Is Michael Voris finally waking up?

Is Michael Voris finally waking up?

From his Twitter on 7/15/17 at 1 PM EDT:

Michael Voris‏ @Michael_Voris

Why would Spadaro attack Church Militant directly? Of all groups who have said stuff against Francis, we have said nothing. They are worried.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/07/15/is-michael-voris-finally-waking-up/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

8 comments on “Is Michael Voris finally waking up?



  1. Opie Taylor: Paw! Paw! Did ya hear? Mike Voris was found dead out front the Opie Day house in Fernwood. They say it’s a case of Arkancide*. I gotto go make a sequel to the Da Vinci Code right away!

    *Arkancide is the unfortunate habit of potential witnesses to the Clintons’ dirty dealings in Arkansas suddenly deciding to shoot themselves twice in the back of the head. Police and Coroners in Arkansas, notably Fahmy Malak who answered to Governor Bill Clinton, automatically described these shootings as “suicides.” After Bill Clinton became President the phenomenon spilled over to Washington D.C. when Hillary Clinton’s ex-lover Vincent Foster was “Arkancided.” More at arkancide.com

    • It was made to look like suicide, as if he ran on his St. Michael sword.

      null

    • Arkancide–for real–in Miami:
      Haiti Official Who Exposed The Clinton Foundation Is Found Dead
      www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-16/haiti-official-who-exposed-clinton-foundation-found-dead

      The mainstream media’s silence over Klaus Eberwein’s death is deafening. Eberwein was a former Haitian government official who was expected to expose the extent of Clinton Foundation corruption and malpractice next week.

      He has been found dead in Miami at the age of 50.

      The circumstances surrounding Eberwein’s death are also nothing less than unpalatable. According to Miami-Dade’s medical examiner records supervisor, the official cause of death is “gunshot to the head.“ Eberwein’s death has been registered as “suicide” by the government. But not long before his death, he acknowledged that his life was in danger because he was outspoken on the criminal activities of the Clinton Foundation.
      ———————————-

      Can’t make this stuff up. Anybody still think Hillary was a better choice?

  2. This could be a decisive moment for Mr Voris and the Church Militant team. When Spadaro attacks them, they can hardly remain silent and pretend that all is OK in Rome. Mr Voris’ rather sad statement that “…Of all groups who have said stuff against Francis, we have said nothing. They are worried…” shows that he still doesn’t quite understand that ultimately you can’t criticise the heresies and evils coming from Rome without it bouncing back onto the Pope himself.
    Michael, the buck stops at the top. Whether you like it or not, you are going to have to face the reality of what Pope Francis is saying and doing and allowing to be said and done.

  3. [Church Militant cannot yet (if ever) rise to the occasion; i.e., of criticizing the current Pope; it still stays at the level of criticizing his underlings]

    One Man’s Response to Fr. Antonio Spadaro

    “I deem low insults from you constitute high praise anyway.”

    by Timothy Gordon • ChurchMilitant.com • July 15, 2017

    My faithful, gentle Father Spadaro:

    First: Thank you, thank you, and thrice thank you for providing a touchstone by which the basis for Church Militant’s customary vehemence might be lucidly appraised. As my 32nd President quipped, one ought to be judged more by the view of his opponents rather than his supporters. So once more, thank you for making the lines that separate us nice and bright. I deem low insults from you constitute high praise anyway.

    Second: I understand from your recent article at La Civilta Cattolica that you find my President’s inclusion of Steve Bannon on his team to be more ridiculous than it would be to team up with (as you have) an ordained, celibate author of a book titled Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing. Most folks would not agree with you, by the way. (The typical response by hearers to Abp. Fernandez’s book title is intermittent laughter and nausea lasting three days.)

    I also gather vaguely that you find my president’s cultural commentary — by Twitter and otherwise — to be hasty and injudicious. Well, stone the crows: We may agree just a little. Twitter is an effete, indirect, jejune, asinine method of communication — a permanent memorializer of kaffeeklatschand, thereby an attractive nuisance to childish adults. Naturally, you’ve learned this the hard way.

    So perhaps we don’t agree, after all; you’ve tweeted five times and created, like, three fake Twitter accounts just since I wrote this. You’ve erased or apologized for more tweets than even President Trump — which is saying a lot — as you are the only public person in the civilized world to tweet more frequently and outrageously than he does. Your most recent thoughts about my beloved republic, together with many of your, shall we say, less-than-stolid tweets over the past year are flatly indefensible. Thus, it is strange to hear your criticism of the procedure and substance of the American interest you impute to President Trump — an interest you can scant understand.

    You apprehend American politics as enshrining the “theology of prosperity.” Seriously, with all apologies for briefly infecting your badinage with uncharacteristic substance, this is your article’s one valuable point. (One is better than none, I daresay.)

