Right-wing fringe group building multimedia empire near Detroit

[Ernie07]

So, you think that a snowflake is someone who protests about topics they don’t understand and, yet, you don’t see how that applies to a website that lies about what a political leader said and bans those that disagree with them? Interesting.

And, no, pointing out that a website that professes to be Catholic and yet does not allow dissent on topics and lies about what is said is not whining. It is pointing out that the website is not one worthy of the hero worship that some around here seem to want to impart of it.

I see the point you’re making and I understand what you’re saying. You make some good points and to me your use of the term “precious snowflakes” just seemed to get in the way of your message. But again, even if I don’t agree with your views, I get where you’re coming from. Thanks for the explanation.

Maybe some do have a “hero worship” thing for Voris, but to me it’s become a weird character attack on someone with a lack of specific facts. I’ve read opinions, sarcasm, and innuendos attacking the guy without anything specific. I’ve said it before, in my only interaction with the CM site, I found their views to be spot on Catholic while calling out errors. I guess I’m a “grab your facemask” kind of guy so I actually like his tone, but that shouldn’t be the focus. Does he speak the truth or not? If not, then I ask anyone to please provide a link where I can read or view his error. I certainly don’t want to align myself with a non credible Catholic.

Thanks again.

-Ernie-

 

[Lost_Sheep]

A bishop who did not have authority (due to location) tried to forbid the use of the word Catholic.

I didn’t know that “Catholic” was copyrighted.

 

[JimG]

I am not at all familiar with Mr. Voris or Church Militant. I do sometimes read the blog “Catholic in the Ozarks,” and this blogger recently commented about the controversy. (I couldn’t view the video, since the sound doesn’t work on my laptop.)

Specifically addressing Catholic bishops, he writes:

“I assert that what we are seeing right now, with this media slander against Church Militant, is just the beginning of something much bigger. We saw it come out in the presidential campaign last year with Wikileaks. Leftist operatives within the highest circles of the Democratic Party have a plan for the Catholic Church in the United States. It’s called “divide and conquer.” The whole point is to launch a “Catholic Spring” in which the laypeople, assisted by dissident clergy, will rise up in rebellion against Catholic teaching on sexual morality, most especially the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, cohabitation, premarital sex and contraception. If successful, they can split the witness of the U.S. Catholic bishops, thus neutralising their influence on American politics.

In order to accomplish this, they’re going to have to systematically smear all outlets of Catholic orthodoxy in America. It looks like Church Militant, small but influential, is #1 on their chopping block. If successfully decapitated, I’m sure EWTN will be #2. Once EWTN has been neutralised, you bishops will be #3. I expect this will not only happen with some media scandal against the USCCB, but also you individually. They’ll systematically take you down, one bishop at a time. You know how quickly the media can work. The lightning speed at which Church Militant has been smeared is shocking.”

Source: Catholic in the Ozarks

 

[J_Peterson]

Saint Anthony of Padua. Saint. A canonized saint has the competence to rip someone a new one. MV does not.

Have you thought about this ^^^ a little?

In regards to MV, a little truth can go a long way towards a distorted view of the world.

Also, Saint Anthony was a preacher. As far as I know Michael Voris isn’t authorized to preach. I’m not an expert on St. Anthony or anything but he was a Franciscan. Voris is no Franciscan.

 

[pnewton]

In order to accomplish this, they’re going to have to systematically smear all outlets of Catholic orthodoxy in America. It looks like Church Militant, small but influential, is #1 on their chopping block.

The number one outlet of Catholic orthodoxy in America is the Catholic Church. For me, my parish, my bishop and my diocese. This blogger is messed up equating Catholic orthodoxy with Catholicism outside of the Catholic Church, as opposed to the Church which holds the fullness of truth.

 

[goout]

The number one outlet of Catholic orthodoxy in America is the Catholic Church. For me, my parish, my bishop and my diocese. This blogger is messed up equating Catholic orthodoxy with Catholicism outside of the Catholic Church.

