I’m not as familiar with him, so maybe I am the one who is wrong. I tend to like to hear what he has to say because, quite frankly, most of the time what he says needs to be said. Now, could it be said more charitably and with more humility? Of course. I’m continuing to work on this myself. But this gets back to my earlier point: It NEEDS to be said and more times than not it is NOT.
Francois makes a good point.
“Divisive” “Hateful” “Intolerant” I think you missed judgmental.
Don’t forget “uncharitable”.“Divisive” “Hateful” “Intolerant” I think you missed judgmental.
We can probably just sum it up as unchristian…
I don’t know. I think if we take a good look at the way John the Baptist behaved/spoke to others we might be offended and think his behavior was “unchristian”. My guess is that the way he delivered his message was a big reason why many converted. There were probably a lot of Christian evangelists throughout the Church’s history that didn’t soft-peddle.
No, the poster in question made a distinction between frank and direct and hateful and dirisive. So the poster in question would have no problem with the way that John the Baptist spoke.
Huh, this sounds pretty hateful and divisive:No, the poster in question made a distinction between frank and direct and hateful and dirisive. So the poster in question would have no problem with the way that John the Baptist spoke.
Just so you know, I didn’t have an issue with the fork in the road.
I find it strange that you would consider every Saint, Pope, Doctor of the Church, Christian monarch, Christian knight and Catholic partisan from Antiquity all the way up until the 1960s to be “unchristian”. I think it is this baffling attitude that people find so frustrating.
Oh please, everyone knows that the Church started in 1965. (sarcasm in case anyone doesn’t get it)
Lol it’s the Church Militant which defends the Church as their mother! defends her as the bride of Christ. It’s those members who are willing to sacrifice popularity and being “liked” to spread the truth through humility and charity, by always putting Jesus Christ first. But it’s ok because just like police work I didn’t chose that path to be like but instead to give honor and glory to God! So no need to say bye bye because we are still here, and we aren’t going anywhere.
And yet here you are attacking and judging a man? Perhaps his style might not work for you, but do you know if perhaps others have not converted or come home because of hist "style? I am not defending Voris but I also don’t like to see people tarnishing others name especially when they are doing something for the Lord.
I don’t have any idea where Pope Francis will take the church on specific issues, but I find him to be a fascinating individual so far. I have always had a soft spot in my heart for Jesuits, since a local boy joined the order and returned to my home parish as a guest priest on a fairly regular basis. His homilies tended to be much more challenging and theologically deeper than those given by our regular priests.
I accept Pope Frances as the leader of the Catholic Church. I do not question the collective judgment or wisdom of one hundred plus Cardinals inspired by the Holy Spirit. He has certainly piqued my interest, but I will abide by whatever he says. But that’s just me.
With all due respect, I’m not attacking or judging. Voris’ message was condemned fairly heavy handedly by Archbishop Vigneron. During the time when he was running “Real Catholic TV,”, he was told by the Archdiocese of Detroit that he did not have permission to describe the apostolate as “Catholic.” You can do a quick search to verify if you feel compelled. I stand by the Archbishop on this one.
I think you know that you are taking the point well out of context here…, but I’ll clarify what I meant…
How do my comments in this thread imply that I find Saints, Popes, Dr’s, Monarch, etc… to be unchristian? And where does 1960 come in to the conversation? I’m not tracking your thought process…help me understand.