Right-wing fringe group building multimedia empire near Detroit

[Stat_Crux]

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.

Just a technical point, not a criticism, but individual Bishops (not including the Pope) are not afforded the charism of infallibility when speaking individually on matters of faith and morals.

 

[Ernie07]

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

Thanks for your thoughts, Ed. I know what you mean about tone and an “in your face” kind of approach can make a message seem “not right”. It’s this slow poisoning, as you call it, of the Catholic Church that has me most concerned. I pray that you’re right about the Church “righting herself”. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later!!

Thanks again.

-Ernie-

 

[pnewton]

I respectfully disagree on your contention that it is not a question of orthodoxy.

I realize that I do not even agree with you on the meaning of the word “orthodoxy”. I apply it only to doctrine, faith and morals, not in any application to everyday events, much less the science of linguistics. This started asking if would blindly accept what a bishop does. That is a fair question, but it cuts both ways.

I do not know how much Greek you know, but the word Luke uses to describe Mary is used once and only once. As such, it cannot be a “wrong interpretation of truly meaning full of grace,” to use another legitimate understanding of the word. The phrase “full of grace” is the less literal, more dynamic, translation, as no word for “full” appears or is it a prepositional phrase.

I use the NASB for its literal style, as well as its consistency in translating the same grammar the same way.

I also disagree that political correctness is a major influence on the Church. I believe that to be a talking point of conservative pundits.

 

[Ernie07]

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

Hi there,

I think I agree with you if what you’re saying is that there are multiple ways to preach an authentic Christian gospel and not just to articulate doctrine (which is also a method). Is that what you’re saying? I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t tell.

And again I’m sorry, but I have no idea how your response answered my question. If you wouldn’t mind trying again I’d appreciate it because I would like to know and understand.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I realize that I do not even agree with you on the meaning of the word “orthodoxy”. I apply it only to doctrine, faith and morals, not in any application to everyday events, much less the science of linguistics. This started asking if would blindly accept what a bishop does. That is a fair question, but it cuts both ways.

**I do not know how much Greek you know, but the word Luke uses to describe Mary is used once and only once. As such, it cannot be a “wrong interpretation of truly meaning full of grace,” to use another legitimate understanding of the word. The phrase “full of grace” is the less literal, more dynamic, translation, as no word for “full” appears or is it a prepositional phrase. **
I use the NASB for its literal style, as well as its consistency in translating the same grammar the same way.

I also disagree that political correctness is a major influence on the Church. I believe that to be a talking point of conservative pundits.

I brought up the San Diego bishop because not only is he calling for “disruption” (let’s call that a political issue although like you said, I think it cuts both ways), but he also is supportive of communion to the divorced and remarried and embracing “LBGT families”. If that isn’t in your definition of what an orthodox Catholic is then we’re just never going to agree. And if you’re saying that we should just blindly follow this bishop’s teaching then again we will never agree.

Regarding the Mary topic, I don’t know Greek and frankly don’t feel that I need to because I trust the Church. The Catholic Bible translates for me and due to my orthodox beliefs I trust that Luke 1:28 properly translates to “full of grace”. If what you are saying is that “highly favored” is an acceptable translation knowing what that entails in terms of Protestant attacks then we will again agree to disagree. A translation isn’t just about words, but also the meaning. The meanings of “full of grace” and “highly favored” are completely different and to say either is acceptable leads one down the path of saying the Church isn’t authoritative in its ability to translate because the Catholic Church translates the meaning quite clearly. And again, if you allow for a translation to be “highly favored” you are creating a situation where an unsuspecting Catholic may get tripped up by a Protestant. Unacceptable in my opinion.

Political correctness maybe isn’t a major influence on the Church as a whole, but in individual diocese and parishes it’s rampant. At my parish alone contraception is never discussed, ecumenicalism over truth is promoted, among other “controversial” items. Again, we will respectfully agree to disagree.

Thanks for the dialogue. Iron sharpens iron!!

-Ernie-

 

[Fiasco]

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.

MV has given “indoor” talks as well, linking contraception and abortion. i downloaded one not long ago. No word-mincing. In this talk, his audience was Catholic.

