Sometimes I think Michael Voris is a bit over the top and shrill although there is a kernel of truth in what he says and he says it with such unabashed masculinity which could be off-putting to a feminized Church. For this reason, he appears he's about to be attacked by a pack of nuns as you get to minute 4:30. It's a bit funny on one level. But apart from that what do you think of what he is saying?
33 comments:
Of course, he is completely correct. But, I call it the sissification of the Church and of the culture. That is more inclusive. Ever since the sixties, people have been taught to distrust masculinity, authority, patriarchy, and anything associated with manliness. The male role models in today's culture in movies and TV are pitiful. A bunch of urban twerps whose only weapon is wit and smart-ass remarks. All the women are either sluts or shrewish bitches, which indirectly slights males. You know,getting back to real basics, I like to meet a man who at least looks like he could throw a punch...and would. Voris can be over the top, but he is also right in what he says much of the time.
Mind your language, pin!
The most neglected segment of society is the male.
Men aren't taught how to be upright men or gentlemen. Everyone suffers for it.
~SqeekerLamb
He is spot on. Do you remember the days when there were priests who had been All American wrestlers? The are Brothers with calloused hands from farming and work. Taking Voris' statement of Christ as a male role model a step further, many of the apostles were rough men who were very strong and greater showed strength through restraint.
rcg
It is disheartening when even the good guys on this blog feel constrained to mince words in politically correct fashion.
Sure, Voris is passionate in his presentation, but I have yet to hear him be "over the top," whatever that means, unless orthodoxy is now a synonym for "over the top."
If "over the top" suggests he has said things contrary to the Magisterium, please state some examples - one example?
He is doing the job that our Bishops, Priests and Theologians should be doing – teaching faith and morals unabashedly.
Ality, I was talking about his delivery at times. I have never heard him say anything contrary to the Magisterium. I often get scolded by friends and colleagues because, they say, my polemical and dismissive delivery "turns off some of those who may be on the fence." Of course, my response is that if they are "on the fence" they are indecisive dilletantes who will fall off whichever way the wind blows them. Anyway, I was probably talking more about myself than Voris. Thanks for the friendly kick. Gene
Thanks for the clarification. My comment, though addressed to you, was meant for all commenters when I asked for an example of Voris stating anything contrary to the Magisterium. By Magisterium, I mean the authentic one, not the ramblings of Bishop Heterodox.
When there's a call for the laity to evangelize, why is it that there is so much objection when a Voris takes up the challenge?
Michael Voris speaks in the manner which I wish to hear all Bishops, and Clergy speak. And I agree with the content to boot.
Men are men, women are women, equal in dignity, but as different as night and day, and Thank God Almighty for it.
here, here!
I agree with Voris and also with Templar. Let the men be men! I can say as a woman that it is a real joy to encounter a man anywhere who is unashamedly being, or trying to be, what God intended him to be. (That would NOT be wimpy, compromising, or afraid of the feminists...) Also, as a convert I think of those non-Catholic men who would perhaps take our Church seriously if they saw our clergy and laymen standing manfully for the Truth. Strong men who may be looking for something better than what they have will run as fast as they can away from what they perceive as girliness where it oughtn't to be.
"Vive la difference!" (Christ have mercy..)
Voris has stated "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." He adds the word "Catholic" to the dictum, thus changing the meaning and contradicting the Magisterium.
Feeneyism, again.
So, provide us with the quote.
(see above) - and this quote from Voris has been discussed here before.
I mean the source and page number, you know, like in serious argument...
I believe I have said before that, if he said that, he is incorrect. However, that does not automatically invalidate everything he says. I mean, even you, Ignotus, are right sometime.
Anonymous "Feenyism again." person: The Voris quote and its context would be helpful. Surely, when you slander or calumniate another person's reputation, it's not too much to ask. Let's have the date, name of the talk, etc. so we can discuss this intelligently.
By the way, have you confessed your violation of the Eighth Commandment?
"Feenyism again" Mr. Anonymous, just to be clear, please answer this: Is a Catholic who contradicts the Magisterium on a matter of faith or morals a heretic - not orthodox?
Bishops alone have the authority to declare a person to be a heretic. Not being a bishop, I cannot make that determination.
