I am perplexed. Some of my blogging confreres are a in such a tizzy over the latest missive from the baron of bombast, the kaiser of choleric, Michael Voris. (Apologies to Bill Donohue)
Voris, about whom I am conflicted, did his daily soliloquy on the topic of a letter by Global Warming Inc. requesting that pastors devote the Easter Sunday homily to the topic of Earth Day.
Voris pointed out that global warming is a scam (check) by the forces of population control (check) to encourage people to contracept and abort their way to a greener planet (check).
Voris noted that all of this is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Church. Check again. He goes on to say that Catholics should abandon a Church that promotes such anti-Christian nonsense for the simple reason that this Church is not Catholic in any meaningful way.
He is, of course, right on all counts. But it is his suggested remedy that has unleashed the Catholic blogoshpere’s ever ready desire to scold.
Voris suggested that if one hears a homily about Earth Day on Easter, that you should forgo the collection plate and resign from the Parish on Monday.
Even the hyperbolic suggestion of such incivility has given some bloggers the vapors.
Voris makes the case that any local Church that embraces such anti-life and anti-Catholic tomfoolery, especially on Easter Sunday, has probably lost its Catholicity. His conclusion may be questionable, but I think he at least has a point.
I am particularly amused by bloggers who make frequent use of hyperbole as a rhetorical cattle-prod are now so overcome with the brazenness of it all. One even used the hyperbolic and very misleading title “Did Michael Voris Instruct Catholics to Leave the Church?” as a launching point to discuss Voris’ incivility. Apparently incivility is ok when deriding the uncivil. One day I will write the best-selling “Irony for Dummies”.
While I do not entirely embrace Mr. Voris’ remedy, I think he makes some really valid points. So what is all the hubbub about? Mark Shea accuses him of delusions that he is a Bishop. Mark makes a larger point about avoiding talking heads who think they are the arbiter of all things Catholic with which I generally agree, but I don’t really see how Voris is supposed to be delusionally usurping the role of Bishop. I don’t think he is.
Voris says that if your priest talks to you about global warming on the holiest day of the year instead of our resurrected Savior that your parish is likely so far gone that you should run, not walk, to an orthodox parish. What is so wrong about that?
When I ran into such craziness at my parish, the diocesan Director of Worship advised me to switch parishes, which I did. Was he playing bishop too?
Like I said, I am not sure that bypassing the collection plate and resigning from the parish is really the right remedy in this situation. I had tar and feathers in mind**.
**For those of you that have not yet read my soon to be published “Irony for Dummies”,please note that the “tar and feathers” comment is hyperbole which is usually defined as an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally used to make a point. Get over it.
April 17, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Mr. Kellmeyer has a spot-on response to the Voris Kerfuffle. He explains how apologists like Mr. Shea and Missus Graas have wildly missed the target
http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-to-excommunicate-your-priest.html
April 17, 2011 at 6:35 pm
According to Trent, the intention of the priest is vital in the confection of the Eucharist. If the liberal heretic priest does not intend to do what the Church does at Mass, then that Eucharist is not valid. With puppets and clowns, one would wonder what the intention was of some priests.
April 17, 2011 at 9:04 pm
There is also reason to question whether or not the Holy Water you used on the way in to actively participate in the new liturgy today was actually Holy Water (prolly not). And one also does wonder if the Palm Fronds one received at Mass in the New Liturgy have actually been Blessed: "Almighty God, we pray you bless + these branches and make them holy."
It was hard to tell in the Church I went to today what with all of the noise, protestant hymns (How Great Thou Art, Amasing Grace, and 2 or 3 songs I presume came from some local Christian Music Radio Station because they were both suffused with syrupy emotion and completely foreign to my ears) and the endless Pre-Mass reading of the Parish Bulletin and, the applause after the Sermon and after "How Great Thou Art."
It was a new liturgy at a local church which featured two screens placed high on a wall on each side of the Sanctuary. As the Lectrix read-out the endless notices, I whispered to my Wife, " Keep watching the Screen . I am quite sure there will be Previews of Coming Attractions for the Easter liturgy."
Compare that with the Blessings administered at the Traditional Mass.
Even Fr. Zuhlsdorf publicly admits he does not use the new 'Book of Blessings" because it is so deficient; he calls it "ghastly." And when was that Book of Blessings issued – in the 1980s, promulgated by The Pope we are about to Beatify.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/03/quaeritur-deacons-and-blessings-with-the-traditional-roman-ritual/
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0228-mjm-rite-of-exorcism.htm
At Mass and when receiving any Sacrament conferred by any Priest in any Traditional Order, one does not have to wonder about such things because those Traditional Orders employ the Traditional Sacraments and the Traditional Blessings and the Traditional Exorcisms, etc etc.
