M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
There are alot of good ones out there. Father David Nix, Father Mark Goring, and Franciscan Friars of the Renewal are very good.
- Status
N
NJada
Guest
Welcome Home, CurtisHouse!
I think we should all as Catholics be willing to take what he has to offer, and our concern should most of all be, ‘is it true or is it not?’ If it is, then how can anyone say it isn’t important? Is his delivery necessarily helpful for everyone?–maybe not, and I do sometimes find it distasteful. If we’re watching the Vortex every day and all it does is get us anxious, or make us think like we’re more righteous than others, well then we’re not benefiting from it, but that wouldn’t be the Vortex’s doing. I think it’s not most people’s business to spend much time on the subject matter Michael Voris is occupied with, but I don’t think we can’t afford not to all know some bare minimum of it, and some people need to be on top of it more regularly.
I think we should all as Catholics be willing to take what he has to offer, and our concern should most of all be, ‘is it true or is it not?’ If it is, then how can anyone say it isn’t important? Is his delivery necessarily helpful for everyone?–maybe not, and I do sometimes find it distasteful. If we’re watching the Vortex every day and all it does is get us anxious, or make us think like we’re more righteous than others, well then we’re not benefiting from it, but that wouldn’t be the Vortex’s doing. I think it’s not most people’s business to spend much time on the subject matter Michael Voris is occupied with, but I don’t think we can’t afford not to all know some bare minimum of it, and some people need to be on top of it more regularly.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
I began watching him last year. He almost sounds like one of those “Pre-Vatican II” Catholics, although he accepts every pope since Vatican II. Interestingly enough, when he was talking about “Once Saved, Always Saved,” he discussed the OT canon. Surprisingly, he stated that the book of Malachi was the last prophetic book & events of the OT prior to the NT, which sounds more Protestant than Catholic. His quote begins around the 5:13 mark:
Michael Voris - Church Militant - “OSAS”
Regarding the OT canon, I started a discussion about this, which has been going on for a couple of weeks if you want to chime in:
Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
No, we do not, if you will but read the thread.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I may be misunderstanding your post but I believe Malachi was the last OT minor prophet.
P
Psychae
Guest
OP: no we should not watch Voris. His hair is scary 
C
CaptFun
Guest
Yes.
I’ve watched, listened to, and read Michael Voris for years. And for much the same reason(s) I gravitated to Catholic Answers back in the day I discovered “This Rock” magazine.
Excellent apologetics and explanations of the faith (that matched mine I must say) but gave me additional insights as well.
A Voris Caution?
I tend not to be a CRITIC BUT …
While listening to the NAB version of the Book of Revelation on tape (YouTube) … Voris came to mind.
Revelation Chapter 2
1 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus, write this: "
'The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks in the midst of the seven gold lampstands says this:
2 "I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors.
3 Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary.
4 Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first.
5 Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
6 But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 ‘“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the victor I will give the right to eat from the tree of life that is in the garden of God.”’
It’s mostly GOOD … but with a warning … returns to compliment and give encouragement and a promise.
Does the letter to Ephesus specifically apply to Church Militant … or more like to all of us if we’re not careful.
I DID FIND the early days of “Real Catholic TV” (more apologetics, strong traditional teachings and explanations) of the Catholic faith more “comfortable” … than learning the gory details of today’s sex and doctrinal scandals plaguing the Church.
The critique may not be that valid in that many of the main questions people had re: the Church have been answered by previous presentations (so maybe the current priorities ARE what God wants CMTV doing as THAT part of His Body). But I’m presenting it anyway aren’t I?
We can all drift away from our first love … and have spiritual dry times that are necessary for testing. We can all go off the point and emphasize less important things when something bigger needs to be addressed. And I do notice that the entire CMTV ministry still instructs people on more than just the latest heterodox celebrations at formerly Catholic Colleges, court cases involving Church leaders, and how little many Church leaders are doing to remedy the situation.
While I have my preferences, more and more I can see that our Church can be MUCH better than it is … and that some leaders in the Church have become MISleaders and should be called out on their errors (for their OWN good and for those who might be deceived to their own destruction).
No one HAS to watch Michael Voris … or pray for him. But as I assess things today … both watching and praying options are good.
I’ve watched, listened to, and read Michael Voris for years. And for much the same reason(s) I gravitated to Catholic Answers back in the day I discovered “This Rock” magazine.
Excellent apologetics and explanations of the faith (that matched mine I must say) but gave me additional insights as well.
