Right-wing fringe group building multimedia empire near Detroit

[pnewton]

Sure Voris is often abrasive, but is it any wonder??? He takes the Faith and the current spiritual warfare seriously. And he calls a spade a spade! We should all be like that!!!

Paul wrote:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

 

[Xystus]

They are right wing, that’s not up for debate. Here’s a definition of “fringe”:

1. not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.

That fits the Church Militant as well. I would say by definition they are right-wing fringe group. Ask a random Catholic in the pews or in the streets and it is highly likely they have never heard of Michael Voris. They are a very small fringe group.

I have never heard of Voris or his website before reading about him in this thread. I will take you word for it that his group is very small. That being said, Why try to make it sound like a big thing by describing them as building an “empire” (USA Today, not you).

 

[pnewton]

I have never heard of Voris or his website before reading about him in this thread. I will take you word for it that his group is very small. That being said, Why try to make it sound like a big thing by describing them as building an “empire” (USA Today, not you).

Because exaggeration sells, be it news paper or internet media.

 

[Ernie07]

True.
Voris is not nearly as extreme as the major news networks.

Christianity was a “fringe group” at one time. In many places it is a fringe group today. That has nothing to do with whether it is true or false.
Voris isn’t “right wing”. That is an epithet, like “fascist”, thrown as an insult by ignorant people.

Voris never disagrees with Catholic doctrine. To his credit, he gets criticized by both very liberal and very conservative groups. This suggests he at least is trying to be open minded and flexible, some of the time. The problem is a lack of prudence. He is not as bad as some of the websites, that blame the pope and bishops for all the ills of modern life, but he does seem to blame the bishops for way too much.

Keep in mind today’s bishops have to deal with mistakes made by yesterday’s bishops, they have to deal with complex issues in their own diocese, with lawsuits, with confidential matters (such as politicians who may be having confidential ongoing conversations on abortion). There is a great deal that is confidential, something that is in process, that Voris does not know about, but he does not give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Voris is a little like the guy who distrusts the cook, so he keeps opening the oven door to check on the baking. That affects the cake.

Nothing about Voris is strength based, or considers the larger context. He jumps on the K of C because 1% of the time they may have insufficiently vigilant against condoning pro choice, but he does not see the 99% of the time they are not only vigilant but solidly proactive. That would not boost his ratings. That is the kind of blind spot he has.

If you are going to watch Voris, limit yourself to no more than a half hour every two months. More than that, you start imbibing the negative spirit, the “Nancy Grace” mentality.
Nothing spikes ratings like attacks.

For whatever it’s worth, the problem I have with many Catholics today is that we’re OK with being 99% correct. When did 1% error, 1% heresy become OK? Once you start believing that 99% is acceptable the one true Church falls apart. Jesus said He would protect His Church and that is why there has never been a decreed truth that has been renounced as false. Never. 100%. It’s our distinct differentiator as Catholics.

It is easily proven that the K of C have supported individuals that are pro-abortion. So are we to look the other way (as the K of C does in some cases…Gov McAuliffe in Virginia) just because 99% of the time they support Catholic teaching? Hey, I only commit mortal sins 1% of the time so I’m good? This watering down of our faith is a huge issue and it’s happening at many levels.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I was banned from Church Militant for saying that Sean Spicer lied about the size of the crowd at the inauguration, which he did. The CM representative accused me of ‘slandering a good Catholic’ and used such convoluted logic to defend Spicer that I question anything analysis from that website. Basically, they couldn’t call a lie a lie and they couldn’t stand for someone who upset their little apple cart. So, it is a place for precious snowflakes to have their safespace where they can safely believe that Donald Trump is the best president for Catholics ever and rip into the Church hierarchy without being challenged.

OK, so your feelings were hurt, but can you point to anything that is non-Catholic in the teachings or opinions of the Church Militant organization?

 

[Jig_Saw]

OK, so your feelings were hurt, but can you point to anything that is non-Catholic in the teachings or opinions of the Church Militant organization?

No, my feelings weren’t hurt. I was pointing out that the site does censor opposing viewpoints to protect the precious snowflakes that need a safe space.

Once you are willing to lie about what someone said to defend an untenable position, then I don’t consider that person a reliable source for interpreting Catholic teaching. Perhaps you do, but you may wish to consider why the Archdiocese of Detroit instructed the site to refrain from using Catholic in their name.

 

[Ernie07]

No, my feelings weren’t hurt. I was pointing out that the site does censor opposing viewpoints to protect the precious snowflakes that need a safe space.

Once you are willing to lie about what someone said to defend an untenable position, then I don’t consider that person a reliable source for interpreting Catholic teaching. Perhaps you do, but you may wish to consider why the Archdiocese of Detroit instructed the site to refrain from using Catholic in their name.