I have to agree. Division is divisive.

 

[edwest2]

I would like to see a “left wing fringe group” is operating a media empire thread. All those right wing watchers are apparently afraid that (a) the truth will come out, and worse, (b) people will listen.

I think faithful Catholics need to realize that the so-called “counterculture” of the 1960s is realizing its dysfunctional dreams in the minds of too many today, and worse, causing them to behave differently. We have the Church and the Pope. They have anonymity, for the most part, and a compliant media.

It’s time for Catholics to decide to stop listening to those who want to confuse us. To stop living in ways that are outside of the norms as taught by the Church. We cannot afford to make the media the equivalent of what we believe because, for the most part, they’re against it. Against the truth as taught by the Church.

Regarding Michael Voris, I watched part of one episode of his show and did not like what I heard.

Ed

 

[Ernie07]

The number one outlet of Catholic orthodoxy in America is the Catholic Church. For me, my parish, my bishop and my diocese. This blogger is messed up equating Catholic orthodoxy with Catholicism outside of the Catholic Church, as opposed to the Church which holds the fullness of truth.

In theory and in a perfect world I totally agree with you. And I agree with you as it relates to the official teaching of faith and morals. However, we must make sure and test that our parish, bishop, and diocese are remaining faithful to the teachings of the Church.

Unless I’m misunderstanding you (and I apologize if I am) then Catholics in the San Diego diocese need to become “disrupters” because the bishop said so? Or we should buy into a Protestant based evangelization program filled with error because church leaders endorse it?

The Church is infallible when it comes to official teachings on faith and morals. Unless I’m mistaken I don’t believe that applies to individual bishops or diocese. There have even been bishops that were excommunicated. You make it sound like we need to be blind sheep. Again, that’s how I’m interpreting what you’re saying and if I’m misunderstanding I apologize.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I would like to see a “left wing fringe group” is operating a media empire thread. All those right wing watchers are apparently afraid that (a) the truth will come out, and worse, (b) people will listen.

I think faithful Catholics need to realize that the so-called “counterculture” of the 1960s is realizing its dysfunctional dreams in the minds of too many today, and worse, causing them to behave differently. We have the Church and the Pope. They have anonymity, for the most part, and a compliant media.

It’s time for Catholics to decide to stop listening to those who want to confuse us. To stop living in ways that are outside of the norms as taught by the Church. We cannot afford to make the media the equivalent of what we believe because, for the most part, they’re against it. Against the truth as taught by the Church.

Regarding Michael Voris, I watched part of one episode of his show and did not like what I heard.

Ed

Hi Ed,

If you don’t mind me asking, what didn’t you like? Was it related to tone or doctrine? If doctrine, what didn’t you agree with? Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Also, Saint Anthony was a preacher. As far as I know Michael Voris isn’t authorized to preach. I’m not an expert on St. Anthony or anything but he was a Franciscan. Voris is no Franciscan.

You have to be authorized to preach!?

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed,

If you don’t mind me asking, what didn’t you like? Was it related to tone or doctrine? If doctrine, what didn’t you agree with? Thanks.

-Ernie-

Hi Ernie,

As I recall, part of it was tone. This was no Bishop Fulton Sheen who had a TV program in the past. I can’t recall the subject but I got a “this does not sound right” feeling. I’m no expert but I was brought up in a very religious environment and went to Catholic school. For some reason, I’ve had this personal desire to keep track of all the changes inside and outside the Church, especially the beginning, pivotal year, 1968, till today. I’ve watched the slow, gradual, with a smile on their faces, poisoning of Catholics and Christians in general progress in the West.

Starting with Pope Paul VI to Pope Francis, the Church has been righting herself, but as one religious observed: “We are going to have a smaller Church.” Pope Francis is calling for that inner conversion so that the poison will seep out. I know little about Mr. Voris. But the left wing media is making a fuss about this, and the eventual outcome of whatever he does will be “By their fruits you shall know them.”

