Why doesn't Michael Voris appear on EWTN?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveGC said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have listened to ALL of his One True Faith podcasts and most of his old recordings of his radio show and I’ve honesty never seen these things. Not a fan of his delivery at times BUT I haven’t seen him be too outwardly disrespectful towards anyone but those he deems to be not true Catholics. I certainly have not heard errors (much of what he says is less fleshed out things that I have heard the likes of Hahn and Kreeft say).

I too would be curious to hear some specifics if it is true that he does indeed speak error and etc.
 
SteveGC said:
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.
Click to expand...
In this video, youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/55/EhkMtPr65M0, regarding the Eucharist, he states at 6:25 “His DNA is unfolding and mingling with your DNA, it is the divine blood coursing through your veins, and that is not symbolic language, that is the reality”.
 
TedDC said:
In this video, youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/55/EhkMtPr65M0, regarding the Eucharist, he states at 6:25 “His DNA is unfolding and mingling with your DNA, it is the divine blood coursing through your veins, and that is not symbolic language, that is the reality”.
Click to expand...
And this is an example of…?

error?

To me, although not expressed with the same verbiage by Rome, Voris is merely emphasizing in his own words the Real Presence, contrasting it against the heretical belief of it’s mere symbolic nature. Am I missing something?
 
SteveGC said:
And this is an example of…?

error?

To me, although not expressed with the same verbiage by Rome, Voris is merely emphasizing in his own words the Real Presence, contrasting it against the heretical belief of it’s mere symbolic nature. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
His words go well beyond Church teaching on the Real Presence, which make no such claims of specific physiological effects, hence he would seem to be stating an unauthorized belief.

And if what Voris is saying is true, then it logically follows that a blood test on a communicant would reveal the presence of Christ’s DNA. I don’t think the Church would claim that such a result would occur.
 
Transformer said:
It might have something to do with his considering democracy an experiment doomed to fail and favoring a dictatorship instead. Or with his suggesting that the ordinary form of the Mass in the Latin Rite is a freemason plot to destroy the Church. I wish I were kidding.

Yes, I did just bring that up again. In every thread about Voris, Catholics should be reminded of the dangerous ideology that he holds to.

Then again, I remember the time EWTN had a guy on who explicitly endorsed torture, so maybe not.

Here’s another favorite Voris quote of mine:

“If you want to completely waste your time, try talking about faith with a committed Protestant.”

That’s not blunt or militant, it’s an offense against charity.

youtube.com/watch?v=K-U_ijm5r8E

youtube.com/watch?v=SSnJi6SpzLo

realcatholictv.com/cia/03Massdest/
Click to expand...
“Freemason Plot?” A long time since I heard anyone use the term, but since you mention, the Church has been an enemy to persons of that bent. Many priests of the 18th Century were captured by it and became partisans of the Enlightenment and then Revolution, whose chief goal was the destruction of Christianity and replacing it with a modern version of the worship of the Sun God.
 
TedDC said:
His words go well beyond Church teaching on the Real Presence, which make no such claims of specific physiological effects, hence he would seem to be stating an unauthorized belief.

And if what Voris is saying is true, then it logically follows that a blood test on a communicant would reveal the presence of Christ’s DNA. I don’t think the Church would claim that such a result would occur.
Click to expand...
DNA has become a rhetorical term used by some who think it tells us more than it . Never forget that it concerns only probabilities.
 
RobbyS said:
DNA has become a rhetorical term used by some who think it tells us more than it . Never forget that it concerns only probabilities.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, the presence of foreign DNA in one’s blood, as Voris clearly asserts, would be readily apparent in scientific tests.
 
TedDC said:
His words go well beyond Church teaching on the Real Presence, which make no such claims of specific physiological effects, hence he would seem to be stating an unauthorized belief.

And if what Voris is saying is true, then it logically follows that a blood test on a communicant would reveal the presence of Christ’s DNA. I don’t think the Church would claim that such a result would occur.
Click to expand...
Ted, this is really a stretch.

Do you think Voris believes that an extraction of a person’s blood who just received the Eucharist would reveal the existence of other strands of DNA? Do you think that’s his actual position on the matter? Or could it rather be that Voris is using some creative impromptu emphasis, to drive home the literal nature of Christ’s presence?

And even if I grant you this claim - conceding that Voris thinks a scientific test would reveal two distinct DNA strands - where does that leave us really? Spreading falsehood? What’s the impact on this “error”? Does it lead one astray or alter their understanding of the Real Presence to the point where it is detrimental to their faith or salvation?

Surely you could provide better examples?