    America was founded as a desacralized Protestant and Enlightenment haven where outward prosperity was received as the “tell” for anointedness, toil and moil being cheap filler for the daily grace of the musterion abjured by America’s Protestant-Enlightenment founders. But the problem is that you mishandle this first premise by crossing it with puerile European misconceptions like “right wing = one kind of socialism, while left wing = another kind of socialism.”

    And hence Europe and her defenders are always running from one population-controlling, eugenics-embracing despot into the arms of the next. She has made the state almost holy in place of the Church and has rendered social(ist) conscience prior to private judgment.

    America lacks Europe’s Catholic foundation, but at least America still somewhat embraces crypto-Catholic social principles like subsidiarity and natural rights, unlike Europe, whcih threatens and manhandles poor, heartsick, world-weary parents of sick infants whom the pan-European Court of Babel is trying effectually to euthanize. By the way, I send a panegyric of my sarcastic praise to Cdl. Vincenzo Paglia for his initial siding with Europe’s neo-pagan Leviathan court conglomerate over Jesus Christ and the Gard parents.

    Good thing for my president on that one, eh? You may not like American “ultraconservatives,” but we sure know how to kick up some dust on behalf of the most defenseless. Oh wait; am I overemphasizing petty life issues?

    And come now: aren’t we both engaging in coprophagia? Or is it coprophilia? (It’s embarrassing: I always confuse those two common concepts!)

    Third: Below are four brief inquiries that certainly won’t be posed to you elsewhere. These are points of badly needed clarification, if you please:

    A) By criticizing America’s “fundamentalist ecumenism,” do you intend to suggest that there should be no nexus whatsoever between American Protestants and Catholics regarding even undisputed Christian cultural principles (e.g., that Christ is king of kings or that the wicked should be punished proportionally)?

    If not, why does the confluence of American political action by scripturally non-heterodox Protestants and faithful Catholics startle you? Recognizing legitimate ideological overlap with certain Protestants is not “ecumenism of conflict” (whatever that is, it’s also the newly-minted dumbest expression I’ve ever heard). Really, it just means something as simple as that faithful Catholics agree a priori with those good-faith Protestants who do not, in the recent fashion of unfaithful Catholics, say Christ meant “no” when he clearly said “yes.”

    Today’s apparatchiks of neologism in the Church (like yourself) would call a temporary battlefield cessation between opposing generals an “ecumenism of conflict.” Ridiculous.

    B) By criticizing America’s election of President Trump in late 2016, are you actually putting forward American infanticidist Hillary Clinton, whose inspiration for entering politics was the loathsome Margaret Sanger, who herself aimed to extirpate ethnic minorities via demographics-targeted abortion? I thought you hated that stuff.

    Please be clear, for once.

    By criticizing America’s election of President Trump in late 2016, are you actually putting forward American infanticidist Hillary Clinton?Tweet
    The Church teaching, as confirmed in the 2004 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” is that

    not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion … there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

    In other words, in matters of morally non-categorical prudential judgment, one is not strictly governed by edicts of the Church — even and especially if a bunch of high-ranking Churchmen join Europe in condemning American “xenophobia,” while crouched safely and hypocritically behind their own border walls.

    C) Speaking of which, how high are the walls around Vatican City — 18 feet or 21 feet? If America fashioned its border wall precisely around the Vatican’s model, would this palliate you and your friends?

    D) What is it to “encounter,” as you used it in your article? Am I not encountering you now? One cannot discern from your article, but from what I can tell it involves confirming adulterers and border line-cutters while condemning anyone who attempts to hold the line. Is that pretty much it? At any rate, no offense, encounter sounds dumb, like “accompany.” It sounds like a brainwashing device, since you refuse to define it. More precisely, it sounds opposite to the word’s actual meaning — like something a couple dozen cardinals made up two months ago in some dark corner of the Gregorian Pontifical University, the way you like to do.

    I invite you cordially to debate these four issues in print or in person. Please, use your voice to clarify these four matters and “heal us with your mouth.” Just don’t kiss us.

  4. [Another anti-Pope Michael, acting in the manner of anti-Pope Pius XIII?]

    Posted by Barona on Saturday, 15 July 2017

    BREAKING: Vatican has a “secret dossier ” on Michael Voris with shocking revelations!

    Toronto Catholic Witness has obtained – through an unnamed source – an interview with Fr. Aidan McNutty (Secretariat of State) regarding a secret dossier that the Vatican has on Michael Voris.

    Following the publication of Fr. Antonio Spadaro’s article and follow-up interview, we contacted our source who obtained an interview conducted by a Polish journalist with the American born McNutty. This interview provides background information for Fr. Antonio Spadaro’s statements that Michael Voris is an “integrist” and dangerous subversive. It also contains several shocking revelations that reveal the urgency behind Fr. Spadaro’s essay.