Until this permanent revolution,with its ceaseless changes, was imposed upon one and all by the Vatican Two Popes, only the insane questioned the validity and effectiveness of the Traditional Mass, Traditional Sacraments, Traditional Holy Orders, Traditional Blessings, etc
Many obvious questions about that revolution suggest themselves; including, was the desire to drive-out the Traditionalists in the Church part of the intent of the revolutionaries so as to concretise the revolution amongst the conservatives who would, with their knee-jerk papal loyalty, not only accept all of the novelties but go on the offensive to defend them against any criticism or opposition on the part of Traditionalists?
April 18, 2011 at 12:03 am
Spartacus, are we not supposed to have Papal loyalty? I think JPII was very Holy, but I don't think he knew the extent of what was going on here in America. We have a Pope because the office itself, not the man, but the office, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Vatican II was not evil, what was implemented, or twisted by some, now that could be. Are you saying we should not follow the Pope?
April 18, 2011 at 12:28 am
@Foxfier
"Worries me that the Anchoress is starting to refer to him so often."
I'm with you and have been worried too about the Anchoress referring too much to Shea. I haven't read Shea since his rant about evil, evil conservatives and how they all support torture and are all racists, funny how that coincided with the presidential election.
I transferred parish's the very week our pastor declared that Obama was wonderful and that pro-lifers needed to tone down their rhetoric and stop whining. I had children to think of and if that priest couldn't get his facts right after 37 years of the pro-life movement… heck! I guess I'll find out on Easter Sunday whether my new pastor worships the Creator or the Creation.
April 18, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Dear Sue. Trust but verify 🙂 Do you think, say, that the Book of Blessings that Pope John Paul II approved was an error or not? Is Fr. Zuhlsdorf a disloyal Catholic for refusing to use it?
I believe that all Ecumenical Councils, by their nature, are infallible and the proof that The Holy Ghost was present at Vatican Two is the decision the Bishops took at the time to make it a Pastoral and not a Dogmatic Council that formulated and formalised Dogma and issued Canons and Decrees.
There were at least 80 Bishops who did not sign one or more of the Conciliar Documents yet they were allowed to leave The Council fully in Union with The Pope without having accepted them. Back in the day, such things never happened.
April 18, 2011 at 7:37 pm
It's so great to see a post that says exactly what I thought when I first began reading about all this insanity. I'd watched the episode when it first came out and after watching it again, I still don't see where the responses are coming from. Thanks for a great post!
April 18, 2011 at 8:15 pm
"I haven't read Shea since his rant about evil, evil conservatives and how they all support torture and are all racists"
Care to document any of that? Or are you anonymous *because* you are a liar?
April 20, 2011 at 12:16 am
Mr. Shea, Mr. Voris, Mr. Madrid, Fr. Corapi, LifeSite, Catholic.com, Michael Flynn et al are all super. They and others have helped me in numerous ways over the years.
I appreciate Mark's humour and his ability to challenge my occasional redneck outlook of life.
Michael Voris appeals to my "battle cry" side as he often seems to speak the words that I'd like to speak whenever I hear a watered-down, feel-good, schlocky sermon instead of a good ol' fire and brimstone one.
These guys (and gals) fill a gap that would not be there if we had a lot of good, solid clergy. When and if that transpires, these fine bloggers/authors/priests will be without a job.
(I am anonymous because I cannot remember my password and am too lazy to make another account)
April 20, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Michael Voris should say, "don't shoot me I'm just the messenger".
Mark Shea , it's about the message not the messenger. You really have revealed your heart in this matter. I have stopped giving to Catholic Answers and EWTN and have been giving to St. Michael's Media. I appears to me that these groups do not support Voris's message or he would have been a guest by now.
I am following the message(of truth)regardless of who the messenger may be!
If you have a problem with the message that Voris is delivering then criticize that with scholarly support.
Mark, you just showed your cards! Now stop playing cards and get on the bandwagon of truth.
John King
April 25, 2011 at 1:52 am
Hello,
What evidence do you have that global warming is a scam?
April 25, 2011 at 2:58 am
The Weather Channel founder John Coleman stated that Global warming is the greatest scam in history.
Also 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
This is pretty compelling evidence not including that my own eyes have yet to see any evidence supporting Global warming.
John King
April 25, 2011 at 5:51 am
A couple of years ago I threw together this batch of global warming fraud links, Watt's site is rather famous for showing the fraud, the removing of wrong predictions instead of the scientifically required incorporation , the general inability of the climate models to predict past weather from known inputs, and of course the amazing happenstance that the solutions are exactly the same as every other hyped reason to kill off the "unwanted" population and give power to those predicting the disaster.
Is there any evidence that it's not a fraud?