Peace.
 
I believe MV was recently at the Vatican on a conference for bloggers. Some of his stuff is brilliant. He’s wrong about a few things though… Speaking to Protestants is not a waste of time!!! Also I am not sure how much it helps linking the ordinary form with freemasonry.:confused:
 
TedDC said:
Nevertheless, the presence of foreign DNA in one’s blood, as Voris clearly asserts, would be readily apparent in scientific tests.
Click to expand...
God’s DNA is in all of us,since it is the work of His hand. Nothing is truly a game of chance since the wheel must be first assembled
 
SteveGC said:
Ted, this is really a stretch.

Do you think Voris believes that an extraction of a person’s blood who just received the Eucharist would reveal the existence of other strands of DNA? Do you think that’s his actual position on the matter? Or could it rather be that Voris is using some creative impromptu emphasis, to drive home the literal nature of Christ’s presence?

And even if I grant you this claim - conceding that Voris thinks a scientific test would reveal two distinct DNA strands - where does that leave us really? Spreading falsehood? What’s the impact on this “error”? Does it lead one astray or alter their understanding of the Real Presence to the point where it is detrimental to their faith or salvation?

Surely you could provide better examples?

Peace.
Click to expand...
“DNA” is analogous to “substance.” As in “transubstantiation.” In truth each is a term of art rather than science.
 
“Freemason Plot?” A long time since I heard anyone use the term, but since you mention, the Church has been an enemy to persons of that bent. Many priests of the 18th Century were captured by it and became partisans of the Enlightenment and then Revolution, whose chief goal was the destruction of Christianity and replacing it with a modern version of the worship of the Sun God.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t suggesting that Freemasonry is acceptable. I was suggesting that Voris’ position on the ordinary form of the Mass is unacceptable.
 
Transformer said:
I wasn’t suggesting that Freemasonry is acceptable. I was suggesting that Voris’ position on the ordinary form of the Mass is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
I was quite liberal about the liturgy, but I was totally surprised by the new Mass, which seems quite truncated, especially after Communion. But what finally got to me was the constant experimentation, which meant that even in the same diocese, one seldom found two masses exactly alike. Too many parishes felt the need to tinker with it. More mystifying was the disappeance of the tabernacle from the sanctuary.
 
I haven’t read all the previous replies, so I apologize if I am repeating someone else’s. I think a couple of things. First, EWTN doesn’t need MV for its particular apostolate, and MV doesn’t need EWTN for his. Second, MV watches and probably admires EWTN, and most of the folks at EWTN watch and probably admire MV, and probably pay attention to what he is saying, and probably are glad he is saying it. Glad because it needs to be said, and glad because if MV says it, they don’t have to!

You go, MV! 👍
You go, EWTN! 👍
 
Clevelander said:
I haven’t read all the previous replies, so I apologize if I am repeating someone else’s. I think a couple of things. First, EWTN doesn’t need MV for its particular apostolate, and MV doesn’t need EWTN for his. Second, MV watches and probably admires EWTN, and most of the folks at EWTN watch and probably admire MV, and probably pay attention to what he is saying, and probably are glad he is saying it. Glad because it needs to be said, and glad because if MV says it, they don’t have to!

You go, MV! 👍
You go, EWTN! 👍
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping::clapping:

I reckon that answers it.:tiphat:
 
Is it true that Mr. Voris is a polarizing figure even among orthodox Roman Catholics?
 
Maxirad said:
Is it true that Mr. Voris is a polarizing figure even among orthodox Roman Catholics?
Click to expand...
It would appear so, although I did not realize that until recently. “Polarizing” may not be the best descriptor, but he certainly spawns debate about how to effectively defend the faith, and thus how effective his apostolate actual is.
 
SteveGC said:
It would appear so, although I did not realize that until recently. “Polarizing” may not be the best descriptor, but he certainly spawns debate about how to effectively defend the faith, and thus how effective his apostolate actual is.
Click to expand...
I agree. Here at CAF, I have seen many posters who take authentic Catholic teaching seriously who take a variety of opinions in regards to Voris’ style. I don’t think it’s a matter of orthodoxy to be turned off by a more blunt form of evangelism.

We all have different temperaments. Different types of speakers appeal to different types of people. That’s fine. I am personally very grateful that there are devoted Catholics of many different personality types that are out there fighting the good fight. The “in-your-face” technique is not my particular cup of tea, but some people seem to respond quite favorably to it.

Ultimately, we’re all on the same side, even if we have some internal disagreements on how best to go about achieving the mandate to “go out to all the nations.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top