A Voris Caution?
I tend not to be a CRITIC BUT …
While listening to the NAB version of the Book of Revelation on tape (YouTube) … Voris came to mind.
Revelation Chapter 2
1 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus, write this: "
'The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks in the midst of the seven gold lampstands says this:
2 "I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors.
3 Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary.
4 Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first.
5 Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
6 But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 ‘“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the victor I will give the right to eat from the tree of life that is in the garden of God.”’
It’s mostly GOOD … but with a warning … returns to compliment and give encouragement and a promise.
Does the letter to Ephesus specifically apply to Church Militant … or more like to all of us if we’re not careful.
I DID FIND the early days of “Real Catholic TV” (more apologetics, strong traditional teachings and explanations) of the Catholic faith more “comfortable” … than learning the gory details of today’s sex and doctrinal scandals plaguing the Church.
The critique may not be that valid in that many of the main questions people had re: the Church have been answered by previous presentations (so maybe the current priorities ARE what God wants CMTV doing as THAT part of His Body). But I’m presenting it anyway aren’t I?
We can all drift away from our first love … and have spiritual dry times that are necessary for testing. We can all go off the point and emphasize less important things when something bigger needs to be addressed. And I do notice that the entire CMTV ministry still instructs people on more than just the latest heterodox celebrations at formerly Catholic Colleges, court cases involving Church leaders, and how little many Church leaders are doing to remedy the situation.
While I have my preferences, more and more I can see that our Church can be MUCH better than it is … and that some leaders in the Church have become MISleaders and should be called out on their errors (for their OWN good and for those who might be deceived to their own destruction).
No one HAS to watch Michael Voris … or pray for him. But as I assess things today … both watching and praying options are good.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I brought my son in and went over this scripture, as well as your post. With all the emphasis on love of neighbor from the Gospels these last few weeks, this was a good tie-in. We spiritual successors of the Church of Ephesus need this reminder.
For all of you at CAF, I hope you occasionally will find gems like this you can take to heart and will encourage you in your faith. If you are here just to argue, then an opportunity to grow will be missed.
Thank you for the post.
For all of you at CAF, I hope you occasionally will find gems like this you can take to heart and will encourage you in your faith. If you are here just to argue, then an opportunity to grow will be missed.
Thank you for the post.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
He was. But this is how Michael Voris words this. It begins around the 5 minute mark:
" the official Bible of the church has the book of Malachi as the last book of the Old Testament and is written probably about 400 BC that last book matters because the last book of the Old Testament is the first book before the New Testament and the last book of the Old Testament talks about the coming prophet who will be the herald of the Messiah so as you follow through Christian history you read you know obviously the Pentateuch the Torah Genesis Exodus Leviticus Deuteronomy numbers and you read through that and then you go through all the history and the Psalms and the wisdom books and everything and you finish up with the book of Malachi and the book of Malachi is sort of the final word on what happened in Jewish history as far as predating the Messiah."
Church Militant (Michael Voris) - YouTube: “Once Saved, Always Saved”
Doesn’t it sound like he’s saying the book of Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament, which predates the New Testament? That sounds more Protestant than Catholic, and Michael Voris is not shy about referring to Protestantism as heretical. Yet, he is “sort” of affirming their OT canon here, don’t you think?
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I think you are going to have to be more clear on your objection here, because I am sorry but I do not see the point you are making that what Mr. Voris is saying is protestant and not Catholic. I’m sorry I could be completely misunderstanding what you are saying but no, I do not think he is affirming protestant OT canon. Protestant OT canon is not a correct canon.
Here is the introduction to the book of Malachi from the Catholic Haydock Study Bible written by Catholic priest and biblical scholar Rev. George Leo Haydock, 1859.
Malachias, whose name signifies “the angel of the Lord,” was contemporary with Nehemias, and by some is believed to have been the same person with Esdras. He was the last of the prophets, in the order of time, and flourished about four hundred years before Christ. He foretells the coming of Christ; the reprobation of the Jews and their sacrifices; and the calling of the Gentiles, who shall offer up to God in every place an acceptable sacrifice. Ch. — He also clearly speaks of the twofold coming of Christ, preceded by the Baptist and by Elias. Nothing is known for certain respecting this prophet. He inveighs against the same crimes as Nehemias, to whose covenant he alludes, C. ii. 4. None was afterwards recognized for a prophet till the Baptist appeared. C. — Both priests and people are here reproved, and the Jewish law yields to that of Christ. W. — No date is prefixed no more than to the works of Jonas, Nahum, &c. S. Jerom seems to fix on the seventh year of Artaxerxes, when Esrdras came to Jerusalem.
