HornOrSilk

            No. Just you clearly think you can read the bible and decide for yourself. We get it. Not just anyone. Just you. It’s still following Protestant methodology (and Luther) to use the “Pope can’t change a word” to indicate he has just because he did something you didn’t like. That doesn’t prove a “change in word” at all.

    • JM1001

      …the worst ever pontiff in the entire history of the Church to date.

      What does one even say to such an absurd statement? Honestly, what does one even say?

      Do you even know of the popes who had mistresses, or who had people killed? Have you never heard of the “pornocracy”? Are you even aware of where the word “nepotism” comes from?

      However bad you think Francis is, if you think he’s the worst pope in history, you obviously don’t know much about Church history.

      • Evan

        If anyone, even someone who dislikes Pope Francis, truly believes he is the worst pope ever, then that person is insane and completely ignorant of church history, and there is no point in trying to explain otherwise to him.

      • Josefa

        I’d rather have a Pope with 10 illegitimate children than a Pope who seeks to destroy the Faith and millions of souls along with it This Pope doesn’t even pretend to sound Catholic. He may very well be Pope, but he certainly is a lousy one AND is doing horrific damage to the Church Our Lord established.

        • Andy

          Since you have this information please share clearly and exactly what he has damaged. I want specific decisions he has made and specific doctrines he has overturned. Don’t cite some ver-heated strange and wild websites, there useless.

        • Evan

          Do me a favor: provide some quotes of Francis in which he “doesn’t even pretend to sound Catholic” and “seeks to destroy the Faith and millions of souls.” (And I mean actual quotes, not quotes twisted by the New York Times to mean something other than what Francis actually said.)

          • Josefa

            Well then- How about calling Traditionalists,( you know, those Catholics who maintained the objective Truths of the Faith for 1700 years?) “neo- Pelagian Rosary counters” and Triumphalists?” How about letting an Anglican have a Catholic Bishop”s funeral? ( oh sorry ,.”BROTHER “Bishop- seems everyone is welcome except for traditional Catholics that actually abide by the Faith.) Actually Bishop Palmer wanted to become Catholic, but Bergoglio stated
            he should remain where he is.. he’s dead so where is he now?
            What happened to the DOGMA ” No salvation outside of the Church?”- Like you said -no doctrine or Dogma was ever changed and we MUST believe it to remain Catholic-. Does the Pope believe it?
            How about the comments on speaking about what unites us and not divides us- like abortion, contraception and homo-marriage? How about the phone call to the divorced and remarried (not annulled) Argentinian women – the Pope told her to go to a “different parish ” to receive communion? How about stating that atheists can go to Heaven?
            How about calling true Catholic evangelization (ie: conversion)”proselytizing nonsense”. and of course the proverbial ” Who am I to judge?’ about “gay” Catholics seeking the Lord. ( He never specified if these “gay” Catholics were continent or not) He is the first Pope to use the word “gay” and accede to their terminology. It is a great concession.
            There is so much more but I have to go to work.

            • Marthe Lépine

              Those are not quotes, they are only opinions about what Pope Francis said, and some of those opinions are known to have been distorted and biased by the media. Please give a reliable source for them.

  • SquireTrelawney

    Poor Michael Voris. He seems very confused. It’s as if he wants to speak the truth but someone is controlling him, preventing him from criticising the Pope. There is nothing wrong with criticising the Pope’s actions, in this instance it is necessary for us to criticise the Pope. As many of the top Cardinals have said he has caused terrible confusion by not clearly stating the Church’s teaching. How many souls will be lost through this Pope’s lack of clarity??

    • Petey

      Probably none.

    • Andy

      Has the pope really caused this mass confusion or are the cardinals and those who criticize him not liking the message? He has said nothing that is not in line with Catholic teaching, he has done little that is not aligned with Catholic teaching. What he has done is put mercy and justice together and tried to tone down judgment, Toning down judgment is no fun if all you have is a black and white world. All i see in the critics is people who live in a black and white world and don’t recognize of fail to recognize or are afraid to recognize that “judge not lest ye be judged”, because they are part of the elect. SO sad.

      • Read “God of Surprises” , it is a book on Amazon written originally in 1988, updated in 2008. I have not read it, and think I am too stupid to understand how a new age novel about “the god within” can possibly be orthodox.

        • Andy

          I am not sure what a book that suggests we look within ourselves to find God is not orthodox. God lives within me and within all of us – to find our way to Him we need many possible routes? SO please explain how it is not orthodox.

          • HornOrSilk

            Certainly it is orthodox, as the saintly hesychasts prove, however, there can be a turn to heresy as the quietists prove.

            • Andy

              Thank you for the reply

            • I thought the hesychasts lost that battle.