The late Fr Marx, the great pro-life priest informed a Protestant pro-life group that accepting contraception was the root of “it”. Same thing; dead silence, and a refusal to acknowledge the truth.
Jason Evert the purity crusader, said that at the end of the Nineteenth Century, every major Protestant denomination condemned contraception. One denomination even stated that if it became generally accepted in the USA, it would mean the fall of the USA.
The Anglicans caved in at the Lambeth Conference in 1930. First off, it was supposed to be only in certain cirmstances (sound like abortion?), but like any thin edges of wedges that didn’t last long. MV did a Vortex (was it?) on that conference, and the influence of Marie Stopes who said she heard God’s voice telling her to push the Anglicans to accept contraception.

Another fruit of contraception:
Some homosexual (including lesbian) activist groups cite heterosexuals’ use of contraception and abortion to prevent birth to justify their own behaviour. Homosexual acts don’t result in birth. Neither do heterosexual acts which use contraception and abortion. Therefore, what’s the big deal with homosexual acts? The results are the same. So goes the reasoning.
So contraception has helped further the cause of two abominable evils, not just one.
Pope Paul VI sure was inspired.

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.

Unfortunately, sometimes the boot has to be laid in hard to wake people up from a stupor.

Respect is my default position.

Wish i could say the same but, at the age of 62, and being aware of more than a few betrayals, suspicion is sometimes de default position. It’s probably a defence mechanism: be prepared for the worst. The diocese in which i live was hit by a terrible sex-abuse (homosexual) scandal. The poor whistle-blower priest was given such a hateful time by Church authorities and his brother priests tthat he hanged himself.

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

Only that there`s a deeply entrenched homosexual network within the clergy…which you probably know anyway.
It’s a relatively small group (maybe not so small) which knows exactly what it wants, and how to get it so it has power far greater than what its numbers alone would suggest. (Take the Bolsheviks.) There’s loyality among them, but only in a self-serving way. If one of them is elevated, he has to help the others, or face exposure. Blackmail.
There’s only so much a blackmailable shepherd can say and do if he wants to right wrongs. He’s over a barrel.
The cancer has to be rooted out.
Better leave it at that, but it’s an issue which bugs MV, and no wonder! The Church’s credibility has been destroyed.Not to mention devastated young lives, and heavy financial burdens borne of course by the faithful in the pews.

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

But an authentic Christian Gospel has to be rooted in The Church’s infallible doctrines and infallible moral teachings.

 

[pnewton]

Wish i could say the same but, at the age of 62, and being aware of more than a few betrayals, suspicion is sometimes de default position. It’s probably a defence mechanism: be prepared for the worst. The diocese in which i live was hit by a terrible sex-abuse (homosexual) scandal. The poor whistle-blower priest was given such a hateful time by Church authorities and his brother priests tthat he hanged himself.

Only that there`s a deeply entrenched homosexual network within the clergy…which you probably know anyway.

Respect and suspicion are not mutually exclusive. Respect comes from charity, and suspicion from prudence. FYI - Homosexuals have been banned from entering the priesthood for several years now. On one hand, it had to have been seen as somewhat an issue for this to happen. On the other hand, it could not have been all that great of an influence if such a ban could have been imposed without a ripple.

One should not have bitterness over a suicide. The act of killing oneself cannot be reduced to something so simplistic as being “over” something. There is no way to know either the actual motivation for such an act, or the depth of mental illness that accompanies a tragedy like that.

 

[commenter]

Just a technical point, not a criticism, but individual Bishops (not including the Pope) are not afforded the charism of infallibility when speaking individually on matters of faith and morals.

But bishops do more than **teaching **directly. Orthodox teaching confirms the bishop, particularly the bishop ordinary within his diocese, also govern.

1.) Groups such as the SSPX, PNCC, Focus on the Family, Liberty University, and many evangelical prolife or pro marriage groups, are all “orthodox” in social or political sense - they support traditional values and beliefs on many social issues. They coincide.

2.) Those groups, and Church Militant, are not “orthodox” in the ecclesiastic sense. The Catholic view of “orthodoxy” holds unity with the Church, including the bishop-ordinary of the place, as well as the pope. Those groups, and many others very good and very bad, are outside that unity; that orthodoxy.

