So, in my mind I thought I had come to a decision, and I even initially watched the latest Mic'd Up episode in agreement. But then, a slew of reactions to ChurchMilitantTV came from the other side. I cannot lie. What the opposition said was compelling. It does give me pause. SSPX: right or wrong? It is beyond my station to know for sure. I never said I was a theologian or a Church lawyer.
If I could make an analogy to this this ongoing dialogue, I would liken it to a poker game. Every time I see one side put out some poker chips, the other player sees them and raises their opponent even more chips. I do not detect any hesitation on the part of the SSPX or their sympathizers to go all the way in discussing the legality and rightness of their cause. Meanwhile, those faithful to "conciliar forces" seem to only attack the SSPX on its peripheries.
Alas, in all of this, I feel as though I am seeing two churches here.
First, here is Louie Verrechio's Vimeo response, titled "Tradwriter 25: Michael Voris almost gets the SSPX..." I would put the video up here on the blog, but unfortuately, Blogger has not enabled a way to put Vimeo videos up yet.
Verrechio follows up with the following video, titled "Tradwriter 26: Is Vatican II an integral part of the tradition of the Church?" Verrechio seems to be under the impression that ChurchMilitantTV will allow some of what Voris labels as "Reactionary Catholics" on air to explain who they are, or perhaps even, to defend themselves. But we shall see about that. The video is here:
John Vennari of Catholic Family News, of course, wanted to respond to Michael Voris' criticism of his publications. He, too, put out two videos in response to the Mic'd Up episode. Vennari argues that the SSPX is not in schism, and he quotes Vatican cardinals to back his claim. Vennari then states that Michael Voris is employing a big media tactic, and he goes on further to address a perceived error on the part of Michael Voris.
Venarri's second video:
Finally, Michael Matt at The Remnant wanted to respond to ChurchMilitantTV's special. Michael Matt argues that CMTV is hitting The Remnant below the belt, goes on to discuss some basic facts, and his colleague Chris Ferarra demonstrated his immediate feelings towards CMTV in a more open fashion.
I find this troubling, disappointing, and somewhat depressing, as I've seen both Matt and Ferarra featured without issue on previous Vortex episodes as allies. Catholics just keep spreading further from each other as the months and years pass.
During the 2011 Roman Forum in Italy, both Michael Matt and Ferarra were interviewed about the importance of that event. Michael Matt was a guest on a Mic'd Up episode--which has recently been scrubbed off of YouTube. And, Michael Voris himself was present at the 2013 Catholic Identity Conference, where he lectured alongside many of those he has criticized as "Reactionary."
That the Church is in crisis, there is no doubt. I do not have any affection for the Novus Ordo style or the thinking that comes along with it. It strikes me as disrespectful to Christ's Body. In fact, it strikes me as a sort of snub when I see tabernacles shoved off to the side, away from the seemingly man-worshiping altar.
But to snag potential laity from the jurisdiction of recognized Church dioceses? It seems to be taking things too far. And yet, how can I dispute the seemingly well-laid arguments put forth by the SSPX and their friends?
Speaking of dissent in the Church, E. Michael Jones' journal, Culture Wars, has put out a marvelous article discussing the plotting and conniving from seeming progressive cardinals who've been running the Synod. Robert Kempson goes in detail about the back and forth between the major players--those who seem to want to change Church doctrine without officially changing it, and those who are trying to stand up to the passive-aggressive machine that appears polite and harmless at first, but is actually ruthless in its nature.
Read the fantastic article here: http://www.culturewars.com/2015/Synod.htm
I particularly enjoyed Kempson's overview of Cardinal Kasper's past attacks on the immutability of God:
In 1967 Kasper explicitly linked the immutability of God with “a rigid worldview.” It is precisely because God is immutable, Kasper argues, that He “is the guarantor of the status quo and the enemy of the new.” If the revolution against the divine order of creation that was proceeding rapidly in the world was to triumph also in the Church it was necessary that the immutability of God be denied. If the divine nature itself could be made subject to change then everything else, including the moral law, must also be considered mutable. Kasper therefore sought to enchain God to “history” and therefore to “progress” and “evolution”. This error, repeated in essence in his 2013 book, lies at the heart of the whole “progressive” agenda at the synod.The idea that our shepherds want to give in and change the rules in order to accommodate our human nature shows their inability to put on the New Man--that is, the Man who is Christ. Traditionalists may appear to be old-fashioned fuddy-duddies, and they can call us triumphalists all they want, but it is actually those with proclivities towards Modernism who are actually hearkening back to the model of the Old Man, the paleo-man, the man we know as Adam--Adam, who gave into the convincing words of his wife Eve, because it was emotionally comfortable. Giving into what is easy and comfortable is as old as Adam, but living up to the immutable standard that God has set for us all is what truly defines the New Man, and that is what we as Catholics must strive for.
The New Adam vs The Old Man Adam
Cardinal Kasper claims that an immutable God is "an enemy of the new?" No wonder there is so much anxiety in our post-Christian society.
Shepherds Attacking Their Sheep
Speaking of seemingly-humble-but-actually-vicious clergy in the higher echelons of the Church hierarchy, the actions of Father Thomas Rosica are absolutely reprehensible. This priest--who has the cush job of working in the Holy See Press Office--sees fit to threaten a lawsuit against a Catholic family man who is hoping to retire in a few years. Why? Because this Canadian man, who most likely blogs in his spare time out of the conviction in his heart for the Church, dares to call Fr. Rosica out for his opinions during this fiasco with the Synod on the Family.
I doubt that Fr. Rosica understands that his actions are like that of a father threatening one of his children. I doubt that Fr. Rosica has the psychological aptitude to understand that he is not threatening an equal. He probably does not realize that this blogger is not some fellow priest with another cush career with money to throw away. Fr. Rosica probably does not realize that this blogger cannot depend upon the Church for a roof over his head, a retirement fund, or some sort of pay. I highly doubt that Fr. Rosica has any inkling of what it means to function in the secular world, scraping together paychecks in a harsh godless society to make ends meet.
So, that's one more priest whose decisions I do not respect in the least. Add it to your list.
Consequently, I would like to fully endorse the website of the man who runs the website, Vox Cantoris. It looks very well done, and the blogger appears to be a devoted Catholic. I will continue to visit his page, and let y'all know if I find anything noteworthy.