              • HornOrSilk

                No. St Gregory Palamas is a saint, recognized by Catholics, on the Eastern Calendar. The West has often confused the two, because the quietists take aspects of hesychasm but extrapolate in a way which rejects elements the hesychasts kept that kept the hesychasts orthodox, but when examining the two, they are not the same and Western response has always been on quietism.

          • The God of Surprises is more Nameste than the mere Indwelling of the Spirit. And I prefer Jesus Christ to the Emperor of Japan for my route to God. “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life” makes a lot more sense than “There are many roads up Mt. Fuji, it does not matter which one you take or even if you take many of them at once, the point is to get to the top”.

            • Andy

              I haven’t read it either so given you comment “The God of Surprises is more Nameste than the mere Indwelling of the Spirit.” I assume you have? But then you said you haven’t. I am going to surmise that your oft stated distrust of the Jesuits has lead you to this belief?

              • I’m going on the reviews of the book on Amazon. But it has led to more distrust of Ignatian spirituality, yes. I judge all philosophy, not just theology, by its fruits, and the fruits that a certain contingent within the Jesuits have left behind certainly does speak to a God of Surprises:
                – Surprise, you’re pregnant, better get an abortion
                – Surprise, your spouse is gay, better get a divorce
                – Surprise, your teacher in a supposedly Catholic high school is a pedaterest, we’ll move him out of state so that your allegations of abuse can’t be prosecuted.

                • HornOrSilk

                  Surprise, God is incarnate. Surprise, God died on the cross. Surprise, the resurrection. Surprise, your sins are forgiven.

                  • None of those are surprises to me; they are the expected behavior of a Father who keeps his promises, the type of father I am modeling for my son.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      You are looking after the fact. However, the incarnation was a major surprise, totally unexpected, as is the death of God on the cross.

                    • Unexpected TO whom? Not to Judas nor any of the 12. They had been quite prepared, even had a bunker ready to hide in for the coming persecution.

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      It was totally unexpected to the Jews who were, and in many cases still are, waiting for a Messiah who would establish an earthly kingdom.

                    • It was unexpected to them because they refused to even listen to their own prophets.

                      It clearly was not unexpected to those who ended up in that locked room on Pentecost.

                      God is not a practical joker. He doesn’t try to trick us. If we are surprised by his actions, it is because we have deceived ourselves.

                • Andy

                  So I understand this clearly a- group of Jesuits did not conform to what the church teaches and so Ignatian spirituality is not trust-worthy. Did these Jesuits do anything different than what other priests have done. I tend to doubt it.

                  • The difference being I did not hear Cardinal Law referring to the Charitable Interpretation to excuse the sex abuse scandal. The Jesuits tied these actions philosophically to their spiritual exercises, not me.

                    • Andy

                      Rather he just ignored it. I guess that is better?

                    • Ignoring evil rather than preaching evil is good is kind of like choosing between being burnt at the stake vi being thrown into the volcano, but one must look to how ones teaching affects others. By remaining silent, Law at least did not teach that abuse is good and evil does not exist.

                    • Andy

                      No by remaining silent he allowed it to continue. We are discussing evils – neither is better nor worse – the issue I think is not the evil nor the response – but rather our interpretation.

                    • Both allowed it to continue. But one, by his silence, allowed our horror to show that it is an evil. The other, denies the possibility of evil existing. There is a significant difference.

      • Tim

        “He has said nothing that is not in line with Catholic teaching, he has done little that is not aligned with Catholic teaching.”

        What, exactly, are you smoking, sir?

        • Andy

          Sir, I don’t smoke! My question is what Catholic Catechism are you reading? And please in your response be very specific as to what he has said that is “not Catholic” and not vague generalities gleaned from strange and unknowing websites.

          • Tim

            The Catechism of The Council of Trent.


            • So, you believe the Catholic Church has taught error as doctrine? Doesn’t that mean Jesus was a liar?

              • Marthe Lépine

                I think that he means, just like many Protestants, that in some very strange way, apparently only discovered some 1500 years after the fact in some other very strange ways, the Catholic Church has not been faithful enough to Jesus’ teaching…

      • Rob C

        “Has the pope really caused this mass confusion…”

        Yes, he has absolutely, directly caused mass confusion. Exhibit A: “Who am I to judge,” followed by being named Man of the Year by the Advocate. Exhibit B: Inviting Kasper to the Synod to spread heresy and evil ideas.

        I’m a little confused, aren’t you?

        Edit: I am quite certain, and cocksure, about the fact that when somebody makes a statement (“who am I to judge”) that lends itself to numerous interpretations, some of which are VERY obvious interpretations (e.g., suddenly the Catholic Church approves of homosexuality), then that person is causing mass confusion.

