V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That’s beause Jesus was not as soft on the Pharisees, but He was gentler with other sinners.
Last edited:
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
I long ago decided that I would not watch Church Militant. His rants are nothing more than editorializing, and I don’t need a ranting editor.
As to exposing anything, my question is what, if anything has Church Militant exposed - as opposed to ranting on about what someone else exposed? What new, original research has the team done
There is a term for that, and it is called “gossip”. Until facts can be stated which will hold up in a court of law (because being sued for libel and/or slander is generally not what one wants to be sued over), all the juicy ton of dirt is just that - gossip.
If Church Militant wants to be the first to expose all the ton of dirt, then they need to learn how to do investigative journalism, To date, it appears, both from my limited experience and this thread, that rather than “exposing” what is wrong in the Church, they are satisfied at being an editorial organ which highlights what others have actually found. And I have enough sources of others findings without listening to a rant about the same set of facts.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not think you understand it at all. We do not offend people, not because it makes them feel bad, but because it puts enmity between us and them and serves as a barrier to actual dialogue. Being offensive is not a good tool of evangelism, or of constructive criticism.
I cannot imagine a reason for offending others, as a choice, except for clickbait, as a business model. If you note, bishops disagree all the time with each other. Yet they sound very little like the shock jocks that dominate the internet today.
So, exactly who do we think watches Michael Voris? Bishops, the ones he supposedly are trying to correct? Is he going to those in error? Or is he mostly just attracting similar folks to have a good anger together on all the stuff they see as wrong with the Church? Groupthink is also not evangelism.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Anyone from 100 years ago who could not recognize the current liturgy was extremely unfamiliar with the liturgy of their time. Please, spare the outlandish statements.
S
Sursumcorda1
Guest
Nostra Aetate
O
otjm
Guest
What made us Catholic in the liturgy is still there. The prayers at the foot of the altar was not what made us Catholic. Saying the Mass in Latin rather than in the vernacular is not what made us Catholic. Reading the first part of John’s Gospel is not what made us Catholic.
The penitential act is still there. The Kyrie and the Gloria are still there. The Epistle and the Gospel are still there, and the Old Testament Reading which ties into the Gospel has been added. Instead of a sermon dictated from the bishop’s office for the week, we have a homily which focuses on the readings.
The Offertory is still there, the Sanctus is still there, the Epiclesis is still there along with the Consecration and the prayers following the Consecration; the Agnus Dei and the Domine Non Sum Dignus are still there; Communion is still there.
And given the abysmal catechesis from the 1970’s to the 1990’s, it is no wonder that Catholics of the last two generations have a number who do not understand the True Presence. So rather than complaining, what are you doing to rectify that? I teach RCIA and Catholics Returning Home.
There have been priest shortages throughout the history of the Church. What are you doing to rectify that? My parish had three priests ordained in the last 20 years - just possibly because for over 25 years, the parish had 24/7/362 Perpetual Adoration. Do you go to Adoration? I have.
Your opinion is interesting, I have to wonder what were the sources you used to establish it, since it does not seem to reflect the reality of the Church today.
Last edited:
R
ricmat
Guest
The offense is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people are eternally offended by something or everything, even a tactful opening into the “wrong” subject matter.
Look at the martyrs! The reason they were killed was because they offended someone. The ones who were blunt at least had a chance to plant some truth seeds that might grow later. The tactful approach with partial sugar coated but not quite correct semi truth might be good enough to not make waves and save one’s self from martyrdom. A good approach if that is your goal.
You say “I cannot imagine a reason for offending others…”
Jesus did it. The martyrs did it. Paul did it. Moses, etc. did it. Offending others with the truth is not a sin. Not speaking the truth is a sin. Many people will only open their eyes and ears and start to see and listen if they are offended. You can try tickling their ears, and coating your speech with honey. They might be very interested in the half-truth. That approach…who does it serve?
A
AlNg
Guest
Why was that do you suppose?
G
gracepoole
Guest
I’m starting to wonder how it benefits Catholics to know about some forms of scandal in the Church. It’s beneficial to publicize the sex abuse crisis because it’s important to change things at the parish level and seek justice for victims. But how does it benefit Catholics, for example, to know about the pachamama issue? How does it benefit our daily faith? We get so torqued up and outraged but for what purpose?
