Our Motto:

The Connecticut Catholic Corner Motto: Romans 14:16 "Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil."

All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner

© 2007-2023 All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner *except EWTN press releases(see sidebar)*

***FYI: Comments***

Due to continued problems with Disqus I have removed them from this blog- in doing so comments from 2018-2020 have disappeared from my blog posts.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Louie Verrecchio vs Michael Voris

It seems Michael Voris has stirred the hornets’ nest again with his latest episode of Mic’d Up in which he (in the 3rd segment) takes on the “Reactionary Catholic Media”.  Watch here:

I didn’t find anything wrong with what was said- nothing at all.  That said, I knew by naming names, Voris was going to get heat over it.  The response was swift, with Louie Verrecchio (Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II) who was not named specifically responding the very next day believing he was an unnamed target of this Mic’d Up episode.  Others soon followed: here.  I received several emails about this episode of Mic’d Up and Louie Verrecchio’s response, so I followed the link and watched Verrecchio’s video response.

Tradwriter 25: Michael Voris almost gets the SSPX... from Louie Verrecchio on Vimeo.

I found nearly everything troublesome about this response, and quite frankly some of it I simply didn’t understand.  I did agree with Verrecchio’s response to Pope Francis’ meeting and calling protestant Tony Palmer a “brother bishop”.  Verrecchio calls this “irresponsible”, I would go further and say it was scandalous – I believe Pope Francis has on numerous occasions committed the sin of scandal.  We both agree it was dangerous and false and it places souls in jeopardy.  I completely agree.  Most of what Verrecchio says after that point I disagree with.

Following his Palmer comment, Verrecchio indicates that he and Voris differ in their worry over where Catholics may go IF they leave the Church.  Verrecchio says that Voris seems to be only worried Catholics are leaving the Church to join with the SSPX.  Verrecchio says he worries that people are leaving the Church to join Protestant communities where there is no priest or Eucharist.  He says, “Let’s be clear, the Blessed Sacrament at an SSPX Mass is without any question what so ever, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.”

I stopped the video there for a moment.  What he said disturbed me greatly.

I know the Sacrament is the Real Eucharist, but how incredibly sad that Verrecchio seems to prefer a disobedient priest illicitly consecrate bread and wine to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord against our Lord’s own Church authority.  What a terrible sin!  To abuse the priesthood by consecrating the Host against the authority of our Lord’s Bride…terrible. 

I would be more frightened of offending my Lord by such a communion than to eat the mere bread at a protestant service “in remembrance” of the Last Supper.
Christ gave the authority to HIS Church to consecrate the bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity- for a group of wayward (I don’t care if they are well intended) priests to disregard the authority Christ gave to His Church and work under their own authority… well they aren’t much different than the heretic Martin Luther in that regard are they? 

I can’t help but wonder how did our Lord feel when Martin Luther was consecrating the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord outside the authority of the Church?  I can’t believe He feels much different when the SSPX does it.  The Church is Christ’s Bride…how dare the SSPX disrespect Her authority and boldly disobey Her in such a disgraceful way!

The very first sin in the Bible is disobedience…we’ve learned nothing if we continue to disobey.

Verrecchio goes on to discuss whether or not the SSPX are in schism- as if he’s unsure. I believe they are (see links below).

At this point, Verrecchio decides to give an analogy on what (he thinks) “submission” means (I have an entirely different view of submission, it's called obedience)– in his attempt to show how Archbishop Lefebvre was not guilty of schism because he didn’t have to submit to the Church because he (Lefebvre) “was convinced souls were at stake”.

Hmmm…  I stopped the video again and I replayed this part several times.  The excuse (I’ll get to the bizarre analogy in a moment) is Lefebvre simply HAD to ordain bishops ASAP because souls were in danger of damnation (I guess) if he didn’t create these bishops at that moment- without the approval of Pope JPII.

Now, for the life of me I don’t understand that at all.

How was going against the Pope, to ordain bishops going to help save souls?  How does disobedience to authentic Church authority help a soul?  These men went from Catholic priests to illicit bishops- how is that helpful to anyone’s soul?

