Tuesday, October 28, 2014

On whether this pope or any pope should ever be criticized: two viewpoints

[Advisory & Disclaimer: See Rules 7-9]

Two viewpoints in an ongoing "debate," the first by Michael Voris who eschews all criticism of the successors of St. Peter, the second by Michael Matt who takes the view that the faithful are sometimes called to "loyal opposition":

For the record, see the related article by the traditionalist, John Vennari, "Resisting Wayward Prelated According to the Saints" (Catholic Family News, April 3, 2014).




I'm fully on board with Michael Matt here.

Steve Dalton


Voris has an unrealistic view of the Pope. He's acting like the deluded cult member I used to be who believes the leader must always be obeyed and never criticized. Paul didn't have that attitude. He said if he or an angel from heaven came with a different gospel, we were not to follow it. He also said, follow me as I follow Christ. Voris, IMHO, is following the Pope, but not Christ.



I think Michael Voris is terrific and a godsend. However, his take on being loyal to the Pope is the exact same mindset that led so many Bishops to to be led straight into a gully like blindsided convoy members with Pope Paul VI at the wheel. The Holy Father deserves our prayers and respect. Always. And if we are under vows, he also demands our obedience. But laymen we owe him our honest forthrightness if we see him acting on prudential judgements we think are leading the Church astray. You don't have to question someone's motives to question their decisions. Add to that all the post Vatican II Popes have played up the laity's role, de-emphasized their prerogatives, and asked for feedback. I think Matt is spot on: you have to really, really want to believe Francis is not moving for substantial change to hear him as saying anything other than otherwise. Respecting the man and the office means hearing him for what he says, not what you think he ought to be saying.



Voris is correct.