It would be interesting to see the full context of your exchange with CM as I would assume they would have a different take on it, but I’ll take your word for it. I just try to eliminate emotion so when someone says that an organization is unreliable in interpreting scripture I look for specifics to prove that point.

For example, I’ve been very critical of the use of the Alpha program in Catholic parishes (this is where I agree with CM). I’ve had many people tell me to consider why the Archdiocese of Detroit and other church leaders endorse the Alpha program as a key reason to jump on board. The fact that it promotes errors and heresies aren’t important “in the big picture” I’ve been told. On a different thread on the topic the discussion stopped when I included the errors with specific page numbers from the Admin Guide. The truth just wasn’t/isn’t that important.

With that being said until you or the Archdiocese can point to specific errors or heresies promoted or taught by the Church Militant site I’ll place your thoughts and opinions in the emotion bucket.

-Ernie-

 

[TMC]

Can you reference what you believe isn’t Catholic about CM? I ask because my only interaction with them was on the Alpha program and they were one of the few organizations that called out this program for what it is…error-filled and sometimes heretical. As a result, they earned my respect as an organization that isn’t afraid to call out errors even when church leaders are inexplicably endorsing it. But, maybe CM fell into the category of teaching error on some other issues and it would be good to know.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

Michael Voris has long been in conflict with Church leaders and Church teaching. The most high profile issues have related to his views on Jews, but he also seems to oppose ecumenism, and much of the Church’s recent (i.e. post-VII) teachings.

 

[Jig_Saw]

It would be interesting to see the full context of your exchange with CM as I would assume they would have a different take on it, but I’ll take your word for it. I just try to eliminate emotion so when someone says that an organization is unreliable in interpreting scripture I look for specifics to prove that point.

For example, I’ve been very critical of the use of the Alpha program in Catholic parishes (this is where I agree with CM). I’ve had many people tell me to consider why the Archdiocese of Detroit and other church leaders endorse the Alpha program as a key reason to jump on board. The fact that it promotes errors and heresies aren’t important “in the big picture” I’ve been told. On a different thread on the topic the discussion stopped when I included the errors with specific page numbers from the Admin Guide. The truth just wasn’t/isn’t that important.

With that being said until you or the Archdiocese can point to specific errors or heresies promoted or taught by the Church Militant site I’ll place your thoughts and opinions in the emotion bucket.

-Ernie-

It would be hard to see the full discussion since they deleted my responses You probably got find their reasoning… Your attempt to chalk up my point of view to emotions is wrong. Anyone willing to lie about what a clear statement about inauguration attendance is not worthy to listen to on other matters in my opinion, but that is away from my original point that CM regularly censors comments they don’t like to create an appropriate safe-space.

 

[commenter]

For whatever it’s worth, the problem I have with many Catholics today is that we’re OK with being 99% correct. When did 1% error, 1% heresy become OK? Once you start believing that 99% is acceptable the one true Church falls apart. Jesus said He would protect His Church and that is why there has never been a decreed truth that has been renounced as false. Never. 100%. It’s our distinct differentiator as Catholics.

It is easily proven that the K of C have supported individuals that are pro-abortion. So are we to look the other way (as the K of C does in some cases…Gov McAuliffe in Virginia) just because 99% of the time they support Catholic teaching? Hey, I only commit mortal sins 1% of the time so I’m good? This watering down of our faith is a huge issue and it’s happening at many levels.

-Ernie-

If you watch Voris regularly, you get the impression the Catholic Church overall does far more harm than good, so it would be better to terminate it. He does not really give much reason to bring anyone into the Church. He does not tell his viewers to leave the Catholic Church, but constantly identifying almost everything Catholic as evil or corrupt brings viewers quite close to the exit sign, and some take the final step then.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Michael Voris has long been in conflict with Church leaders and Church teaching. The most high profile issues have related to his views on Jews, but he also seems to oppose ecumenism, and much of the Church’s recent (i.e. post-VII) teachings.

Not arguing with you, but what Church teachings is he in conflict with?

When it comes to some of the other stuff, though, I think we are now prepared to ban Dante because nobody, from Voris to SSPV is as critical of churchmen as Dante was.

 

[Ernie07]

Michael Voris has long been in conflict with Church leaders and Church teaching. The most high profile issues have related to his views on Jews, but he also seems to oppose ecumenism, and much of the Church’s recent (i.e. post-VII) teachings.