I admittedly don't understand this point of view at all, nor how Verrecchio thinks this some how excuses Lefebvre.  Perhaps Lefebvre didn’t believe the Church still had authentic authority from Jesus?  Did he believe Jesus took away that authority and gave it to someone else?  Ridiculous!  Verrecchio goes on to say we really shouldn't bother discussing Lefebvre any more because he's dead and Jesus has judged him.  I disagree, I think people could learn from the mistakes of the dead clergy in our Church history. 

Now Verrechio’s analogy of two neighbors is (in my opinion) apples to oranges.  Verrecchio says imagine one neighbor who strictly forbids anyone from entering his property or house.
This neighbor has authority and he's using it to keep people out.  His neighbors “submit” to his authority because it’s his property and he has a right to dictate who can and can’t enter his property.  So one day, a neighbor (I’ll call Mrs. Kravitz for obvious reasons) thinks she sees smoke coming from her neighbor’s house and calls him at work to get permission to enter the property and investigate the smoke (guess 911 or the fire department aren’t options).  The guy tells her, no- stay out.  A bit later, Mrs. Kravitz thinks she hears children screaming in the house, so she calls him again at work and asks for permission to enter the property.  The guy again says “no-stay out”.  This time, know it all Mrs. Kravitz ignores the order to stay out and enters the property only to find the dog has gotten into the flour (smoke) and the TV was on(screaming children).  There was no fire, no danger, just overreacting and disobedience.

Now, there is so much wrong with this analogy I am not sure where to begin.  First, Verrecchio is assuming that BOTH neighbors are equal and one is asking for “submission” by not entering his property.  Well, I couldn’t help but think of the Garden of Eden.  “You are free to eat of any tree in the garden except this one.”  Submission is obedience.  Disobey and you fall to sin.  

The ‘neighbors’ in Verrecchio’s analogy –Christ’s Holy Catholic Church and the SSPX- are NOT equal.  The neighbor who forbids entrance to his property had the authority, the other neighbor Mrs. Kravitz had ONLY the choice to “submit” to that authority or not.  She decided she knew better and would act on her own to save the day!  How very protestant-like this analogy was to me. 

Did not Martin Luther do the same?  He thought he saw a “fire” in the Church that only HE could put out.  He would not submit to the Church.  He would not obey the authority of the Church given to Her by Jesus Christ Himself.  Instead he [Luther] set about to “reform” Christ’s Church without having the authority to do so. 

I see the SSPX exactly the same way.

Well intentions will never trump obedience.

We must obey authentic Church authority- not those who break away in disobedience because they refuse to submit to the authority of Christ’s Bride.

Keep away from the SSPX until they humble themselves in submission to Christ's Bride.  There is only ONE Church on earth that Jesus Christ gave authority to, and if you are in opposition to Her, you are in opposition to Him.
He will not forsake His Bride.

In Christ,

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner


  1. Thank you Mary's Child Mariann. The issue of the SSPX is a very hot topic because SO many Catholic are so very disappointed with the modern parishes we are struggling to survive in, but THAT IS OUR CURRENT CROSS. We must stay faithful to Christ's Holy Catholic Church in good times and "bad" times. Our obedience WILL be rewarded one day.

    God bless!

    Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

  2. Julie:
    I enjoy your blog, but I'm not so sure I can agree with everything you said.
    I thing we can all know that the Church is in terrible trouble. Personally, I believe that future generations will look back on these years of Vatican II as a very, very dark time...easily equal to anything from the time of Arius.
    Recall that St Athanasius rejected Arianism and was exiled by his fellow bishops before being excommunicated by the Pope. Yet, today, he's a saint and you never hear of his opponents.
    In some future time, the church will also have thrown away the ridiculous Norvus Ordo and gone back to the Latin Mass.
    How will they accomplish this? By embracing the stalwart keepers of the flame such as the FFI, or what little remains of it after Volpi is finished with it, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter AND THE SSPX.
    Meanwhile, Kasper, Bergoglio and their ilk will have been tossed into the dustbin of history along with their heresies.

  3. Greetings in Christ EGLewis!
    I agree that in time the Mass will revert to what worked and what was more reverent and Holy than what we have now. But the Catholic Church hasn't lost its authority from Jesus Christ no matter who the pope is. The authority remains with the Church in good times and bad. Obedience is always rewarded by God. I would LOVE for the SSPX to not be in schism with the Church, and I look forward to the day when (hopefully) it happens, but until it does I will remain obedient to Christ's Church and the authority HE gave Her.
    Jesus didn't give the SSPX any authority at all- they might be very well intended, but they are disobedient to Christ's Bride.
    I don't like where the Church is today, but I am confident that She is still Christ's Bride and as such He will protect Her and reward those who stand with her.

