+
JMJ
Having witnessed people go through the phases of grief at realizing what was started in from Oct 11, 1962, didn't end in Dec 8, 1965, that was only the end of the beginning, I was interested to watch his development.
Sad to say, Mr. Voris has simply become a case of arrested development.
At some point he, figuratively hit a brick wall and started to contradict himself. His recent attack on the position of the SSPX is an example of a position that he avouched in 2010 and now attacks as it is held by the SSPX.
Michael Voris, for whatever reason, has been convinced that one cannot criticise the Pope because (appraently) that will cause the person to run off to the SSPX.
I guess he hasn't realized that those who are left in their regular parishes, by an large don't have the same perspective on this crisis as he does.
In other words, I doubt very much that the SSPX will suddenly see an influx of conservative Catholics. I believe that they will mostly search out conservative priests in order to duck and cover. The only ones really at risk are those attending diocesan Tridentine Masses, that are likely to be gutted as the crisis experiences a compressor stall and flames out.
I digress ...
I think that the problem for Michael Voris is that he has an assumption that the Pope is personally protected from hurting the Church. Basically, whatever the Pope does must be part of God's plan and therefore we must not interfere.
Of course this is only my theory, but when I read things from Mr. Voris' friend (Fr. Nicholson) like this:
... At the same time he must speak of those things that touch or attack the Church's unity. He must protect the Holy Father's reputation, since the visible head of the Church is divinely protected from teaching error. ...
... I begin to wonder if I'm not too far off the mark.
This is, interestingly, related to the thought put forward by the Canon Lawyer that Voris interviewed. Specifically:
It is the more probable opinion among approved authors that refusal of obedience of a Catholic to the Pope which is not predicated upon a rejection of the principle of his authority as Roman Pontiff as Caput Romanae Ecclesiae constitutes material, not formal schism. However, if those lay faithful receiving the Sacraments from them at any one point in time also severed themselves entirely from, or refused submission in principle to, the Roman Pontiff and per can. 1330 of the Code of Canon Law manifested in word or in deed externally such actions, then they are presumed to have descended into formal schism. (CMTV Interviews a Canon Lawyer)
So, if Michael Voris believes that disobeying the Pope constitutes material schism, this would definitely arrest his development as a Traditional Catholic. Saying that the New Mass is dangerous to the Faith could be construed as disobedience. So he is stuck attacking the Bishops ... which doens't seem to be making all that much headway as ... guess what ... the Pope selects the Cardinals who select the Bishops.
So from Michael's point of view, it seems that the Pope cannot be seen to be wrong, even when he is very wrong.
The story of the Emperor's new clothes has been circulating a lot lately, and it seems to fit.
The SSPX is saying that the Emperor is naked (Voris talks about covering Noah's nakedness etc) and good Catholics are beginning to realize that yep, them duds aren't really opaque after all. Those who don't want to admit that the Emperor is theologically naked, try to shush the child. When the child won't shut up, they bring out the stick.
Speaking of stick, there is another recent case of arrested development that, I believe, is important to mention at this point in time: the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI). Like a number of others, the FFI in studying the Documents of the Second Vatican Council was beginning to reach very similar conclusions as the SSPX. I've read rumours that they were even in contact with the SSPX during the Pontificate of Benedict XVI.
Sadly, their development was brutally arrested by Rome at the instigation of a small number of misguided souls.
I believe two elements prompted the assault upon the FFI:
- the broaching of two culture assumptions (Second Vatican Council and the New Mass)
- their vibrant community
While this is an interesting comparison (organizational to personal), there's a limit. Simply put, the FFI just bowed down and accepted the rod of correction. Voris and his minions apparently have been bit by a rabid liberal bishop. The result is their attacks of the SSPX. I've noticed this same rabid attacks before, when someone's assumptions about the Church were challenged by the perspective of the SSPX.
The rod came out quickly in that case ...
Get ready for the flame out, it will be spectacular.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment