Following up on my previous posts concerning Church Militant TV, I want to point out several important developments.
First, Louie Verrecchio has fired back at Michael Voris regarding his manifesto that CMTV will not publicly criticize the Holy Father. It is interesting. I completely disagree with Verrecchio’s rad trad Protestantism ideology/propaganda [see] but I think he making the same point that I do in my previous posts.
Next, take a look at the comment section beginning here with a the discussion that has ensued between Terry Carrol, Executive Producer of CMTV, Christine Niles, who seems to have some loose association with CMTV, and myself (look for commenters Christine Niles, person111, and Terry Carrol).
I have been saying for a long time that this is the postconciliar moment, and that Bishop Fellay’s agenda to change the terms of the discussion regarding Vatican II has largely succeeded. Now CMTV is scrambling at the edge of the brink and trying to walk the edge.
Mary Victrix 
“rad trad Protestantism”?
In English, please?
He’s a Protestant? For disagreeing with the Pope? So much for your claim of no ad hominem.
Morre or less this.
Here’s some irony for you all…
My husband and I were discussing wit our friend the malignant crisis within the Church….those who recognize the Pope’s authority, and those who fo not….
So how does my PROTESTANT friend respond? He tells me to read the book of Numbers 22:2-8. {Aaron and Miriam complained, “Is it through Moses alone that the Lord speaks? Does he not speak through us as well?”}
Even my PROTESTANT friend understands obedience to authority ordained by God!!!!
Holy fear of the Lord is the first sign of wisdom.
Oh, did I forget to say?….Miriam was turned into a pillar of leprosy for seven days for her compaining against God. I think the leprosy that the trads have eat away at the heart….not the flesh; like Miriam.
Much like the vortex, I couldn’t watch more than a few seconds of the spin off. What a sad bunch.
“But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.”
Pope Leo XIII
In Christ,
Marian
Marian: I couldn’t agree more with your last post – such contempt for the Holy Father. And I’m appreciative of your quote from Pope Leo XIII – could you provide the exact source? I’d like to make a copy for my own reference purposes.
God bless,
William
Yes, Sapientiae Christianae here is a link –
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10011890_sapientiae-christianae_en.html
In Christ,
Marian
Pingback: What the Fisher More Situation Teaches Us | Mary Victrix
Thank you, Marian!
William
I am not at all comfortable even sounding critical of Christ’s Vicar but I think it needs to be said. The Holy Father has caused so much confusion, just the other day I watched him on youtube referring to a Church of England chappie as my brother, the bishop. What non sense!
The Holy Father has appointed 8 Cardinals to help him run the Curia. One of these appointments, Cardinal Marx – his Arch-diocese own 13% of Germany’s biggest pornography business! You couldn’t make it up!
The Holy Father appears to have done nothing in the last year to clear out the homosexual mafia that are clearly rife in the Vatican ( and in the appointment of new bishops – which is even scarier considering the scandals of teenage boys and children being abused).
The Holy Father said the worst thing in the world is youth unemployment ( dreadful as that is) – what utter garbage!
The Holy Father wants to do it his way, refusing to live in the papal flat but takes over the whole floor of the hotel in the Vatican. Not good at all. he is the most confusing Pope of my 50+ years.
Our Lord said say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no. This Pope needs to learn to follow Our Lord’s clear instruction and stop trying to be so clever.
The Pope is on the Chair of St Peter to govern the Church, not, absolutely not to sow confusion.
Graeme,
Scalfari admitted he did not take notes of the Holy Father’s interview and just winged his written version of it. The pope never said he chose Santa Marta because of poverty. In fact he said that there was nothing scandalous about the papal apartment. He said he did not want to be isolated.
Perhaps he is not the one who needs to do the soul searching. You have had your say. Please do not post anymore of these gripes. It is “confusing” to those who want to know the facts.
You remind me of my liberal friends who can’t say the word “Republican” without the word “Radical” in front of it.