Ed

 

[pnewton]

The Church is infallible when it comes to official teachings on faith and morals. Unless I’m mistaken I don’t believe that applies to individual bishops or diocese. There have even been bishops that were excommunicated. You make it sound like we need to be blind sheep. Again, that’s how I’m interpreting what you’re saying and if I’m misunderstanding I apologize.

-Ernie-

I suspected the word “blind” would surface. But yes, we are sheep. It beats the fate of the goats.

You recognize the Church is infallible on faith and morals. Therefore, if a bishop is not speaking in those areas, then nothing he said will affect his orthodoxy, which is what was said earlier. So, is the advantage of Church Militant TV its orthodoxy, or its conservative politics? I am seeing two standards here and they keep flipping back and forth.

 

[Fiasco]

Right. I have no reason to believe the Church is in worse shape now…
…One is rather dear to me.

i can’t comment on the ones you saw, but all the same,you can’t have looked too hard for real ones.

I also noticed that at times he uses hearsay and rumor as fuel for criticism. I personally prefer the admonish of the Catechism on how we are to avoid rash judgment.

As stated in an earlier post, he also has contacts with some who wish to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. In some places, strong-arm tactics are used. This literally happened to Voris and his film crew during a parade. No hearsay or rumour about that one: it was recorded on video.

This is the sort of thing I referenced earlier. I would have been taken to the woodshed for speaking to my own father that way…

Eh???
50 odd years ago, a class of Catholic primary school children in this country would welcome the parish priest:
“Good morning Farvah and may God ble-shoo.”
For a nun:
“Good morning Sistah and may God ble-shoo.”
No hiding required.
Or did i miss something?..(It’s late & i’m tired.)

The model of the Church in the Bible, the** traditional** model, is one of love and respect.

The office should always be respected.But:
For an individual in that office, sometimes the respect has to be earned. And:
The peasants deserve to be treated with respect, too. Yes?
Respect is a two-way thing. Mutual.

So, you think that a snowflake is someone who protests about topics…

…not one worthy of the hero worship that some around here seem to want to impart of it.

Broken record.

Saint Anthony of Padua. Saint. A canonized saint has the competence to rip someone a new one. MV does not.

In the case of those who seem intent on vandalism, anyone with the intelligence and knowledge, in other words THE COMPETENCE, to see what’s going on has the right, AND AN OBLIGATION, to speak out. Title has nothing to do with it.
“If you see your brother…”

Have you thought about this ^^^ a little?

In regards to MV, a little truth can go a long way towards a distorted view of the world.

By using my God-given intellect and religious knowledge, i can tell when Voris goes over the top. It’s good to exercise our brains when required.
Let’s dispense with the clericalism!

Also, Saint Anthony was a preacher. As far as I know Michael Voris isn’t authorized to preach. I’m not an expert on St. Anthony or anything but he was a Franciscan. Voris is no Franciscan.

And it’s a good thing he isn’t… the way some of them act: eg Fr Richard Rohr.

The number one outlet of Catholic orthodoxy in America is the Catholic Church. For me, my parish, my bishop and my diocese. This blogger is messed up equating Catholic orthodoxy with Catholicism outside of the Catholic Church, as opposed to the Church which holds the fullness of truth.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church sure does hold the fullness of truth, but some who should be teaching that Truth are not doing it. Sometimes, quite the opposite.

I have to agree. Division is divisive.

It’s even worse when it’s caused by those in whom most of the flock place their trust.

In theory and in a perfect world I totally agree with you. teachings of the Church…

…You make it sound like we need to be blind sheep. Again, that’s how I’m interpreting what you’re saying and if I’m misunderstanding I apologize.
-Ernie-

You just about summed it up; and your comments about San Diego saved me from having to say it.

I suspected the word “blind” would surface. But yes, we are sheep. It beats the fate of the goats.

All the same, we’re expected to use the intellects which God has given us.