Last edited:
R
RandomGuy
Guest
Perhaps. I am an ex-atheist and I feel most comfortable attacking atheism. Our old sins can be assets. Who better to minister about X when they themselves conquered X?
As for Michael Voris I rather like him and the work he does.
O
OnAJourney
Guest
And how many of them tried all of that and ended up in an unhappy marriage? I’m gay and there’s no changing that fact. I’m not interested in women and I haven’t the desire for children.
And no, being gay is not sinful. Acting upon the inclination is a sin. I would suggest you reread the catechism as to what it actually says and not rely on your interpretation of what it says, because what you’re saying is simply not correct or remotely accurate.
And no, being gay is not sinful. Acting upon the inclination is a sin. I would suggest you reread the catechism as to what it actually says and not rely on your interpretation of what it says, because what you’re saying is simply not correct or remotely accurate.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Essentially, Rev. Haddock is acknowledging the same thing that Mr. Voris did: that Malachi was the “last prophet” before the time of Christ. When the OT canon is referred to in the NT, it’s often referred to by Jesus & others as “the Law & THE PROPHETS” (or a variation of this, like “Moses & the Prophets” or “the Law of Moses & the Prophets”). Since Malachi was the last “prophets in the order of time BEFORE the time of Christ,” & “NONE was AFTERWARDS recognized for a prophet till the Baptist appeared,” then any other book written AFTERWARDS could not be part of the second half of the OT canon (“the Law and THE PROPHETS”).
The Reverend also makes the comment about Nehemiah being part of “Esdras,” (ie: Ezra-Nehemiah). While Malachi was the last of prophetic account that predated the NT era, the book of Nehemiah was the last historical account that predated the NT era. So, both Mr. Voris AND Rev. Haddock are acknowledging that the Deuterocanon, including Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, are not part of “THE PROPHETS” (ie: the second half of the OT canon - “the Law & the Prophets”).
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Okay, last time. Only the Catholic church has the authority to decide what books are inspired and which books belong in the OT and NT canon.
You can argue for the protestant OT canon to try to prove protestantism is correct but that is not the full truth. You can even try to say that Catholics believe in the protestant OT canon but that is not true either.
You are leading souls astray. You are giving false impressions about Catholics.
If you were raised Catholic you would be better off studying the Catholic faith and lead souls to Christ. If you pray, and ask for the Blessed Mother’s help, she will pray for you and you will see the full truth. As I said, I have been there. She helped me and she will help you.
You can argue for the protestant OT canon to try to prove protestantism is correct but that is not the full truth. You can even try to say that Catholics believe in the protestant OT canon but that is not true either.
You are leading souls astray. You are giving false impressions about Catholics.
If you were raised Catholic you would be better off studying the Catholic faith and lead souls to Christ. If you pray, and ask for the Blessed Mother’s help, she will pray for you and you will see the full truth. As I said, I have been there. She helped me and she will help you.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Again, without subjectively saying you believe the Catholic Church “is” the Church Jesus built, which “decided” what the Biblical canon was, without using circular reasoning (ie: using “the Church” to determine the canon to then define what the Church is), please use a non-circular argument to explain how you know what the Biblical canon is that STATES that Jesus built a Church. IOW, explain how you know what books belong in the Bible, without simply “believing” what the Catholic Church “says” what they are. Again, you can’t even get to defining what the Church is, unless you have a defined Scriptural canon that FIRST defines the Church.
I NEVER once said that! I’m afraid you are giving a “false impression” of what I am saying. Again, I demonstrated that while Michael Voris explicitly acknowledges the Catholic OT which includes the Deuteros, what I demonstrated was by him saying the book of Malachi was the LAST PROPHETIC BOOK before the NT era with John the Baptist, he - indirectly & most likely unknowingly - supported the OT canon of Protestants. He would never say he was doing this intentionally, but by him (& others like the Reverend you mentioned) saying this, he indirectly & unintentionally limited & defended the Protestant OT, since he was saying the Deuterocanon was not part of the second half of the OT (ie: “the Law and THE PROPHETS”), which includes Baruch since it was written AFTER Malachi!
This is all I am saying.