M
mwncheesehead
Guest
I love Church Militant and listen to the Vortex every morning on my way to work. Solidly Catholic, hard hitting, and clear teaching during this crucifixion of Holy Mother Church. They are not “schismatic” - they follow and accept the Pope but are rightly critical of some of the heartbreaking and terrible things Franis has said and done during his disastrous pontificate.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I’m not sure.
M
Maximus1
Guest
We love a good inquisition
U
UltimateChikorita
Guest
No. Michael Voris is perfectly true in the Faith, calling out schismatics such as the SSPX. Church politics in general are just not good to watch, because a lot of their content causes useless anger and inspires feelings of disobedience among the laity.
C
Catfinger77
Guest
I checked out the website and my first reaction to Church Militant is that it seems to be based on the “in your face” conservative media type such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. I saw hints of conspiracy theories and a lot of negativity, especially toward our Pope Francis. I don’t know if it is schismatic, but it is polarizing, which I believe is what the Devil wants.
I won’t read or listen to them again.
I won’t read or listen to them again.
T
TK421
Guest
The professor was being emotional/hysterical because it’s definitely not shismatic and if something was shismatic it would have to come from the highest authority (i.e. the Pope and/or the bishops in union with the Pope).
I wouldn’t consider it a healthy form of media to consume because it is hypercritical and highly negative. It’s not shismatic though.
I wouldn’t consider it a healthy form of media to consume because it is hypercritical and highly negative. It’s not shismatic though.
Last edited:
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
I can’t tell if you are proud of the 3 ordained priests in 20 years statement or not. To me, that is not impressive. Perpetual adoration is great. But go take a look at the seminarian numbers for those dicoesse that promote the EOF of the mass. The way we pray shapes what we believe. And the current mass lends itself to lukewarm Catholicism. It results in people wearing shorts and sweats to mass. Eucharistic ministers wearing tshirts. People chatting in the santucary. Slowly, these things change the what we believe.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Are you really serious with this post? How is it beneficial to call out idolatry at the Vatican? Really?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
There is a tendency in some quarters to equate brashness and tactless forthrightness with truth-telling. That can be the case, but most often is not in our present day and age.
Just because someone is ruffling feathers and calling it like he sees it does not mean he is perceiving things as they really are.
I say this as I feel like many of Voris’ supporters summarily dismiss any appeals for charity as people wanting to whitewash the truth in order to spare people’s feelings.
That is not where my criticisms of Voris lie. Rather, I do not think he has an objective or accurate view of what is going on in the Church. He feeds peoples’ desire to be “in the know” with regards to the “gritty, ugly truth” of the Church’s hierarchical underbelly.
That’s basically just gnosticism disguised as courageous fidelity.
Just because someone is ruffling feathers and calling it like he sees it does not mean he is perceiving things as they really are.
I say this as I feel like many of Voris’ supporters summarily dismiss any appeals for charity as people wanting to whitewash the truth in order to spare people’s feelings.
That is not where my criticisms of Voris lie. Rather, I do not think he has an objective or accurate view of what is going on in the Church. He feeds peoples’ desire to be “in the know” with regards to the “gritty, ugly truth” of the Church’s hierarchical underbelly.
That’s basically just gnosticism disguised as courageous fidelity.
G
gracepoole
Guest
I’m absolutely serious. Sacraments benefit you. Prayer benefits you. How does knowing about that particular scandal benefit your faith life?gracepoole:
Are you really serious with this post? How is it beneficial to call out idolatry at the Vatican? Really?
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
It is more about preventing harm for others.CatholicSooner:
I’m absolutely serious. Sacraments benefit you. Prayer benefits you. How does knowing about that particular scandal benefit your faith life?gracepoole:
Are you really serious with this post? How is it beneficial to call out idolatry at the Vatican? Really?
Others, it is already happening, are thinking it is OK to have a pagan idol in a Catholic Church and think that it represents Mary. If the Pope had not allowed this, people wouldn’t think it was OK. Since the Pope did allow it, others think it must be OK. This needs to be called out for the benefit of souls.
This is one thing I will not budge on. The Pope himself admitted it was the Pachamama idol. Go google that and tell me it isn’t a pagan idol.
So knowing about these scandals help the laity hold teh Bishops accountable for their actions. It purifies the Church. I can’t imagine St. Francis or St. Patrick or any other Saint having the opinion that keeping scandals quiet is beneficial to the Church or the laity
- Status