Michael and Christine on Valentine's Day! Aren't They a Cute Couple?

I just watched the Valentine's Day Vortex, "Leading People Astray." It's the perfect title for every Church Militant (CM) blather episode since they are experts at doing exactly that. This episode happened to be an excerpt from a long interview with Tim Gordon by the darling duo, Mike and Christine. I couldn't stomach the entire interview. I just watched the short Vortex. That was enough!

Michael starts out in a very serious tone -- "along the lines of spiritual warning." Well, as the retreat master for the upcoming "retreat on land" during the Easter triduum, Michael definitely has the authority to correct, condemn, and "warn" fellow Catholics that they are teetering on the abyss. Sounds like a troll to me! But trolls are negative and Mike -- he is a paragon of virtue, a victim soul in fact because of his homosexual background. Not only that, he radiates the wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas and all the doctors of the church combined. So let's listen to his words and be humbled.

No layman should be making comments like that publicly [about whether Francis is an anti-pope or heretical]. I think it's sinful [deep, serious voice]; it's scandalous...that you could throw out a possibility that could lead people out of the Church....They better check themselves and I'm talking about all the various people that you know and I'm not going to say their names on air,  but they have no right saying this sort of thing, particularly if they're a convert to the faith and built up some big celebrity following and now just want to get click baits.

Whoa! Everyone in the comment section realized that Mike was talking about Taylor Marshall, but he wasn't naming any names so he can maintain the fiction that he wasn't targeting anyone.  As for accusing others of seeking "celebrity status" and "click bait" is that a joke? No one does that more relentlessly than celebrity Vortex host, retreat master, boot camp general, etc. than Michael Voris. He is an attention hound of the first rank.

So have you stopped laughing yet?

Voris is absolutely wrong when he says that laymen cannot point out heresy by Francis, or rebuke any cleric regardless of office who commits scandal. There is a great danger to souls in letting heretical teachings stand unchallenged. St. Thomas Aquinas himself said the laity have the right, and even the duty, to challenge clerics "publicly" despite what Voris says. In the section on fraternal correction, Aquinas writes:

Article 4. Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate?

Objection 1. It would seem that no man is bound to correct his prelate. For it is written (Exodus 19:12): "The beast that shall touch the mount shall be stoned," [Vulgate: 'Everyone that shall touch the mount, dying he shall die.'] and (2 Samuel 6:7) it is related that the Lord struck Oza for touching the ark. Now the mount and the ark signify our prelates. Therefore prelates should not be corrected by their subjects.

Objection 2. Further, a gloss on Galatians 2:11, "I withstood him to the face," adds: "as an equal." Therefore, since a subject is not equal to his prelate, he ought not to correct him.

Objection 3. Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 8) that "one ought not to presume to reprove the conduct of holy men, unless one thinks better of oneself." But one ought not to think better of oneself than of one's prelate. Therefore one ought not to correct one's prelate.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his Rule: "Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger." But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.

I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father." Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church.

Reply to Objection 1. It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God's condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark.

Reply to Objection 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects." “where the faith is at risk, it is lawful, even proper, to resist a papal decision publicly, as did Saint Paul to Saint Peter”

The faith is clearly in danger from Francis. But it's also in danger from Church Militant. They lie; they exaggerate; they use propaganda tools to manipulate viewers. Several times in the comment section their moderators say the SSPX is "in schism." They are not. The Vatican has affirmed that they are not. How can Pope Francis (Do you deny that he's the pope, Michael?) give authority to hear confessions and celebrate marriages to a group in schism? Apparently, the pope's authority doesn't count with CM when they want to slander those evil "rad-trads." Why they have such a hate-on for the SSPX is puzzling until you look at their background and see where some of their money comes from. Check out our CM page.

They have been corrected on this over and over, but cling to their lie with a zeal that looks like Martin Luther's. They should remember that when you point your well manicured finger at others, three fingers are pointing back at you.

And, by the way, I've been attending an SSPX chapel for a year and never once have I heard Pope Francis spoken of disparagingly or called an anti-pope -- not by the priests, the seminarians, the brothers, or the laity. The traditionalists I know do not engage in the name-calling and theatrics so typical of Church Militant. 

I have no problem calling Michael and Christine liars because they are. But I would never sink to the levels of vitriol and disrespect that is endemic to their so-called "authentic Catholic" apostolate. I do not find it to be Catholic at all. Frankly, I wonder whom they serve. 

And, really, can we dispense with the table thumping, head wagging, and hand gestures, Michael? It doesn't add anything to your argument!