    The news agency in question is the Polish “Wolność” (Freedom). Translation by Barona from the original Polish test.

    Wojtek Wysmiechowicz (WW): Thank-you father for agreeing to this interview.

    Fr. Aidan McNutty (AM): It is a pleasure.

    WW: Please correct me if I am wrong, but is there a dossier in the Vatican on Michael Voris of Church Militant?

    AM: Absolutely yes. I have seen it and read it.

    WW: How did you see it?

    AM: It was shown to me in the Secretariat of State as I am an American priest and my hierarchy is very, very concerned with Voris.

    WW: Why are they concerned?

    AM: He has a growing following and even more importantly, is raising issues that we are trying to control.

    WW: Such as?

    AM: Financial misdeeds, priests violating celibacy etc.

    WW: You mean priests stealing Church funds and engaging in homosexual activity?

    AM: Yes.

    WW: But is there not a clean-up going on in Rome, in the Vatican? Or, is this just media PR?

    AM: Well, the facts speak for themselves.

    WW: So how is Voris involved in all of this? Why has Fr. Spadaro – through the Pope’s own official newspaper, and with the Secretariat of State’s approval – openly attacked Voris?

    AM: Well, it comes down to much more than Voris calling out errr, rash behaviour committed by the clergy. What some call “sin”. The problem with Voris goes far beyond his crusade against what he believes are immoral priests or bishops.

    WW: Why then the sudden move by Fr.Spadaro, under the auspices of the Secretariat of State?

    AM: The Secretariat of State has a dossier- a secret file in fact – that Michael Voris was “elected” Pope in 2013 in a “conclave” held in Quebec City, in Canada after the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.

    WW: Really!? This is extraordinary! This is very serious!

    AM: It is very serious. We have a man, Voris, who claims to be Pope and holds to a false ecclesiology. Fr. Spadaro’s article and his subsequent interview with “America” outline in detail that Voris holds positions that are no longer held in the Church.

    WW: This makes him a very serious threat to the Church?

    AM: Very serious. This is a schismatic action, though not yet a formal schism. As a layman he cannot fall into formal schism until he is consecrated bishop. We have evidence to believe that Voris intends to be consecrated in the near future.

    WW: Does Fr. Spadaro know this?

    AM: Of course he does. It is known in the Pope’s most inner circle that Michael Voris is seeking to establish a parallel church of the “pure”. In effect, a Manichean church, as Fr. Spadaro has pointed out with great accuracy.

    WW: Who else is connected with Voris? Has he appointed any other leaders in his imminent “parallel church”?

    null
    Are these two of the most dangerous men in the Catholic Church?
    Yes, according to the Vatican

    AM: Yes. After his “election” he appointed a Canadian blogger as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. According to our dossier, Voris created this blogger a lay Cardinal. I understand there are plans to consecrate the blogger a bishop as well. Besides his Canadian right-hand man, Voris also has a number of other, powerful and evil henchmen in various countries round the world. They are being identified by the Secretariat of State and various national episcopal conferences.

    WW: And the Secretariat of State’s position? Whom has Voris selected?

    AM: Voris intends to hold that himself as Pope.

    WW: This is incredible. Does Voris have any support in the Vatican?

    AM: We believe he may actually have support from a number of cardinals and bishops. These men we are identifying and eliminating from any influence. Most have already been neutralized. It will be one of them who would confect the illicit consecrations.

    WW: So the purpose of Fr. Spadaro’s article?

    AM: The purpose is simple: to identify by far the greatest threat to the Catholic Church today. To unmask him and isolate him. This is the first step.

    WW: And the second?

    AM: Having exposed Voris as an heretic and promoter of out-dated theological propositions we can then more easily dissuade Catholics from following him, when he publicly declares that he is the Pope.

    WW: Thank-you Fr. McNutty.

    AM: Thank-you. It is important that Catholics in Poland be put on alert to the grave dangers posed by Voris to the Faith, the Church and therefore the life of the world.

  5. [Two recent tweets from Michael Voris: One an in-denial reply to someone asking the “ultimate” question, and the other a repeat of his earlier refrain with an insufficient reply, because many others also expose sodomy in statements and actions at the NewVatican]

    1. To: Michael Voris@Michael_Voris: Will the gloves come off now that the pope used Spadaro to slap CM across the face? You know Francis approved this.

    From: Michael Voris‏ @Michael_Voris 7/16/17 circa 2:30 PM EDT

    1st. No, I don’t know that. 2nd, even if he did, Popes can be wrong. 3rd – his advisors don’t know jack. Talk about false ecumenism.

    2. Michael Voris‏ @Michael_Voris About the same date and time

    Almost every Cath site has slammed Pope EXCEPT Church Militant. So why attack CM? Because CM shines a spotlight on their homo evil.

Leave a Reply