This very topic - Voris' contradiction of the Church's magisterium regarding "exta ecclesiam" - was discussed on this blog previously. Look it up under "older posts."
We are not interested in the old discussion on this Blog. No source was quoted there, either. You are stalling, Ignotus. Dig a little yourself and find us the quote with a reference or move on to another of your progressive themes.
My notion of heresy runs a little deeper than careless statements about dogma. You know, things like denying the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the work of the Holy Spirit, any of the tenets of the Creeds consistently and knowingly while refusing to recant. Now, I do believe that the progressivist/secularist wing of the Church are implicitly heretical, but that is another discussion.
Pinanv525: Ignotus, if it be him. Ignotus is a master at changing subjects or, as some of my friends did when losing at marbles, picking up his marbles and going home and sucking their thumbs. Ignotus ignored my questions. The assertion that only the Bishops can declare someone a heretic reminds one of the fox being retained to guard the henhouse. A case or cases in point are available here. Voris might be too passionate for the lukewarm, but too many Bishops and their spawn are too disingenuous for the faithful to put their trust in – except for the liberal/secularist/socialist cadre within our walls.
WATCH THE VIDEO AND THEN DECIDE WHO DOES THE MOST HARM. VORIS? OR THE USCCB AND SPAWN?
“Catholic social justice ‘corrupted’ says largest Catholic pro-life group: demands investigation”
BY REBECCA MILLETTE
HTTP://WWW.LIFESITENEWS.COM/NEWS/CATHOLIC-SOCIAL-JUSTICE-CORRUPTED-LARGEST-CATHOLIC-PRO-LIFE-GROUP-DEMANDS-I?UTM_SOURCE=LIFESITENEWS.COM+DAILY+NEWSLETTER&UTM_CAMPAIGN=76F62EF7D8-LIFESITENEWS_COM_US_HEADLINES05_11_2011&UTM_MEDIUM=EMAIL
Ignotus. Why so reluctant to define heresy? Why do you get pugnacious and then, effecively, leave the ring? Come on, be a man!
Ignotus. Your deafening silence defines you more than words can say. What a sad self portrait.
FrAJM. Is it blog policy to accept only those truths which are not painful?
Blog was down things could not be posted and then lost!
Anonymous/Ignotus, Which painful truths do you not see on this Blog? Philosophically, I suppose we can accept your presence on the Blog as real and true...although you hide behind a host of anonymi in rather cowardly fashion. Certainly, your presence on the Blog is a very painful truth. But, hey, we can take it. Now, list for us some of these painful truths that you so stoically endure and about which you have whined in the past.
Ignotus, if you’re still with us, how about answering the questions asked of you, and how about the details on quote where you allege Voris misspoke about salvation being limited to Catholics. To Ignotus, and all, what is your take on this article and, if you watch the video, your take on it? Maybe discuss the relative harm of an alleged misstatement by Voris (considering his small audience) vs. the harm done by the USCCB, with its bully pulpit.
“Catholic social justice ‘corrupted’ says largest Catholic pro-life group: demands investigation”
BY REBECCA MILLETTE
HTTP://WWW.LIFESITENEWS.COM/NEWS/CATHOLIC-SOCIAL-JUSTICE-CORRUPTED-LARGEST-CATHOLIC-PRO-LIFE-GROUP-DEMANDS-I?UTM_SOURCE=LIFESITENEWS.COM+DAILY+NEWSLETTER&UTM_CAMPAIGN=76F62EF7D8-LIFESITENEWS_COM_US_HEADLINES05_11_2011&UTM_MEDIUM=EMAIL
Ignotus, I really didn't enjoy your interfaith political rally last night. Oh, dem Catholics and Kings - my, my. We're in the 21st century, and is isn't the Catholics who are looking for political world domination.
Interfaith political rally...isn't there some kind of oxymoron in there somewhere. Politics belongs to Caesar. To whom are we rendering here? I'll bet if Ignotus didn't have to wear that collar and keep up appearances (barely)he'd be stomping up and down the street with a bunch of sister boys and pro-choicers screaming for amnesty,gay rights, and the overthrow of the US Constitution. In the off season he counts whales and dolphins and makes tofu burgers.