        Some people are careful speakers, some are not. Those who are not usually cause confusion. And when you are the vicar of Christ, probably best to choose your words carefully, lest you should cause mass confusion. It’s actually a very big part of the job. It cannot be everybody else’s fault (including the Advocate’s) that everybody is taking away all the same basic interpretations of Pope Francis’ commentary. At some point a rational person needs to ask: How much of these interpretations might be avoided by the person WHO MADE the statement?

        Edit: Petey I’d love to respond, but I’ve been blocked. My comments were, er, judged offensive.


        Petey and Andy make the true statement that Pope Francis is not directly responsible for the Advocate’s choosing him as MOTY. Sure… but they were clearly inspired by “Who am to judge?” Are the Pope’s very utterings so mystical that we can’t even attribute his own words, to him? That’s really ironic, because I was informed above^ that my words are rending and tearing the Body of Christ (hence me getting blocked, lol). In other words, the statements posted by me (some guy nobody knows) on a blog site with moderate traffic, “rend and tear” the Body of Christ…..but the words coming out of the mouth of the Vicar of Christ, before international media, why, he just has no control over all these crazy interpretations! Such as the cuh-raz-y interpretation that….we can’t…uhhh….”judge”…homosexuality.

        • Andy

          You read the entire quote I assume – “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” – so to answer your question I am not confused. I am more confused when people don’t read the entire quote and then draw conclusions.

          Being named man of the year by the advocate – his fault – my stars what power he must have

        • chezami

          Actually, your problem is that you are absolutely cocksure you are righteous and the pope and most of the Church are your enemies. Because you say “we see” your sin remains.

          • Marthe Lépine

            Was it not the attitude of Pharisees in Jesus’ time?

        • petey

          no, not at all. i am confused by your post though.
          1: what about “who am i to judge”, in its entire context, is confusing?
          2: what the Advocate chooses to do is not under Francis’ control.
          3: Francis deliberately asked someone to spread what he knows are heresy and evil ideas?
          4: what heresy and evil ideas is Kasper spreading, and by what criteria are they judged so?

      • “He has said nothing that is not in line with Catholic teaching, he has done little that is not aligned with Catholic teaching. ”

        Since when is mercy without repentance Catholic Teaching? Since when is it Catholic Teaching that we should be merciful enough to criminals to fail to protect society from their victims?

    • Daniel

      Amen, Amen!

      “in this instance it is necessary for us to criticise the Pope.”
      According to the Church teaching and catechism not only it is necessary but every Baptized Catholic is duty bound to love other souls through the works of mercy. And among the spiritual works of mercy is counsel the ignorant and admonish sinners. People can make argue if what the Pope said or did is harmful to the salvation of souls or not but to ask those of us who believe the Pope has done harms to the Salvation of many to not speak up is asking us to not to care about the Pope’s salvation and because he is the chief pastor of the Church the salvation of many Catholics. And that is hate, not love because we are asked to not put love in action which is to perform Spiritual Work of Mercy. St. Gregory the Great said “When we remove malice from another’s heart by our good word are we not, so to speak, picking up the serpents?(Mark 16:18)….Surely these miracles are all the greater because they are spiritual; they are all the more significant since it is the heart and not the body which is being restored.”
      Most Catholics have a misunderstanding of the theology of Papal Infallibility.
      1) No, it is not the Church teaching that the Holy Spirit would guide the electors(be it the citizen of Rome or Cardinals) to elect a good Pope even he is the Vicar of Christ. And in history we had bad Popes though it is minority.
      2) No, it is not the Church teaching that the Holy Spirit would guide the Pope in what he say and do. It is not the Holy Spirit would give him super natural ability in theology and pastor care once he is elected as Pope. He needs to learn the Church doctrines and Tradition just like any Catholics. So a lot of things he said or did has a lot to do with his formation over the years not the Holy Spirit is taking a break. The working of the Holy Spirit is a “prevention”, so it is a negative action in preventing the Pope teaches false doctrines. And the only time we know what the Pope said is free of error is when he speaks “ex-Cathedra” or when he affirms doctrines that is part of the dogmas in the deposit of faith(for example if he repeats the doctrine of Trinity).
      3) Yes, the Pope has authority as the Vicar of Christ and successor of Peter. So we need to submit to his teaching on doctrines when he intended to speak at the seat of Peter. And we have the assurance of Holy Spirit that he would not be able to bind us in believing false doctrines like “Trinity is a false belief”
      I have no doubt great damage has been done because of the things he said after becoming the Pope. Many occasions I heard priest preach heresy citing Pope Francis remarks as sound theology. Many souls would be lost if we do not learn sound doctrines but take whatever the Pope said that sounds easy to our ears(2 Timothy 4:3)

  • obpoet

    Does he share a hairdresser with The Donald?