    In Christ,

    Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

  4. Thank you very much, Julie, for this article. You'll never know how much this article helps me. It's the moral support I need this very moment.

    I belong to a parish with very reverent Novus Ordo Masses in both English and Spanish and was very happy for it. But what made me even happier was when four years ago, our parish opened up the Traditional Latin Mass as provided for by Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum.

    Having been nourished in early childhood in the old Mass and longing for some Latin chants, I joined the TLM congregation assigned to a small chapel belonging to the parish. Because the parish couldn't provide a priest to do the Latin Mass, our diocese borrowed a retired priest from a neighboring diocese to do us the honors.

    The clues started to show ever so slowly, but I soon woke up to the fact that our Latin Mass has been infiltrated by a motley crew of SSPXers, sedevacantists, "Old Catholics," Palmarians, "independents," and various other "non-papal" elements. I didn't mind it at first, thinking that perhaps it was in Pope Benedict's plan that these people be given a way to reconcile with the Church.

    In social gatherings outside of our Mass, these elements have been vilifying the "default" Church and unceasingly questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo. I kept telling them that our Mass was given us under Summorum Pontificum, with conditions [in the apostolic letter Universae Ecclesiae] that we respect the Novus Ordo and not question its validity.

    The manure hits the fan lately when our TLM priest [who himself has jumped ship for a sedevacantist sect some time ago but has reconciled with the Church], led the altar server [who had never seen the inside of a seminary] to be "ordained" in the fake "Old Catholic" church and encouraged him to hear confessions before our Mass.

    I could not in conscience just sit there and see the sacraments of Holy Orders and Penance [not to mention Holy Communion] desecrated. So I complained in confidence to the pastor. The pastor said he will have to take the matter up with the Bishop.

    It seems that our TLM priest had learned of my complaint. Last Sunday [Quinquagesima], as he explained St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians, the priest scolded me from the pulpit, accusing me of lack of charity, of lacking in compassion, of hard-heartedness, of "insulting a legally ordained priest." He even challenged me to come up to the pulpit and state my case [and appologize?], which I refused, saying that women are not allowed to deliver the homily at Mass.

    At Communion, he again announced to the congregation that since I have insulted an "Old Catholic priest" and "have hatred in my heart," that I will not be given Communion. Whereupon the fake priest came, placed his outretched hand over me an entoned, "I forgive you." But the priest said, "No, no - I will not give her communion."

    I kept my peace, left the communion rail, and lightheartedly told the Lord that what I was expecting a war against the "left" destroyers of Church doctrine, not the traditionalists. But here I am, a member of the Church Militant, waging a war with the schismatic "right."

    I left the chapel for the main church and caught the Spanish Mass which was just beginning, and there, I received communion. Last night, I typed up a follow-up letter to my pastor and dropped it in his mailbox.

    Please pray for me, Julie, and your readers who care. God bless you.

  5. Greetings in Christ Marie!

    I am so sorry to hear what has happened to you! I will certainly add you to my prayers and to my special Lenten intentions- we should all pray hard for our Church and Her clergy during Lent.

    I've had some issues with one particular priest (here: ), and while he called me out for writing to the Bishop, he didn't do it from the pulpit (he did it before the Mass procession and after Mass).

    Offer up these things to Jesus and pray for these priests- how terrible it will be for them on Judgement Day if they don't turn around and make amends before they die! Pray for them, even when they hurt you.

    God bless.

    In Christ,

    Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

  6. Thanks, Julie, for your prayers. I feel peaceful and well and imagine myself protected under the starry mantle of Our Blessed Mother.

    God bless you on this, your blog apostolate.

  7. Neither Voris or you are qualified to judge that the SSPX are in schism. They do have an irregular canonical status. Please see the commentary by Chris Ferrara here:

  8. Julie, you write:
    "...To abuse the priesthood by consecrating the Host against the authority of our Lord’s Bride…terrible."