You recognize the Church is infallible on faith and morals. Therefore, if a bishop is not speaking in those areas, then nothing he said will affect his orthodoxy, which is what was said earlier. So, is the advantage of Church Militant TV its orthodoxy, or its conservative politics? I am seeing two standards here and they keep flipping back and forth.

Speaking of politics eg San Diego::
Are some “inside” the Church determined to make her just an arm of the Democrats?
Thankfully, the Church in this country isn’t a branch of the Australian Labor Party which is almost as bad as the current US Democrats. As for The Greens:

The head-in-the-sand outlook can be dangerous.
Again, until the homosexual stranglehold is broken, some problems will remain.

 

[Ernie07]

I suspected the word “blind” would surface. But yes, we are sheep. It beats the fate of the goats.

You recognize the Church is infallible on faith and morals. Therefore, if a bishop is not speaking in those areas, then nothing he said will affect his orthodoxy, which is what was said earlier. So, is the advantage of Church Militant TV its orthodoxy, or its conservative politics? I am seeing two standards here and they keep flipping back and forth.

I guess I see where you’re going in distinguishing between politics and orthodoxy, but I still think the bishop’s call for disruption is, at a minimum, inappropriate. On the other hand what he says could be interpreted as promoting violence, which I think starts creeping into orthodoxy. To answer your question about CM I’d say both. I do feel that orthodoxy and conservative politics go hand in hand on the most important issue of being pro life. How Catholics can vote for a pro abortion candidate and compare the killing of a million unborn babies a year with other social issues is beyond me, but that’s a very different topic.

But, you didn’t address my doctrinal example. What if, for example, your bishop endorses a program for evangelization that teaches there isn’t a one true universal Church? What if your bishop endorses the use of a Protestant Bible? Are you saying we should follow without question? That’s how I interpreted your previous post and hence the appropriate use of the term “blind”.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[TCEL]

I have very little familiarity with CM. Once I was at a pro-life march where Voris was one of the speakers, maybe five years ago. He was sure fired up. I was appalled that he broached the topic of contraception and called it a snake in the grass regarding the pro-life movement. Appalled, that is, to hear someone say it unashamedly, over a mic, in a public venue. One could hear a pin drop. I was blown away by the cahoonas it took to say that, because I’d never heard anyone say it out loud like that.

Later on at a bible study, I heard someone complain that he was invited. I asked why, and it was mainly a tone issue. He does tend to provoke strong reactions, I quickly learned. And yet, I thought what he said was refreshingly free of bland platitudes, and honest. Strange thing, because I’m not attracted to social commentators or political figures who are strident, without naming names.

And that’s about the extent of my familiarity with CM. Although recently, I learned one of my acquaintances listens to some of their stuff.

 

[pnewton]

The office should always be respected.But:
For an individual in that office, sometimes the respect has to be earned.

I hear that a lot, but have never agreed with it. Respect is my default position.

The head-in-the-sand outlook can be dangerous.
Again, until the homosexual stranglehold is broken, some problems will remain.

This homosexual comment is out of left field. Did I miss something?

 

[pnewton]

I guess I see where you’re going in distinguishing between politics and orthodoxy, but I still think the bishop’s call for disruption is, at a minimum, inappropriate. On the other hand what he says could be interpreted as promoting violence, which I think starts creeping into orthodoxy.

Notice what you are doing. You used the words “interpreted as” and “starts creeping into”. That is pretty darn remote. I get that one does not have to agree with this bishop on such matters, but if you have to put in two distance separators, it is not a question of orthodoxy. So, while you may disagree with him, another good, orthodox Catholic might agree with him.

As to orthodoxy and conservatism being related in abortion, I do not think anyone in the Church (even the Church of Nice) has ever said otherwise.

Are you saying we should follow without question? That’s how I interpreted your previous post and hence the appropriate use of the term “blind”.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

Okay, then of course one should not follow any direction contrary to the Catholic faith. However, I find the possibility highly improbable. Heck, I use a Protestant Bible all the time, just not exclusively. I find the NASB to be the best translation when I want something hyper-literal.

