Why doesn't Michael Voris appear on EWTN?

[bmagana]

say all you like, thruth is truth, period. The church needs bold and direct men that speak the truth like Mr. Voris.
Think he is too harsh and critical? wait for the judgement of the Lord.

 

[nickybr38]

People that have trouble with Michael Voris tend to be the Pollyannas that don’t think we should judge anything and want instead to be coddled.

You listen to too much Voris. I’m not a Pollyanna and I don’t care for Voris’ style. I like truth, but I like charitable truth. Listen to some Scott Hahn or Dr. Kreeft for an idea of good, solid, non-hot headed apologists.

 

[Stylites]

You listen to too much Voris. I’m not a Pollyanna and I don’t care for Voris’ style. I like truth, but I like charitable truth. Listen to some Scott Hahn or Dr. Kreeft for an idea of good, solid, non-hot headed apologists.

Well said. If the goal is to further and foster and grow the faith, then hearing MV’s words makes one feel good but bears no real fruit.

 

[Stylites]

say all you like, thruth is truth, period. The church needs bold and direct men that speak the truth like Mr. Voris.
Think he is too harsh and critical? wait for the judgement of the Lord.

“If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

-1 Corinthians 13:1-3

 

[Indyann]

Well said. If the goal is to further and foster and grow the faith, then hearing MV’s words makes one feel good but bears no real fruit.

It does not make me feel good. It makes me both angry and sad that a layman has taken it upon himself to be his own Magisterium.

When his own Bishop will not sanction his work, you know something is wrong.

 

[kozlosap]

People that have trouble with Michael Voris tend to be the Pollyannas that don’t think we should judge anything and want instead to be coddled.

I’m not a Pollyanna type, just prefer a more educated view of the church.

 

[Stylites]

It does not make me feel good. It makes me both angry and sad that a layman has taken it upon himself to be his own Magisterium.

When his own Bishop will not sanction his work, you know something is wrong.

The “Voice of the Faithful” and Mr. Voris, out there offering unsolicited advice to the Magisterium, as if the Holy Spirit isn’t leading the Church.

 

[Nec5]

You listen to too much Voris. I’m not a Pollyanna and I don’t care for Voris’ style. I like truth, but I like charitable truth. Listen to some Scott Hahn or Dr. Kreeft for an idea of good, solid, non-hot headed apologists.

I’ve listened to Voris about 3 times. I’ve listened to Han and Kreeft and it’s all rather vapid. Few specifics and lots of platitudes. That’s not educated. Paul’s letters and Christ’s words are filled with theory AND concrete practice, something today’s churches and speakers are afraid to do.

 

[SteveGC]

It could be argued that charity, being defined as love of God and neighbor, is not a virtue necessarily characterized by soft, gentle tones of speech, a lack of criticism of behavior, or lack of admonishment towards one residing in error. In many ways, I think Voris is genuinely loving those he harshly criticizes, attempting to bring the teachings of The Church to bear. Speaking the truth is one of the highest forms of genuine love.

His tact may be questionable, but tact is not necessarily equivalent to charity. I will agree, however, that his frequent condescending tone and name-calling is not only unnecessary, but also lacks charitable characteristics. But I’ve noticed he directs these attitudes specifically at actions, and not specific persons. He makes much effort to clarify he does not judge the individual, but rather a theology or philosophy. At least, that’s my exposure - albeit limited.

I do not see where Voris could be fairly characterized as “being his own Magisterium”. Admittedly, however, I do not have a significantly in-depth knowledge of most of his work. I just have never seen him pronounce something that the Church does not teach, or atleast that the Church would fully deny. This is not an attempt to completely justify Voris’ work, rather to challenge some of the accusations here. Overall, I think his work is an appropriate anti-secular weapon, commensurate with the evils that plague our world today. Perhaps not the best weapon, but certainly not an impedance to the Church’s effort to evangelize the world. And among lay efforts to spotlight and eradicate internal corruption, I know of no apostolate better.

A lay person being openly critical of suspected clerical abuses or failures to live up to their sacred vows, especially when backed up with substantial references and publicly known behavior, is not out of line IMO. In fact, I view it as courageous and necessary. I can count just as many (if not more) instances where Voris goes to great lengths to praise clerics for their loyalty and orthodoxy.

