16 September 2015

Pardon My Ancientness

But Michael Voris taking on Bishop Fellay is like Ted Baxter taking on Edward R. Murrow. #justsaying


Lynne said...

Com'on Lou! (said in Ted Baxter's voice)

Innocent Smith said...

Your attempt at pith falls a little short as this comment makes no sense. But congratulations nonetheless as I am certain it will create a bit of comfort among the delusional. Do you really want to promote people going to the wrong place with a throwaway comment? You might want to rethink this.

By the way, what is so great about Murrow? He certainly looked and sounded credible, but was he? Or was he just a good actor who talked good and dressed appropriately for the part? On second thought perhaps comparing Fellay to Murrow does work on some level.

I will check back to see if you might offer some actual criticism of what Voris has had to say this week.

thetimman said...


The Ted Baxter part is nails, but I admit that I had a hard time finding a Fellay analogue. How about this: Michael Voris taking on Bishop Fellay is like Ted Baxter taking on, well, anyone else.

Chris Ferrara easily disposes with Voris, whose criticisms blend fact, falsity and opinion.

As for encouraging people to go to the SSPX, when have I ever done that? I don't go there, and I do not urge anyone to do so. I'm just aiming for some truth here.

PMKD said...

Being the non legalist here...I've watched all of the Vortex episodes this week. Ignoring Vorris' style/delivery/attitude and focusing on the data, what is missing (deliberately or not) from his argument on the schism/non-schism? To this layman's pea-brain, it seems like he's done his homework.


thetimman said...



I would leave it with that, except as a lawyer I note that Voris is incapable of distilling canon law and its application. So much of this kerruffle hinges on canon law. Also, he has no historical understanding of the situation, and cites loads of statements from various dicasteries in the Vatican that were dated prior to the lifting of the excommunications. It's like citing superseded congressional legislation after a new law is passed. He makes no distinctions that, in justice, he should make. He wants a simple argument he can simply settle. This is not it.

To take one example, PMKD, find and read the actual text that declares the excommunications not to be in effect. Read every word. Ponder what is said and not said there, and its effect on the four bishops, and Lefebvre and Castro Mayer, and the ecclesia dei adflicta recognition of excommunication. It is a very rich and intelligently drafted text. It allows the SSPX to maintain what they've always maintained, yet doesn't compel their position either. Brilliant, in my opinion. That's what lawyers are for.

Better minds than Voris have parsed this stuff and there are difficulties in squaring certain circles. Ted Baxter is out of his depth.

PMKD said...

Thanks, Timman. I'll examine and then drink some more Malort.