M
Maxirad
Guest
The controversial Catholic author E. Michael Jones, who has actually done stuff with Michael Voris, came out with an e-book last year entitled The Man Behind the Curtain: Michael Voris and the Homosexual Vortex.
- Status
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Yeah, I don’t put too much weight into that. The people who have worked for him probably wouldn’t either. What they were eventually repulsed by was the lengths he was willing to go to to twist, degrade and demean anyone who got in his way or he saw as an enemy.Xanthippe_Voorhees:
The controversial Catholic author E. Michael Jones, who has actually done stuff with Michael Voris, came out with an e-book last year entitled The Man Behind the Curtain: Michael Voris and the Homosexual Vortex.
I don’t really buy into conspiracy theories or hidden agendas. I judge based on what I see and firsthand knowledge.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Like I said…
No, my first few posts were not that way, anybody can understand them. Gorgias couldn’t let it go, and it’s not my problem that some people cannot see beyond a superficial understanding of basic tenets of Catholicism.
P
pnewton
Guest
She lost me at, “This saint said this saint said that in a vision he heard.” That is not how the Catholic Church teaches. The OP is right to be skeptical of this view. We only have the revelation of the Holy Scripture, the tradition of the Church and the authority of the Chair of Peter.
This whole video seems to contradict the nature of God. I am remind of what Father Corapi used to say. His name is Mercy.
This whole video seems to contradict the nature of God. I am remind of what Father Corapi used to say. His name is Mercy.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Honestly, I looked over everything and it seems that you are just upset that someone called into question a private revelation that you like. Your claims fell apart after that.
Although, I do agree on a dislike of Voris.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Please.
Look, I could care less if you don’t understand the point I was making. But don’t ascribe your assumptions to me. You can have the last word.
Crusader13
New member
I wouldn’t necessarily say that’s true. His bishop told him to cease his reporting on stories about abuses and actions that painted his diocese and others in a bad light. Not because Michael Voris and CM were spreading lies, but because they brought to light instances where the local priests and bishops weren’t supporting authentic Catholic teaching.TMC:
Good concrete information, thanks!
So Captain Voris is out on a limb then…
This topic seems to have “gone viral” LOL
It seems that the can of worms has indeed been opened.
Peace and God bless you all.
I can’t speak personally to the content of Michael Voris’s character or personality. I’ve never met him nor do I know individuals who have worked with him or befriended him. I’ve read his book and watched several of his shows and videos through the premium content offered on Churchmilitant.com and I haven’t come across anything that would be troubling to someone looking for the truth about the Catholic Church. His entire apostolate is dedicated to preserving authentic Catholic teachings and traditions. He may seem abrasive or too brash at times, maybe even a little condescending, but that doesn’t necessarily make him wrong.
He’s not afraid to call out bishops or priests or cardinals or anyone else for that matter, who professes to uphold catholic beliefs and then turn around and offer support to or passively dismiss those who are strongly opposed to the Catholic faith. Unfortunately it’s something that we as Catholics need to be aware of.
If I found out that my local diocese had organized or was participating in an event or rally, where the main sponsors and participants were pro choice, pro planned parent hood, pro gay marriage, etc etc, and several of the local priests and bishops were attending to show their support by claiming it’s only in the spirit of “fostering unity and ecumenism” then I would definitely want to know, because those clergy need to be called out and explain their actions! Unfortunately, things like this happen ALL THE TIME and very few “Catholic” news sources will draw attention to it. The days of the Mother Angelica run EWTN are long gone and too often those clergy who seek to speak out against these acts are quickly silenced and made to look like over zealous traditionalists who don’t care about social injustice!
Whether you agree or disagree with Michael Voris, there are very few who are willing and/or are able to stand up against those who seek to undermine the Church from the inside!
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
Why would you say that? He used to call his program CatholicTV. He was asked to stop referring to his teachings as Catholic. He has been banned from speaking in some dioceses because his teaching is not Catholic. He has no teaching authority in the Church. He regularly misrepresents the Church’s teachings. He has been asked to stop calling his programs Catholic. He has been banned from speaking in Catholic forums. Its hard to find a clearer example of someone whose “teaching” has been more thoroughly discredited. If you want to follow Voris instead of the Church and her bishops, that is a choice. But don’t be mislead into believing he speaks for the Church, or that he faithfully imparts the Church’s teaching. It is very clear that he does not.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
I agree with this.
I remember a particular issue when he was highly critical of bishops world youth day dancing.
It was harmless. I’m not sure what they did that could be considered wrong, but he didn’t like it on s personal level so he assumed it was somehow improper for bishops to dance.