I’m happy and open to hear more about what I may be missing about his failure to follow the Church, or otherwise disrespect the Church’s authority.

 

[nickybr38]

I’ve listened to Voris about 3 times. I’ve listened to Han and Kreeft and it’s all rather vapid. Few specifics and lots of platitudes. That’s not educated. Paul’s letters and Christ’s words are filled with theory AND concrete practice, something today’s churches and speakers are afraid to do.

Are you serious? Are you sure you aren’t mixing up Voris and Hahn? Because Scott Hahn is ALL about specifics. I encourage you to check this out: amazon.com/Understanding-Scriptures-Complete-Course-Didache/dp/1890177474. It’s part of the Didache series so I’m pretty sure that Hahn’s work isn’t vapid in any way.

He digs DEEP into Scripture AND history. Any debate I’ve heard with Hahn he has proved to have a masterful grasp of the Bible.

Kreeft, on the other hand, CAN be a bit more simplistic. I love his work but once you’ve heard one talk you’ve almost heard them all. God bless him.

So as not to further derail the thread I will not comment on Voris further.

 

[bmagana]

The truth is straight unbarnished and hard, sugarcoating it makes it more easily dismissed and scoffed away, specially by today’s secularized society, i like Vori’s style, it gets people attention, some people don’t like it, so what.
i prefer to live a hard truth than a sweet half-truth or worse, a lie. God bless Michael Voris for his heroic effort.

 

[TedDC]

The truth is straight unbarnished and hard, sugarcoating it makes it more easily dismissed and scoffed away, specially by today’s secularized society, i like Vori’s style, it gets people attention, some people don’t like it, so what.
i prefer to live a hard truth than a sweet half-truth or worse, a lie. God bless Michael Voris for his heroic effort.

I get the impression that a lot of Voris’s fans revel more in the hardness and harshness than in the “truth” itself.

 

[SteveGC]

I get the impression that a lot of Voris’s fans revel more in the hardness and harshness than in the “truth” itself.

Being somewhat of a fan, my impression is that hardness and harshness is required when dealing with disobedience and falsehoods. I suppose you could say I revel in the admonishment of the scandalous.

Besides, a primary characteristic of the truth is it’s harshness, no?

 

[TedDC]

Being somewhat of a fan, my impression is that hardness and harshness is required when dealing with disobedience and falsehoods. I suppose you could say I revel in the admonishment of the scandalous.

Besides, a primary characteristic of the truth is it’s harshness, no?

But keep in mind that the people who hold the false beliefs he’s criticizing are probably not his audience - he’s mostly preaching to those who share his beliefs. So what’s the point of his act? His abrasive approach is unlikely to get a non-believer to even listen to him, much less take his message seriously. He’s basically just entertainment.

 

[nickybr38]

But keep in mind that the people who hold the false beliefs he’s criticizing are probably not his audience - he’s mostly preaching to those who share his beliefs. So what’s the point of his act? His abrasive approach is unlikely to get a non-believer to even listen to him, much less take his message seriously. He’s basically just entertainment.

He actually tones down a LOT when actually speaking to someone. His videos these days are all him ranting and raving (from what I’ve seen) but on his old radio show he actually toned down when speaking to a live human instead of ranting to himself. He didn’t seem to be to be very effective in his apologizing (is that what it’s called?) BUT he wasn’t as abrasive.

That said, I do believe one commenter here already stated that she/he listened to Voris PRIOR to converting and he did help her somewhat.

I think Voris would probably speak best to those who are disgruntled and have a beef of their own. His rants would at the very least help them feel they aren’t alone in their digruntlement.

He does have some VERY good speeches, it’s just unfortunate that he continually falls into the ‘I’m so angry I’m going to yell and call everyone who doesn’t agree with me stupid’ act.

 

[SteveGC]

But keep in mind that the people who hold the false beliefs he’s criticizing are probably not his audience - he’s mostly preaching to those who share his beliefs. So what’s the point of his act? His abrasive approach is unlikely to get a non-believer to even listen to him, much less take his message seriously. He’s basically just entertainment.

That’s one way to look at it. A way that I don’t dismiss off-hand.

Another way is to reflect on the positive influence he evidently has among laymen and clerics alike - numerous and growing - and the subsequent effect that can have on the defense of truth in the face of falsehood.