That is not just a technical point, it is crucial at a time when the enemies of the Church are pursuing a “divide and conquer” strategy. Every organization that chooses not to be orthodox in the sense of #2, especially one that identifies as Catholic, makes it easier for groups wildly unorthodox, claiming to be Catholic, who are also not in unity with their ordinary.

So defend Church Militant as orthodox on criterion #1, but it does not meet orthodoxy criterion #2.

 

[Pulvis]

But bishops do more than **teaching **directly. Orthodox teaching confirms the bishop, particularly the bishop ordinary within his diocese, also govern.

1.) Groups such as the SSPX, PNCC, Focus on the Family, Liberty University, and many evangelical prolife or pro marriage groups, are all “orthodox” in social or political sense - they support traditional values and beliefs on many social issues. They coincide.

2.) Those groups, and Church Militant, are not “orthodox” in the ecclesiastic sense. The Catholic view of “orthodoxy” holds unity with the Church, including the bishop-ordinary of the place, as well as the pope. Those groups, and many others very good and very bad, are outside that unity; that orthodoxy.

That is not just a technical point, it is crucial at a time when the enemies of the Church are pursuing a “divide and conquer” strategy. Every organization that chooses not to be orthodox in the sense of #2, especially one that identifies as Catholic, makes it easier for groups wildly unorthodox, claiming to be Catholic, who are also not in unity with their ordinary.

So defend Church Militant as orthodox on criterion #1, but it does not meet orthodoxy criterion #2.

Question; was St. Athanasius or St. Catherine of Sienna orthodox per #2?
Not to equate Mr. Voris as equal to these two devout Saints, but one must know when to stop being silent in the face of error.
As to your point on division, I see as much division coming from within the Church as is coming from without.

 

[commenter]

Question; was St. Athanasius or St. Catherine of Sienna orthodox per #2?
Not to equate Mr. Voris as equal to these two devout Saints, but one must know when to stop being silent in the face of error.
As to your point on division, I see as much division coming from within the Church as is coming from without.

As to being in union with the bishop-ordinary of their diocese,
Athanasius was, himself, the bishop-ordinary of his diocese. Prior to becoming bishop, he was in union with the predecessor bishop ordinary.

I am not aware Catherine of Siena was ever out of unity with her bishop-ordinary. She did not oppose the papal primacy of her time either, as often misrepresented by liberals as a “rebel”. Actually she opposed the tendency towards fragmentation and “lone rangers” in her time, and reaffirmed the primacy of the successor of Peter.

 

[pnewton]

As to being in union with the bishop-ordinary of their diocese,
Athanasius was, himself, the bishop-ordinary of his diocese. Prior to becoming bishop, he was in union with the predecessor bishop ordinary.

Yes, that one gave me a chuckle. Unless he had multiple personality, he had to be in union with himself.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for your thoughts, Ed. I know what you mean about tone and an “in your face” kind of approach can make a message seem “not right”. It’s this slow poisoning, as you call it, of the Catholic Church that has me most concerned. I pray that you’re right about the Church “righting herself”. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later!!

Thanks again.

-Ernie-

Hi Ernie,

The messages Catholics should be hearing are often overwhelmed by a 24/7 media, including social media. If you look at the Old Testament, whatever great things God did for the Israelites, they often returned to doing what they wanted. But God always left a faithful remnant. Always.

The internet, like any man-made creation, is a double-edged sword. It can be used for good and bad, to promote the good or bad, and for other purposes.

And don’t let opinions turn into facts. I have found, as a moderator on another site dealing with fiction books published by the company I work for, and looking at other sites for comparison, that the portion of those who are against the good and helpful, is always smaller than those who choose to ignore the constant whining of a handful, by proportion, of people, and are actual fans. They usually let us know privately that they will not enter the fray but represent the majority who buy our books, or we would not be around today.

Getting back to being Catholic, try to remember that an hour or two in Church is immediately blanketed by popular media the moment you get back in your car. It can be distracting and/or influential, but don’t forget about the remnant.

Ed

 

[commenter]

… one must know when to stop being silent in the face of error.
As to your point on division, I see as much division coming from within the Church as is coming from without.