I watched his videos quite frequently. I stopped. This whole “the church is burning” attitude got to me.
And his attacks against faithful bishops. And his lack of understanding of the word “hope”.
I remember a particular issue when he was highly critical of bishops world youth day dancing.
It was harmless. I’m not sure what they did that could be considered wrong, but he didn’t like it on s personal level so he assumed it was somehow improper for bishops to dance.
I watched his videos quite frequently. I stopped. This whole “the church is burning” attitude got to me.
And his attacks against faithful bishops. And his lack of understanding of the word “hope”.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It goes to the heart of the issue we’re debating: just because you call something “private revelation”, doesn’t mean that it’s true, let alone accepted by the Church!
And so, yes: I think it’s necessary to make that point, since other posts on this thread seem to want to hold up private revelation as if it were de facto teaching of the Catholic Church.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Given that he was banned from public speaking in a few dioceses, I think we can safely assume there is more to the story than the fear of “misrepresentation”. From my understanding, it was due to his complete lack of charity and unwillingness to allow mercy.TMC:
Not that I’m jumping in to defend Voris, but…
that was really just about the Church wanting a non-affiliated entity to stop representing itself as if it were the Church. Right?
Crusader13
New member
I don’t follow him because I believe him to be an expert or even a “quasi official” authority on Church teachings. Many catholic apologists that I read and listen to have no “official” authority within the Catholic Church. Voris has hundreds if not thousands of hours of video and audio, so I’d be lying if I said I’ve listened to all of it, but what I have heard doesn’t contradict Church teaching. I think his views reflect a much stronger lean on teachings and traditions which were more commonly held prior to the pre Vatican II era, but again, that doesn’t make him wrong.Crusader13:
Why would you say that… If you want to follow Voris instead of the Church and her bishops, that is a choice. But don’t be mislead into believing he speaks for the Church, or that he faithfully imparts the Church’s teaching. It is very clear that he does not.
Much of the content on CM seems to hold this view and that’s why you constantly hear them talk about a return to “Authentic” Catholic teachings. I’ve watched some videos where he clearly attacks practices such as these and it may come off as too strong or as if he’s personally attacking the “individual” who follows these practices, so I can see why some may find his views to be misguided. Again, I’m not an apologist for Voris, but the content of what you find on CM and those of his colleagues doesn’t, in my opinion, misrepresent the Catholic Church.
There are plenty of examples of those who do have legitimate authority to teach within the Church and yet they consistently go against church teaching. How many times do apologist here on Catholic Answers need to clarify or at times flat out deny a comment or message made by a random priest or bishop who has misrepresented official catholic teachings on a particular subject? Merely having “authority” within the church doesn’t translate into authenticity. A good example is Bishop Barron’s comments on Salvation and hell.
“We have to accept the possibility of Hell. We have to accept the existence of it as a possibility because of human freedom. But, are any human beings in Hell. We don’t know. We don’t know. The Church has never declared on that subject. And we may pray that all be saved, and may even reasonably hope that all be saved…. It’s a theologically-grounded reasonable hope that all will be saved.”
Last time I studied catholic eschatology, Hell was indeed a very real place and not merely a “possibility”. True that nobody, including the Catholic Church knows an exact number of those in hell, but to have a “theologically-grounded reasonable hope that all will be saved” is not authentic Catholic teaching.
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."
This verse seems to support the authentic Catholic belief and better represent the urgency for the faithful to workout their salvation with fear and trembling!
M
Maxirad
Guest
Crusader13, be aware of Canon 1373.
Crusader13
New member
I don’t believe that calling out our clergy on liturgical abuses or holding them accountable for blatantly ignoring church teachings is what Canon 1373 is referring to. The beauty of our Catholic Church is that it has centuries of teachings and traditions that we can refer to, whenever there is a need to question someone from within the Church who is seeking to push their own personal beliefs onto the faithful. Father James Martin, is a perfect example of a priest who has clearly attempted to shove his own personal beliefs into the teachings of the Catholic faith. Should we simply bow our heads and accept what he’s preaching as gospel because he sits in a position of authority over the laity?!
Mother Angelica called out several bishops and members of the clergy in her now famous video referring to the World Youth Day celebration in Denver in 1993 where a woman played the role of Jesus. Now was this something that occurred during Mass or was it some other form of liturgical abuse? No, but she saw the writing on the wall and after decades of clergy poisoning the once beautiful and authentic traditions of the Church, she said enough is enough. She clearly made a link between this sort of misrepresentation and all the other watered down teachings that slowly crept into the faith.