What does that link have to do with LV? Seriously, please point out where he has written anything that sounds like the blurb you’ve linked to.
Also, what percent of traditionals are “rad trads”? It sounds from your writing that you think it must be 100%.
I have to tell you, you are the best salesman I’ve ever met for the Latin Mass. I’m becoming more interested in it with every angry post you put up.
“from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks” (Lk 6:45)
jvc,
My internet connection was down yesterday. I apologize for not answering sooner.
As I said, the link I posted explains “more or less” what I mean. What I said is no more offensive or tenuous than LV’s accusation that Pope Francis is a modernist. In my opinion—and that is all this blog represents—constant recourse to the “perennial magisterium” or “eternal Rome” over and above the living magisterium is a form of Protestantism. It is private judgment, not to be mistaken with the fiducial faith of Luther, but with a rule of faith other than that of the Catholic Church.
I don’t know what percent of traditionalists are “rad.” In other posts I have defined traditionalism generally as an ideology by which Catholics, in the name of conserving Tradition, take it upon themselves to determine what magisterial act does and does not belong to Catholic Tradition. Others have argued that not all traditionalist hold this but only the radical traditionalists. In any case, the tendency is there, and to my mind a significant problem.
I am very happy that my writing has made you love the Latin Mass more. Very commendable. Thank you.
I have never been opposed to the EF or to Summorum Pontificum, but to what I believe is an ideology frequently accompanying attachment to the EF. I have celebrated the EF gladly and with great fruit for many years, even before SP. It is not an issue for me.
@ Marian on March 4, 2014 at 12:06
“One must resist the Pope who openly destroys the Church”
St. Cajetan
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Traditional-Roman-Catholicism/604492096254355
You seem to have my confused with someone who attends the Latin Mass. The only Latin I know is “ceteris paribus.”
I’ll take it that you don’t want to make a connection between LV and the post. It’s enough for you just to make an insinuation.
Do you really think the only people paying attention to your personal jihad against the Latin Mass are a few internet freaks who believe in geocentrism?
Wow jvc, since it really means that much to you I have removed the qualifier “Protestantism” from the work of the man who called Pope Francis a modernist and who continues to consider himself qualified to correct the pope in public.
So now do me a favor and quit referring to my objections to traditionalism as as a jihad against the Latin Mass. It is not and never has been. What you say just reinforces the idea that it is only the RC/LV Catholics (those who are sympathetic to the SSPX) who are true supporters of the Latin Mass.
But I can see why you might suggest that I am against the Latin Mass. I stepped back from it, as have others, and as the Church has directed our Institute to do, until certain issues regarding ecclesiality have been resolved. But it is not the Latin Mass I have a problem with.
Pingback: Who Cares Who Michael Voris Isn't Talking About? - Catholic Stand : Catholic Stand
Pingback: Why Those Who Publicly Attack Bishops Are Wrong | Mary Victrix
Yet you still leave it up there, because you still believe it.
You ought to either defend your character assassination of this person or make the argument that he really is a Protestant.
But you don’t want to make the effort, do you? It’s par for the course of your writings on this subject. Just insinuate and let others draw a conclusion.
Really reminds me of how the enlightened are supposed to read between the lines on Christopher West to understand his true message.
jvc,
Whenever I modify a post substantially after it has been up for any length of time, I use strikethrough on anything that has been deleted, so that the reader knows that I have modified the post. Most bloggers I know do this as a matter of transparency.
BTW, I do not edit comments except in extreme cases, nor do I apply overly strict rules of moderation on them, nor do they need to be approved before they appear. So all your comments stand, because I have no problem with others presenting a contrary point of view.
I have not engaged in the assassination of Mr Verrecchio’s character. I said his views are protestant because they reflect private judgment, and then modified my statement so as not to suggest that he holds “Solus Christus” ideas or some other heresy, though originally I thought my point would be clear. I apologize if it was not.
You have made your point. Don’t take it any further.
Thanks.