Thanks for that information. I looked up his videos on Jews and his reasoning seems to be since there is no temple, no priesthood, and therefore no sacrifice that it really isn’t Judaism. I just wonder if there were no priesthood and no Eucharist would we still be considered Catholic? I never thought of that before, but without giving it a huge amount of thought, I’d say if there were no priests and no Eucharistic sacrifice then we wouldn’t be considered truly Catholic. I guess I don’t see why his reasoning is so offensive. Maybe I just don’t know that detailed part of my faith well enough.

I’ll have to look into his views on ecumenism because I must admit that it seems like some Catholics tend more toward ecumenism rather than speaking the truth. An attitude of “don’t mention that the Catholic Church is the one true Church because that’s too exclusive and divisive” seems to be the norm for too many. It’s almost as if we’re embarrassed by the fact that we’re the Church Jesus established and has protected. So if he or anyone is opposed to watering down our faith for the sake of ecumenism then I’m guilty as well.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

It would be hard to see the full discussion since they deleted my responses You probably got find their reasoning… Your attempt to chalk up my point of view to emotions is wrong. Anyone willing to lie about what a clear statement about inauguration attendance is not worthy to listen to on other matters in my opinion, but that is away from my original point that CM regularly censors comments they don’t like to create an appropriate safe-space.

I understand. If someone lies to me about a topic then I’m definitely less likely to believe them on another. But, generally speaking I don’t cast them aside especially if the disagreement is related to politics or religion. Too much emotion and shades of truth. We use the term liar so frequently now that it’s almost lost it’s meaning. It seems like today if you don’t agree with my rationale then you’re a liar. Using a sports example, how many times have you watched a football game where to you it was “clearly” a non-catch but then after replay was called a catch? How can everyone not see what was so obvious!!?? So many “liars” out there!!

 

[Ernie07]

If you watch Voris regularly, you get the impression the Catholic Church overall does far more harm than good, so it would be better to terminate it. He does not really give much reason to bring anyone into the Church. He does not tell his viewers to leave the Catholic Church, but constantly identifying almost everything Catholic as evil or corrupt brings viewers quite close to the exit sign, and some take the final step then.

Wow, not at all how I see at least his latest videos and writings. Maybe his delivery is blunt with an “in your face” style, but for those of us that don’t accept even a smidge of error or heresy to enter the Church he seems to be on our side. I see it more that he calls out church leaders for being weak rather than attacking the Church. Maybe if he stated it in a nicer tone everyone would be happier.

 

[TMC]

Not arguing with you, but what Church teachings is he in conflict with?

When it comes to some of the other stuff, though, I think we are now prepared to ban Dante because nobody, from Voris to SSPV is as critical of churchmen as Dante was.

I agree that merely being critical of clergy should not be enough, although many within the Church would disagree with both of us on that. But I think that his actual viewpoints are also part of the problem.

I don’t remember everything about him, but here is the top of the head. He shares some views that some would call “ultra-Traditional” (not painting all traditionalists with that brush, but I don’t know what else to call it), particularly when it comes to Jews and to the liturgy. The statements that got him in most hot water were denying that the Jews of today are “real” Jews. In order to get around the Church’s teaching on salvation for the Jewish people (which is opposed in some circles, as you know), he claims that Judaism ended with the destruction of the Temple and that the Jews of today are not “real Jews.” Apparently, this is his way of denying salvation for the Jewish people, and generally deriding the Jewish faith, while trying to shoe horn those views into Church teaching.

He also has an odd attachment to geocentrism, which is not so much a theological issue, but maybe a symptom of other things.

 

[TMC]

Thanks for that information. I looked up his videos on Jews and his reasoning seems to be since there is no temple, no priesthood, and therefore no sacrifice that it really isn’t Judaism. I just wonder if there were no priesthood and no Eucharist would we still be considered Catholic? I never thought of that before, but without giving it a huge amount of thought, I’d say if there were no priests and no Eucharistic sacrifice then we wouldn’t be considered truly Catholic. I guess I don’t see why his reasoning is so offensive. Maybe I just don’t know that detailed part of my faith well enough.

I’ll have to look into his views on ecumenism because I must admit that it seems like some Catholics tend more toward ecumenism rather than speaking the truth. An attitude of “don’t mention that the Catholic Church is the one true Church because that’s too exclusive and divisive” seems to be the norm for too many. It’s almost as if we’re embarrassed by the fact that we’re the Church Jesus established and has protected. So if he or anyone is opposed to watering down our faith for the sake of ecumenism then I’m guilty as well.