 

[Ernie07]

I have very little familiarity with CM. Once I was at a pro-life march where Voris was one of the speakers, maybe five years ago. He was sure fired up. I was appalled that he broached the topic of contraception and called it a snake in the grass regarding the pro-life movement. Appalled, that is, to hear someone say it unashamedly, over a mic, in a public venue. One could hear a pin drop. I was blown away by the cahoonas it took to say that, because I’d never heard anyone say it out loud like that.

Later on at a bible study, I heard someone complain that he was invited. I asked why, and it was mainly a tone issue. He does tend to provoke strong reactions, I quickly learned. And yet, I thought what he said was refreshingly free of bland platitudes, and honest. Strange thing, because I’m not attracted to social commentators or political figures who are strident, without naming names.

And that’s about the extent of my familiarity with CM. Although recently, I learned one of my acquaintances listens to some of their stuff.

Thanks for sharing your experience. It sounds like he could have stated the evil of contraception in a more graceful way (to say the least!), but for me better that than to bury our head in the sand about an important topic. How many times have you heard a priest talk about and/or condemn contraception? Abortion, yes, but contraception? I’m not sure I ever have. It would be too controversial and likely lead to people leaving that parish and going to a neighboring one, especially the young crowd. Sad, but true, that politics plays a role even in the Church. Rather than boldly speak the truth we slip into not talking about controversial subjects that may offend. I’ve noticed many Catholics falling into this practice when it comes to evangelization. Don’t talk about the one true Church (divisive), the Eucharist (not welcoming), or the true 73 book Bible (not that important) among other things. The PC culture taking over…and so many willingly accepting.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Notice what you are doing. You used the words “interpreted as” and “starts creeping into”. That is pretty darn remote. I get that one does not have to agree with this bishop on such matters, but if you have to put in two distance separators, it is not a question of orthodoxy. So, while you may disagree with him, another good, orthodox Catholic might agree with him.

I respectfully disagree on your contention that it is not a question of orthodoxy. I believe it is a generally accepted theological virtue to be charitable. To call for “disruption” in today’s social climate is not only not charitable it is downright dangerous. Certainly not orthodox in my book, but maybe you’re right that other Catholics would disagree. I personally just wouldn’t call them orthodox. I think we’ll agree to disagree on this point.

Okay, then of course one should not follow any direction contrary to the Catholic faith. However, I find the possibility highly improbable. Heck, I use a Protestant Bible all the time, just not exclusively. I find the NASB to be the best translation when I want something hyper-literal.

Improbable or not it happens. It’s happening right now in many parishes across the U.S. when it comes to the Alpha program. And maybe you can use a Protestant Bible because you are well grounded in your faith (although why use something knowingly errant?), but many others could be deceived. Shoot, many Catholics don’t even believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist let alone the finer details of their faith. You use the Protestant Bible and see that Mary is “highly favored” and you know that it is a wrong interpretation of truly meaning “full of grace”. Others may not and could even be swayed by a non-Catholic into believing the Catholic Church teaches error when it comes to the Immaculate Conception because of their use of a Protestant Bible.

Why allow error to creep in even in the slightest bit? Have we become so politically correct with such a bent on ecumenicalism that we no longer stand stridently for the truth? Are we so afraid of losing more members that we don’t want to offend? The irony is that I believe the Catholic Church is losing members for that very reason…we allow and even encourage the watering down of our great faith. Admittedly, I have no facts to back that up, just pure opinion on my part.

-Ernie-

 

[goout]

Hi Ed,

If you don’t mind me asking, what didn’t you like? Was it related to tone or doctrine? If doctrine, what didn’t you agree with? Thanks.

-Ernie-

There is a common misconception that to preach an authentic Christian Gospel all one need do is articulate doctrine.
FALSE.