    What you fail to understand is that the Bride is being belittled and marginalized by those in the position of authority. And cleaving to what the Bride actually teaches, in all its fullness, is no sin whatever as the duty of the Bride is to transmit life (that is the fullness of the Faith) to Her children.

    You may want to review further on what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has to say on the subject - as his call for the clarification of VII, the official open door that has welcomed in the smoke of Satan, is very much what the SSPX has been stating all along.

    Also, the SSPX is not in schism, no matter how much folks like Voris may wish to paint it as such. In truth, Voris is only beginning on the long journey of discovery as to why there are deep fissures within the Church. And his castigation of what he terms reactionaries may very well include himself and even the likes of +Burke if the October synod goes the way of ambiguity like VII.

    At least the SSPX is consistent in what they oppose - namely the 'authority' to institutionalize ambiguity.The selfsame ambiguity that has those who believe themselves safe beneath the 'full communion' banner reject as the 'lawful' authority imposes all manner of nonsense that abrades and even is directly contrary to what the the Church - the Bride - actually teaches.

    If the Synod in October proves to be just as damaging as VII, that is it is allowed to be overtaken by a rampant and visible liberal mentality, it would be interesting - if not wholly sad - to see the flip flopping wriggling of those like Michael Voris who will then have to put some kind of spin on the outcome.

    For it is really easy to castigate others while one has the access to an 'approved' Latin mass and the fullness of Catholic teaching. But as with +Burke, we see that good bishops and clergy can very easily be shunted off.

    God give us all the strength and the will to discern and not cast stones at those who are our closest allies.

  9. "Often, too, divine providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism, they will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate conventicles of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church. These the Father who seeth in secret crowns secretly. It appears that this is a rare kind of Christian, but examples are not lacking. Indeed, there are more than can be believed. So divine providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the oversight of souls and for the building up of his spiritual people. (De vera religione, in Augustine: Earlier Writings, translated by John H. S. Burleigh [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953], 231.)

    You may want to consider, Julie, that whereas you call Archbishop Lefebvre into question for putting the salvation of souls first and comparing him to Martin Luther - all that you are doing is posting the list of continued grievances that stir up dissent against the 'lawful' authority. And for what? The scandal and peril they present to souls precisely because they are the 'lawful' authority. Please, be consistent.

    The reality is Archbishop Lefebvre was right as the rotted fruits of ambiguity allowed in VII documents and now these ongoing Synods are that which is leading souls to peril - if not you wouldn't be posting so vociferously against them.

    Please, if you admittedly don't understand what Verecchio is talking about, learn first before declaring that which is beyond our scope of authority.

  10. To Edison and Patty, I leave you with the words of Pope Benedict...

    In Christ,

    Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

  11. "This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

    So, Julie, do you really understand what this means? Benedict is affirming that the distinction needs to be made between the disciplinary and doctrinal levels. As a matter of discipline, they are not excommunicated, they are without canonical status.

    As a mater of doctrine (remember, doctrine NOT dogma) certain issues need to be worked out regarding Vatican II. On this point, we must remember that Vatican II never introduced any new Dogmas of the faith, it was a pastoral counsel.

    In this respect, your references here to the SSPX as being "outside the Church" are completely inappropriate. They are inside the Church, but without excising legitimate ministry. This is absolutely not the same as Luther questioning Dogma's and leaving the Church, as well as completely changing the Mass (he was never consecrating the Body and Blood of Jesus after he changed the words of the consecration).

    Further, Luther also questioned things like Mandatory Celibacy and the doctrine (teaching) of Limbo. Many Catholics today question Mandatory Celibacy. Most Catholics today also deny Limbo. Just. Like. Luther.

    Your comparisons to Luther are simply inadequate. The SSPX are in talks even as we speak, the solution is simple, reach an agreement and regularize their canonical status as a society. What are we to do about it? Write books about how they are "more holy than the pope"? NO. Like Louie Verrecchio said, we are to pray and fast that this situation is resolved.

  12. Kevin - thank you! I pray God that Julie and those who read her blog read what you wrote. I hope that Julie,for the sake of clarity, will make a post of what you wrote to counter the disinformation that was spread here.


This is a Catholic blog, please keep your comments respectful to my Faith even when you disagree.

Profanity will not be tolerated - it will be DELETED, so do not waste your time or mine.

Thank you and God bless...

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...