I believe Bishop Fulton Sheen said it best in his message here:
“Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops and religious. It is to you, the people (LAITY). You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act as priests, your bishops like bishops, and your religious act like religious.” (Address to the Knights of Columbus – June 1972)
M
Maxirad
Guest
Crusader13, check out the following links:
http://catholicinbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2017/09/who-is-right-cardinal-sarah-or-father.html
Crusader13
New member
Maxirad, I watched the video and read the article. First I do agree with much of what Jimmy Akin was saying. We need to be respectful when calling out our clergy for doing something wrong. I’ve never suggested otherwise nor am I one who believes that we need a full on revolt where our clergy need to be cruelly ridiculed and humiliated. Again I’m not a Voris apologist and I can’t speak to every comment he has made against those in authority who have misrepresented Church teaching.
Second, the article is somewhat biased and doesn’t capture the full picture of the Lord’s Mercy. First of all the story in the article of Jesus and the Samaritan woman is ironic to use. The author wished to show the Lord’s Mercy by simply engaging in a friendly conversation, even though she was a Samaritan. His intent, I believe is to contrast that with Fr. Martin’s willingness to build a bridge to the LGBT community. However, the author doesn’t quote the rest of the passage. As we know, Jesus tells the woman _"16 “Go, call your husband, and come back.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!” The irony of this quote is that it deals with marriage and the woman’s having had 5 husbands, made her current marriage invalid. Much like the issue of Gay Marriage and whether or not its a valid marriage in the eyes of GOD. One can see that even though Jesus was always willing to offer mercy, he also made it clear that reason the person needed mercy to begin with was because they were in SIN. Look at John 8:11. Jesus tells the woman he would not condemn her, but then follows it up with “…go and sin no more.”
Fr. Martin’s approach seems, to me at least, to be one of indifference. He’d rather turn a blind eye because there exists “love” between two gay couples and therefore how in God’s loving mercy could it be sinful! He takes the approach that we need to be welcoming to everyone and part of that hospitality is not to call out a sinners actions for what they are. Isn’t that why we have the Church to begin with?! To go forth and baptize and make disciples of all nations because without it we are doomed to continue in our sin and we’ll inevitably lead ourselves straight to hell. We are shown mercy provided that we ask for forgiveness, go to confession and realize that our actions were in fact sinful to begin with. It’s not a free pass to continue living a sinful life.
Do not be so confident of atonement
_ that you add sin to sin._
_6 _
Do not say, “His mercy is great,
_ he will forgive the multitude of my sins,”_
for both mercy and wrath are with him,
_ and his anger rests on sinners._
_7 _
Do not delay to turn to the Lord,
_ nor postpone it from day to day;_
for suddenly the wrath of the Lord will go forth,
_ and at the time of punishment you will perish._
Ecclesiasticus 5: 5-7
Second, the article is somewhat biased and doesn’t capture the full picture of the Lord’s Mercy. First of all the story in the article of Jesus and the Samaritan woman is ironic to use. The author wished to show the Lord’s Mercy by simply engaging in a friendly conversation, even though she was a Samaritan. His intent, I believe is to contrast that with Fr. Martin’s willingness to build a bridge to the LGBT community. However, the author doesn’t quote the rest of the passage. As we know, Jesus tells the woman _"16 “Go, call your husband, and come back.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!” The irony of this quote is that it deals with marriage and the woman’s having had 5 husbands, made her current marriage invalid. Much like the issue of Gay Marriage and whether or not its a valid marriage in the eyes of GOD. One can see that even though Jesus was always willing to offer mercy, he also made it clear that reason the person needed mercy to begin with was because they were in SIN. Look at John 8:11. Jesus tells the woman he would not condemn her, but then follows it up with “…go and sin no more.”
Fr. Martin’s approach seems, to me at least, to be one of indifference. He’d rather turn a blind eye because there exists “love” between two gay couples and therefore how in God’s loving mercy could it be sinful! He takes the approach that we need to be welcoming to everyone and part of that hospitality is not to call out a sinners actions for what they are. Isn’t that why we have the Church to begin with?! To go forth and baptize and make disciples of all nations because without it we are doomed to continue in our sin and we’ll inevitably lead ourselves straight to hell. We are shown mercy provided that we ask for forgiveness, go to confession and realize that our actions were in fact sinful to begin with. It’s not a free pass to continue living a sinful life.