1). Here are some of the groups “without” unity with the RC ordinary: Catholics for Choice, Call to Action, SSPX, Flat Earthers, all Protestant liberal and conservative groups, snake handlers, Mormons, cults, and some groups identifying as Catholic but critical of the pope and bishops, sometimes for opposite reasons. Many “without” groups totally contradict each other.

2). The groups “within” are those who are in unity with their bishop-ordinary.

I agree the second category is not perfect, but I have learned to trust only groups in the second category. Church Militant is in the first category. They may express good ideas, but I think all their good ideas are more reliably expressed by groups in the second category. If you credit Church Militant with reliability due to “independence”, keep in mind all the groups in the first category also claim to see more clearly, objectively, due to their same independence that Church Militant claims.

 

[Ernie07]

But bishops do more than **teaching **directly. Orthodox teaching confirms the bishop, particularly the bishop ordinary within his diocese, also govern.

1.) Groups such as the SSPX, PNCC, Focus on the Family, Liberty University, and many evangelical prolife or pro marriage groups, are all “orthodox” in social or political sense - they support traditional values and beliefs on many social issues. They coincide.

2.) Those groups, and Church Militant, are not “orthodox” in the ecclesiastic sense. The Catholic view of “orthodoxy” holds unity with the Church, including the bishop-ordinary of the place, as well as the pope. Those groups, and many others very good and very bad, are outside that unity; that orthodoxy.

That is not just a technical point, it is crucial at a time when the enemies of the Church are pursuing a “divide and conquer” strategy. Every organization that chooses not to be orthodox in the sense of #2, especially one that identifies as Catholic, makes it easier for groups wildly unorthodox, claiming to be Catholic, who are also not in unity with their ordinary.

So defend Church Militant as orthodox on criterion #1, but it does not meet orthodoxy criterion #2.

OK, here we go again…can you please give a specific example of where Church Militant doesn’t meet orthodoxy?

And then if I can ask two more questions. Do you believe it is against Catholic orthodoxy to promote a 66 book Bible in a Catholic Church? Do you believe it is a violation of Catholic orthodoxy to allow teaching in a Catholic Church that there isn’t really one true Church? I ask so that I can understand where you’re coming from.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[commenter]

OK, here we go again…can you please give a specific example of where Church Militant doesn’t meet orthodoxy?

And then if I can ask two more questions. Do you believe it is against Catholic orthodoxy to promote a 66 book Bible in a Catholic Church? Do you believe it is a violation of Catholic orthodoxy to allow teaching in a Catholic Church that there isn’t really one true Church? I ask so that I can understand where you’re coming from.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

Post 158 may clarify some of the context “where I’m coming from”

I am not going to defend the errors that Church Militant, and others, rightly oppose. (Non Catholics also oppose certain errors that I also oppose on certain topics.)

A specific example of CM’s unorthodox **practice **would be its ecclesiology. It functions outside the unity of its bishop ordinary.

 

[gus]

Michael Voris used to be discussed on this forum pretty regularly, until most realized his many shortcomings and issues. I had hoped he had sunk into well deserved obscurity. Do not be sucked in. He was asked to stop calling his movement Catholic for a reason - actually many reasons.

Talk about innuendo/ calumny

You should be ashamed of yourself

 

[Ernie07]

Hi Ernie,

The messages Catholics should be hearing are often overwhelmed by a 24/7 media, including social media. If you look at the Old Testament, whatever great things God did for the Israelites, they often returned to doing what they wanted. But God always left a faithful remnant. Always.

The internet, like any man-made creation, is a double-edged sword. It can be used for good and bad, to promote the good or bad, and for other purposes.

And don’t let opinions turn into facts. I have found, as a moderator on another site dealing with fiction books published by the company I work for, and looking at other sites for comparison, that the portion of those who are against the good and helpful, is always smaller than those who choose to ignore the constant whining of a handful, by proportion, of people, and are actual fans. They usually let us know privately that they will not enter the fray but represent the majority who buy our books, or we would not be around today.

Getting back to being Catholic, try to remember that an hour or two in Church is immediately blanketed by popular media the moment you get back in your car. It can be distracting and/or influential, but don’t forget about the remnant.

Ed

I hear what you’re saying, but my concern is that over time Catholics are getting more and more desensitized to attacks on the Church. I’m not sure if it’s because of popular media, bowing to strong opinions, or weak mindedness, maybe a combo of all three. An example is the Bible. Let me explain.