-Ernie-

His views on Jews are offensive for a number of reasons. First, it is certainly offensive to tell an entire religion that they are illegitimate and fake based on one’s own opinion. More importantly, his argument is a reaction to the Church’s teaching that the Jewish people remain God’s Chosen, and can find salvation. He is responding to that teaching by saying, well maybe if they were real Jews, but these are fake Jews. The implication is that these fake Jews are, in fact, bad or even evil, deserving of condemnation, and so forth. Like many insidious arguments, it sounds harmless at the surface, but actually masks a dangerous idea - in this case a deeply anti-Semitic idea.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I understand. If someone lies to me about a topic then I’m definitely less likely to believe them on another. But, generally speaking I don’t cast them aside especially if the disagreement is related to politics or religion. Too much emotion and shades of truth. We use the term liar so frequently now that it’s almost lost it’s meaning. It seems like today if you don’t agree with my rationale then you’re a liar. Using a sports example, how many times have you watched a football game where to you it was “clearly” a non-catch but then after replay was called a catch? How can everyone not see what was so obvious!!?? So many “liars” out there!!

I think your example is trivializing my point. This isn’t a question where one could dispute the truth. It was clear for anyone with the power of reason. The mod not only denied the truth multiple times, but proceeded to ban me. The site was trying to protect the precious snowflakes that need their safe space.

If someone is so unreliable on a trivial matter where the truth is evident, how can one consider them reliable on matters that require clear reasoning skills?

 

[Ernie07]

His views on Jews are offensive for a number of reasons. First, it is certainly offensive to tell an entire religion that they are illegitimate and fake based on one’s own opinion. More importantly, his argument is a reaction to the Church’s teaching that the Jewish people remain God’s Chosen, and can find salvation. He is responding to that teaching by saying, well maybe if they were real Jews, but these are fake Jews. The implication is that these fake Jews are, in fact, bad or even evil, deserving of condemnation, and so forth. Like many insidious arguments, it sounds harmless at the surface, but actually masks a dangerous idea - in this case a deeply anti-Semitic idea.

I watched his video on the Jews. His premise seems pretty sound to me actually. First, he doesn’t call them “real Jews” and “fake Jews” but rather “ceased being what it had been” after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. After that they no longer had a temple, the priesthood, or a sacrifice so what he said is true. Then, a new man-made religion was formed to take its place. He makes no mention of God’s Chosen people or that they’re evil or deserving condemnation, but rather focuses on the covenant. That the Catholic Church, through the continuation of the priesthood and ultimate sacrifice of the Eucharist, represents the continuation of the covenant. Those Jews that remained faithful to the covenant became Christians while those that were unfaithful rejected Jesus as the Messiah. He ends the video by stating that today’s Judaism looks a lot like the Judaism of old, but at it’s core is very different.

What is wrong with the above? How is that offensive? Sounds like the truth to me. Is there some other source you’re referring to?

Thanks for the dialogue. I’m not biased one way or the other. I just hate seeing anyone get slandered without just cause. Maybe there is just cause in this case. I just haven’t seen it yet…actually as I do a little research I see the contrary.

-Ernie-

 

[LittleFlower378]

Right wing fringe group? haha nice try

Michael Voris is a sound laymens voice of truth, when so many priests, bishops, religious, and laymen have gone astray in matters of faith. He sometimes goes too far publicly going after specific clergy when it may be better handled a different way but that is his way (when he isnt listened to) to handle a deep crisis in the Church. His preaching is mostly negative, but so was Jeremiah’s. The Church is blessed to have a voice like his, he is one of my favorites.

Here is a good talk about heresies within the Church by Michael Voris.
youtube.com/watch?v=ElWqUvogTso&list=WL&index=3

 

[J_Peterson]

I watched his video on the Jews. His premise seems pretty sound to me actually. First, he doesn’t call them “real Jews” and “fake Jews” but rather “ceased being what it had been” after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. After that they no longer had a temple, the priesthood, or a sacrifice so what he said is true. Then, a new man-made religion was formed to take its place. He makes no mention of God’s Chosen people or that they’re evil or deserving condemnation, but rather focuses on the covenant. That the Catholic Church, through the continuation of the priesthood and ultimate sacrifice of the Eucharist, represents the continuation of the covenant. Those Jews that remained faithful to the covenant became Christians while those that were unfaithful rejected Jesus as the Messiah. He ends the video by stating that today’s Judaism looks a lot like the Judaism of old, but at it’s core is very different.

What is wrong with the above? How is that offensive? Sounds like the truth to me. Is there some other source you’re referring to?

Thanks for the dialogue. I’m not biased one way or the other. I just hate seeing anyone get slandered without just cause. Maybe there is just cause in this case. I just haven’t seen it yet…actually as I do a little research I see the contrary.

-Ernie-

So all Jews that didn’t convert to Christianity are unfaithful to the covenant? That’s offensive to Jews and goes against what our Church states so offensive to Catholics as well.