  • WriterNamedMike

    Is it just me, or is Michael Voris of CMTV apologizing for being a journalist reporting the facts, in his recent “clarification” video? Voris reported the words of Card. Burke, who said Pope Francis is harming the church. Now, he’s apologizing for reporting the news? I just read he’s quitting CMTV because of his actions —quitting his news reporting position because he reported the news???
    Maybe I’m missing something, but don’t know who’s more extreme… Voris or the synod? This video really had me confused. What is he feeling guilty about?? Are we never ever ever supposed to say any kind of criticism about the pope, no matter what the pope does, or doesn’t, do? Is that what Voris is saying??

  • chad

    [Reading the comboxes]… so these are the Reactionaries Mark keeps talking about! 10 foot pole being extended… now.

    • chezami

      I decided to let the posts stay just to let people see that I don’t make this stuff up about the serious crazy of the Right.

      • Ronald King

        Mark, I have read every comment and I know that there is no human who will change the beliefs of those who think that Pope Francis is a destructive influence in our faith. It is a subjective reaction to a man who is perceived as a threat to their identities as the chosen ones who “know” the “Truth”. It is spiritual narcissism and it is impenetrable.

        • Marthe Lépine

          Maybe, but don’t underestimate the work of the Holy Spirit. But I would not say that it is just spiritual narcissism; there may be a large dose of pride.

      • Dan F.

        They are very nearly unbelievable. As in, I have a hard time believing that that amount of crazy is real.

        • chezami

          Welcome to my world.

  • ivan_the_mad

    I see that the flying monkeys have arrived in full force. You must have greatly irritated some Intarwebz font of Truly True Catholicism, although Mr. Voris must be weathering a worse storm. Prayers for him!

    • HornOrSilk

      It’s funny and sad, often I wonder if I am reading quotes from Luther….

    • Andy

      Two quick questions – who has the Golden Cap and how do we throw water on that person, as logic doesn’t seem to work?

      • ivan_the_mad

        There are many Golden Caps. It’s usually included with the purchase of a mail-order paper mitre.

        • Andy

          In the mitre guaranteed to make me more holy and catholic than any one else?

          • ivan_the_mad

            Yea, verily, more Catholic than the pope.

            • Andy

              I think that some of commenters here found the site for tin-foil hats and thought they looked like mitres and bought out the store.

  • Rob C

    To Michael Voris, and all of you think the “rad trads” are just
    crazy, looney, reactionaries, remember to ask yourself “Who am I to judge?” Or does that only apply to homosexuals?

    Say, do “so-called” traditionalists have “gifts and talents” to offer the Church?

    Since you have BLOCKED all of my comments, I’ll edit this one (which I’m sure you’ll just delete anyway):

    And what’s our measure for deciding which comments, opinions, and statements “rend and tear the Body of Christ”? Because, if you ask crazy-old, reactionary me, it tears the Body of Christ when Cardinals, Bishops, and, yes, Popes make gestures of so-called “openness” and sensitivity toward homosexuals, while treating Catholics who might prefer the Latin Mass as radical lunatics. It’s an absolute scandal, and I’m sick to death of people treating the Holy FATHER as if he were the Holy SPIRIT. We pray TO the Holy Spirit, and listen for His instructions. We pray FOR the Holy Father, and hope his instruction is guided by the Holy Spirit…and no, it’s not a guarantee. Unfortunately, even the Holy Father can make false statements–and nobody is obligated to pretend the statements are not false. Not every word from his mouth is divine and mystical. Sometimes its bunk.

    Is the Pope capable of rending and tearing the Body of Christ?

    • chezami

      Of course they do. They are baptized. The problem is, they so often pervert their gifts and use them to rend and tear the body of Christ, as you are doing here.

    • Jeanne

      Well said Rob C

  • petey

    156 comments about this, 1 about the women ready for martyrdom.

    • chezami

      Because Reactionaries are loveless, self-obsessed, vengeful, and full of fear. There’s no room for the suffering Christians of Iraq in Reactionary hearts. Only for Reactionary narcissism and self-pity. Reactionary Catholicism is plague on the Church. It can’t die fast enough.

      • Athelstane

        Does this mean that only reactionaries post on your blog now, Mark?

      • The only thing that is accurate in that statement is “full of fear”, so I question a pastoral method designed to increase fear.

  • Des Farrell

    I’ve run out of popcorn. And patience. As for the video, I like it. He’s a charismatic, intelligent speaker. With a new humility who knows where it might end. Also, ios8 on older Apple products sucks. Just thought I’d throw that into the soup.