I don’t look at Voris’ work to be primarily beneficial for the conversion of non-Catholics. I see it as being the reclamation of orthodoxy among faithful Catholics of their increasingly corrupted Church. I say not “primarily” beneficial because I actually do believe his work can have a profound conversional effect on fence-sitters and the lukewarm. Agree with you that staunch anti-Catholics and otherwise myth-subscribers will likely not be overwhelmed with Voris. But nothing overwhelms them IMO. At least not yet.

Peace.

 

[Nec5]

Are you serious? Are you sure you aren’t mixing up Voris and Hahn? Because Scott Hahn is ALL about specifics. I encourage you to check this out: amazon.com/Understanding-Scriptures-Complete-Course-Didache/dp/1890177474. It’s part of the Didache series so I’m pretty sure that Hahn’s work isn’t vapid in any way.

He digs DEEP into Scripture AND history. Any debate I’ve heard with Hahn he has proved to have a masterful grasp of the Bible.

I’ve seen Hahn on EWTN several times. He knows his history and theory, but he never gets into “what should be done”. Therefore, it’s useless and vapid.

I saw a show with him the other night about the Lamb’s Supper and the Book of Revelation. He posed a bunch of questions he had as a protestant about the mark of the beast and the thousand year reign and then he began to talk about how the book is best interpreted by going to a Catholic Mass. He went on and on about how the mass and Revelation are related, but he never returned to answer the concrete questions he struggled with as a Protestant. This is like many priests that give homilies and their point is “Trust Christ and follow your conscience”. Nice advice but without specifics , it’s meaningless and particularly vapid in a world that distorts Christ and denies the existence of a conscience. Paul’s letters are filled with specifics as well as theory.

In times past there was a focus on practice, so people were told to avoid homosexual acts, adultery, fornication, etc. They weren’t given the reasons (theory) as to why those practices are immoral. That was a poor approach too. Today, we get the theory but are afraid to mention the specifics. Voris does a good job bringing back the specifics to a world filled with “Christians” who are afraid to judge or call a spade a spade.

If Voris errs, then he should be called out and corrected. But at least he’s swinging at the ball rather than dressing up platitudes as real wisdom.

 

[Aizi]

I really dislike Voris’ style, he reminds me of a pundit like Bill O Reilly, Keith Olberman, etc. (You know the types…) I guess that type of thing is popular nowadays, but I find him too “political” in his tone and style with very little “religion” at least in the videos I have seen.

He often times confuses his opinions for actual doctrine (which is NOT the sort of mistake I think people should make, especially not if he were to go on EWTN). He doesn’t always seem respectful to the Magisterium either, and some of the stuff he says has just been flat out wrong. But if he has helped some people with their faith, then I suppose I can’t criticize him too much.

 

[lizaanne]

Well, after four pages of speculation, bashing, and misinformation, I thought I would answer the question of the OP.

Why doesn’t Michael Voris appear on EWTN?

For the very same reason McDonald’s doesn’t sell Wendy’s hamburgers. They are both different businesses (apostolates) with different menus (their programming), with the same end goal to sell burgers (to save souls). There really is no need for Michael Voris to appear on EWTN, he does just fine on his own program, and there is no need for anyone from EWTN to appear on RealCatholicTV, they do just fine on their own. Just because one doesn’t appear on the other does not cast any sort of position or judgement on either group. They really are on the same side you know.

~Liza

 

[SteveGC]

I really dislike Voris’ style, he reminds me of a pundit like Bill O Reilly, Keith Olberman, etc. (You know the types…) I guess that type of thing is popular nowadays, but I find him too “political” in his tone and style with very little “religion” at least in the videos I have seen.

He often times confuses his opinions for actual doctrine (which is NOT the sort of mistake I think people should make, especially not if he were to go on EWTN). He doesn’t always seem respectful to the Magisterium either, and some of the stuff he says has just been flat out wrong. But if he has helped some people with their faith, then I suppose I can’t criticize him too much.

I’d really love to examine some examples of this - specifically where some of his opinions are expressed as doctrine, his disrespect for the Magisterium, and his flat out errors.

Not trying to be argumentative. Honestly, just curious because I also have limited exposure to him, but have yet to find anything of that which you have expressed here.

Peace.