Like my name says, I was “Raised Catholic.” And I was very well catechized. But when I began to read the Bible, particularly the NT, I began to realize that some Catholic beliefs - including the belief in what’s included in the OT canon - I realized that Jesus acknowledged the OT canon of the Pharisees, which even Catholic Answers acknowledged is the same as Protestants today. So, I trust in what Jesus says in the NT about the OT canon. And since this conflicts with what Catholicism “believes” about the OT canon, I cannot in good conscience believe the Catholic Church is the “shield & pillar of the truth” that Jesus stated He would build, since they do not espouse to the same OT canon Jesus acknowledged (Luke 16:14,29).
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Can I ask you a question? Are you the author of the book?
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Fair question. And I can certainly understand why you would think that, since both me & the author were both “Raised Catholic.” I was originally looking for Gary’s Michuta’s book, “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger,” but couldn’t remember the title!
When I typed in “Old Testament Canon” in the Amazon search engine, I saw a title with a similar name “Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller,” which is obviously a play-on-words of Mr. Michuta’s book. Since I consider myself a “Reformed Catholic,” more-so than a full-fledged “Protestant,” the title intrigued me, since the back cover said he utilized mostly Catholic sources & authors, including some from Catholic Answers. After reading the free section online, & after getting some feedback on the book from the forum, I decided to get it & read much of it on vacation. I have read other books written by Protestants on the OT canon, which are rather outdated & easily answered by Catholics. But this book is fairly new & uses fresh arguments, even utilizing recent Catholic resources within the last couple of years, as well as from antiquity.I respect the fact you don’t want to even read the free section, but I think it would be worth your wile. Before reading the free section online, I didn’t think it would approach it from the angle it did, which is why I wanted to read the rest of it. What I have read, it really forced me to think outside the box.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Hmm. Interesting
I don’t think you understand. I was there. I heard all the protestant arguments. I realize that they argue for the protestant OT canon based on a couple of scripture passages. Scripture passages that are there because the Holy Spirit led the Catholic church to include them.
I also used to say I was Catholic until reading the NT and then left the Church.
Thing is, on studying the Bible more, I realized protestants got it wrong, the Catholic Church holds the truth and the Church is God’s awesomely, beautiful gift to us. The Church is the only place inspired by the Holy Spirit and to go back or even read something that points backwards, can put my soul in danger. You said you were a well catechized Catholic, I am sure you aware of the dangers to one’s soul when following someone else besides Christ’s Church.
God bless. I will pray for you.
Last edited:
G
gracepoole
Guest
Oh, yes, it’s “epic” alright…
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
The argument for the Protestant OT canon is based on much, MUCH more than “a couple of scripture passages.” If those are the only arguments you “heard,” then I’m afraid that Protestant defense lacked a LOT of the arguments used in this book.
In one of the Appendixes of the book, it lists about 300 of these terms (“It is written,” “Have you not read?.” “the Law & the Prophets,” “the Scriptures say,” etc.) Out of the 300 times one of these NUMEROUS terms are used to describe OT books, 100% are from the Protestant OT, ZERO percent are from Deuteros, independent of the Hebrew Bible.
So, as you can see, the defense for the Protestant OT is “not” based on just a “couple of passages” from Scripture, but HUNDREDS of NT verses.
That doesn’t answer my question I asked you. Again, you are using “A” (the Catholic Church") to define “B” (the OT canon of Scripture) to define “A” (what the Church is). Again, that is circular reasoning. You cannot objectively use “A” to define “B” to define “A.” You are using one thing to define another to then define the first thing. That is subjective.
Let me put it this way, which is in the beginning of the book:
How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture? Because Jesus clearly held them accountable for knowing what the OT canon was. You don’t have a Magisterium back then like you do today, because the Church was not built until AFTER the ministry, death, & resurrection of Christ, and not until the church was established at Pentecost. Jesus could not have held the Jews accountable for knowing what the OT canon was if it wasn’t already established. But He did hold them accountable, specifically the Pharisees who only espoused to the books in Protestant OTs today, but NOT the Deuteros too.
The Pharisees rejected the Deuteros, as did virtually ALL Jews in the first century, including the Sadducees. The Essenes included HUNDREDS of books in their library, including mostly books NOT found in any Bibles, including Catholic Bibles.
I completely agree. But the fact the OT canon of the Catholic Church includes books in it that Jesus did not acknowledge to be God-breathed, is one of the ways I know it isn’t the “Church” Jesus said He was going to build.
Last edited:
- Status