Do not be so confident of atonement
_ that you add sin to sin._
_6 _
Do not say, “His mercy is great,
_ he will forgive the multitude of my sins,”_
for both mercy and wrath are with him,
_ and his anger rests on sinners._
_7 _
Do not delay to turn to the Lord,
_ nor postpone it from day to day;_
for suddenly the wrath of the Lord will go forth,
_ and at the time of punishment you will perish._
Ecclesiasticus 5: 5-7
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
What is Mother Angelica known for? Is it not her role in spreading the Catholic faith through the media? Using this incident is no better than using a nun passing out condoms as evidence for birth control just because she also gave her life helping the poor. Michael Voris is no Mother Angelica. She spent her life spreading the Catholic faith, not attacking the clergy. Shock blogging and attacking the Church is the reputation developed by Michael Voris. Do you remember the mission of the Vortex? " Where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed," with whether something was a lie or falsehood being vetted by host Michael Voris absent any authority to do so.
I really understand that there is no harm in calling our error. However, we need to be sure that what we call error is without doubt what the Church calls error and not just opposed to our traditionalist Christianity. Liberal Catholicism is legitimate and can be orthodox.
Second, we need to address such problems as the Church does. Think of the humility of St. Catherine and not the sensationalist rhetoric of Michael Savage. Christian do their faith no great favor by imitating the world.
Last edited:
S
superblue
Guest
Congrats on your decision in joining the Catholic faith.
One thing I learned from being on here years ago was not to listen to anyone who identifies as a " church militant ". An that Michael Voris is just a typical entertainment pesonality and nothing more.
Lastly that no one can actually answer; how come there needs to be a purgatory if we go to reconciliation and do penance, that not only is that not enough ( and then people quote the catechism , which is nice because that is the justified answer that is not allowed to even be considered as a crock ) but we might have to go to purgatory because for some reason, The Holy Trinity is evidently not powerful enough to instantly cleanse us from any " scars " or what ever and in turn make us aware of what we need to be aware of and be whatever.
So basically, you do a crime, you serve your time and are remorseful, and then afterwards just for good measure you get penalized again before getting into Heaven. Awesome.
Just makes going to reconciliation that much more indifferent when you can be just as remorseful on your own, make your own penance or turn yourself and go to prison for what ever, and just still go to purgatory afterwards cause you will probably end up there any way.
I use to think it wasn’t real, now I am pretty much over purgatory and am just more convinced that there is aboslutely no logic or justification for it.
Because if someone wants to talk about " scars " then why is Jesus in heaven with his scars from sin, aka the Crucifix, and then someone says well because, and then the reply is well, why aren’t our scars good reminders for us .
Scars, scars , scars , wedding vows, till death do us part, good times and bad. etc etc. doesn’t really specify to have scars removed so we are not reminded of the pain we caused or endured. More over when Jesus was performing miracles in the New Testament, he didn’t say well im going to cure you , but you need to keep this ointment on and go see a doctor afterward to treat your scars. It was just your sins are forgiven.
So glad the Church has made over 600 some odd rules to keep things simple and not convoluted.
One thing I learned from being on here years ago was not to listen to anyone who identifies as a " church militant ". An that Michael Voris is just a typical entertainment pesonality and nothing more.
Lastly that no one can actually answer; how come there needs to be a purgatory if we go to reconciliation and do penance, that not only is that not enough ( and then people quote the catechism , which is nice because that is the justified answer that is not allowed to even be considered as a crock ) but we might have to go to purgatory because for some reason, The Holy Trinity is evidently not powerful enough to instantly cleanse us from any " scars " or what ever and in turn make us aware of what we need to be aware of and be whatever.
So basically, you do a crime, you serve your time and are remorseful, and then afterwards just for good measure you get penalized again before getting into Heaven. Awesome.
Just makes going to reconciliation that much more indifferent when you can be just as remorseful on your own, make your own penance or turn yourself and go to prison for what ever, and just still go to purgatory afterwards cause you will probably end up there any way.
I use to think it wasn’t real, now I am pretty much over purgatory and am just more convinced that there is aboslutely no logic or justification for it.
Because if someone wants to talk about " scars " then why is Jesus in heaven with his scars from sin, aka the Crucifix, and then someone says well because, and then the reply is well, why aren’t our scars good reminders for us .
Scars, scars , scars , wedding vows, till death do us part, good times and bad. etc etc. doesn’t really specify to have scars removed so we are not reminded of the pain we caused or endured. More over when Jesus was performing miracles in the New Testament, he didn’t say well im going to cure you , but you need to keep this ointment on and go see a doctor afterward to treat your scars. It was just your sins are forgiven.
So glad the Church has made over 600 some odd rules to keep things simple and not convoluted.
Last edited:
B
Bookworm77
Guest
Very good. Thanks!
Last edited:
- Status