You would think that the number of books in the Bible would be a pretty big deal. The Catholic Church has declared what the number is to the point of declaring anathema to those that oppose that number. Yet, there are many Catholics (leaders as well as lay people) that think it’s not that big of a deal to read or even promote a Protestant Bible. What gives them that right? If they think a 66 book Bible is appropriate for use can another person say that a Bible that includes 65 or 75 books is OK? What other belief that has been declared anathema do they feel they have a right to not follow?

Where it gets really bad is when our leaders either don’t speak out against or even endorse this kind of thinking. Then, you have people that believe we should follow “church” teachings without question and are led down the wrong path. My Bible example is just one example of too many others. I guess I’d rather have a tone-challenged messenger speaking the truth then a weak church leader afraid to speak it or worse yet condone error.

Anyway, I’m venting a bit so I’ll stop there!!

Thanks again for the dialogue and your thoughts!

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Post 158 may clarify some of the context “where I’m coming from”

I am not going to defend the errors that Church Militant, and others, rightly oppose. (Non Catholics also oppose certain errors that I also oppose on certain topics.)

A specific example of CM’s unorthodox **practice **would be its ecclesiology. It functions outside the unity of its bishop ordinary.

Sorry for being dense, but are you saying that a person or organization needs to function within the unity of the bishop ordinary even when that bishop is teaching or promoting error? If a bishop is allowing the teaching that there isn’t a one true Church do you need to be in unity?

 

[edwest2]

I hear what you’re saying, but my concern is that over time Catholics are getting more and more desensitized to attacks on the Church. I’m not sure if it’s because of popular media, bowing to strong opinions, or weak mindedness, maybe a combo of all three. An example is the Bible. Let me explain.

You would think that the number of books in the Bible would be a pretty big deal. The Catholic Church has declared what the number is to the point of declaring anathema to those that oppose that number. Yet, there are many Catholics (leaders as well as lay people) that think it’s not that big of a deal to read or even promote a Protestant Bible. What gives them that right? If they think a 66 book Bible is appropriate for use can another person say that a Bible that includes 65 or 75 books is OK? What other belief that has been declared anathema do they feel they have a right to not follow?

Where it gets really bad is when our leaders either don’t speak out against or even endorse this kind of thinking. Then, you have people that believe we should follow “church” teachings without question and are led down the wrong path. My Bible example is just one example of too many others. I guess I’d rather have a tone-challenged messenger speaking the truth then a weak church leader afraid to speak it or worse yet condone error.

Anyway, I’m venting a bit so I’ll stop there!!

Thanks again for the dialogue and your thoughts!

-Ernie-

Hi Ernie,

The laity has always had a role to play, even if it’s just posting here. There are those people who write here that a number of Church teachings are just plain wrong, up to “mind your own business.” We are the Body of Christ, and we can point to Church teaching every time we are challenged. Yes, there are some, including non-Catholic Christians, who have pastors who do not speak out against abortion, for example. But there a number - I’ve seen them - who stand outside of abortion clinics as witnesses. To pray. To hold up signs. To let the reality be told. To whatever degree we can, we have to do something. You’re doing it. And be hopeful. Ever hopeful. If you can help just one person you have done a good thing.

Best,
Ed

 

[Pulvis]

1). Here are some of the groups “without” unity with the RC ordinary: Catholics for Choice, Call to Action, SSPX, Flat Earthers, all Protestant liberal and conservative groups, snake handlers, Mormons, cults, and some groups identifying as Catholic but critical of the pope and bishops, sometimes for opposite reasons. Many “without” groups totally contradict each other.

2). The groups “within” are those who are in unity with their bishop-ordinary.

I agree the second category is not perfect, but I have learned to trust only groups in the second category. Church Militant is in the first category. They may express good ideas, but I think all their good ideas are more reliably expressed by groups in the second category. If you credit Church Militant with reliability due to “independence”, keep in mind all the groups in the first category also claim to see more clearly, objectively, due to their same independence that Church Militant claims.

Your grouping of FSSPX with Call to Action, protestants and mormons pretty much tells me all i need to know about your mindset. Thank you.

Have a blessed, productive Lenten season.