Regarding that May 11, 2011 interfaith political rally where Ignotus was allegedly the presenter of the Catholic view, he and the Imam should have been asked: If the radical jihadist terrorists are only a very small percentage of the Muslim populace, why do not the alleged majority, "the good/moderate Muslims," put a stop to the burning of Catholic churches and the killing of Christians in Muslim lands? Actually, Ignotus should have posed that question.
I bet the entire panel voted for and supports the abortionist-in-chief and his quest for a United States Socialist Republic.
There are no words (that Fr. will allow on the Blog, anyway)to describe how incredibly naive and, yes, stupid anyone is who engages in dialogue with Muslims in any venue. Here is the same old liberal nonsense about "if we'll be nice to them then they'll be nice to us." And, all the while, they use Jesus words to support aiding those who would destroy the Church and exterminate Christians. But, this inter-faith dialogue BS is just another tool they use to weaken the Church and Western culture. If people like Ignotus are not enemies of the Church and the US then there are not any. Is that strong enough without profanity?
Pinanv525. There are no words strong enough to denounce and hopefully correct the destructive actions and words of liberals who insult our intelligence by labeling themselves as “progressive.” How dare they make an otherwise good word synonymous with “destructive?”
For decades the liberals, when convenient, have used “God words” to confuse the voters. They are acolytes of the Father of lies himself as they inexorably increase their deviant and greedy base to finally accomplish their goal(s) – the complete secularization of our culture and replacement of our free-market system with destructive socialism.
It is especially disheartening when an intelligent and presumably well-read Priest backs such nonsense, heart and soul. Such Priests, like their adopted Messiah Obama, are very skilled wordsmiths who can too easily lead others astray by misusing and confusing of “God words.”
We pray daily that God will protect our Country and the Catholic Church from enemies, within and without. Unless and until every honest-to-God Catholic prays more and more for that intention, we are surely lost.
R.E.Ality and pinanv525, are you being too hard on Fr. Ignotus? Maybe he sincerely believes that the liberal or socialist ideology properly expresses Catholic social teachings. Isn't the alternative to judge him as deliberately evil?
If he believes that, then he is badly misguided. Atheism or some form of deism/agnosticism is the logical concomitant of socialism and liberalism because the ideology is humanistic. They do not believe that, ultimately, there will be justice and a "making right" in the Resurrection life. Their hope is in a utopia on earth brought about by a benign world government.Their saints are Kant, Hegel, Marx, and J.S. Mill. Now, I dare say that most of today's liberal rabble have never read philosophy and could not articulate the positions of the above mentioned, but those behind the movement through the years have embodied their teachings in the liberalism we have today. At the very best, if they call themselves Catholic and Christian, they are Pelagians. They believe that it is possible to achieve perfection in this life and that works are prior to belief. They may deny that, but it is the "theo-logic" of their position. Jesus, for them, is an ethical/moral role model and that is it. Too bad about that crucifixion and, Mary, well, we all make mistakes *snigger, snigger* If you hold their feet to the fire, they will often cough this up. But, apostate priests cannot or they will lose the security of their job.
I went to seminary with a kid who just loved Paul Tillich ( perhaps the most popular Prot theologian of the 60's). He had read "Systematic Theology" and all kinds of Tillich stuff. He was so enthusiastic and naive, I jsut had to break it to him. I said, "John, you do realize that Tillich does not believe in the Resurrection. You do understand that he views "resurrection" as simply the existential self-renewal of the disciples and apostles based upon their "encounter" (don't you love that word...so sixties...so sexy "I encountered her")with this extra-ordinary human, Jesus."
Well, he was crushed. For days, he ran around asking other senior theology students if what I had said was true. After a few days, I walked up to his room and gave him, gave him, my copy of the first volume of Barth's, "Prolegomena to the Church Dogmatics." Surely, surely, I get a Purgatory discount coupon for that selfless act!
Pin, I suspected all along that you had an excellent and special education, but didn't suspect it was in the seminary. You would have become a wonderful priest.
I dearly loved the Thomistic philosophy in college. Sadly, I didn't choose to take all that was offered. Perhaps those Priests who have become useful idiots of humanistic secularism (Communism's current home), didn't study philosophy or didn't understand the priniples being taught. Maybe they fell for the errors of Hegel, Mill, Kant et al.
How does such a well read and educated person become a liberal? Do they even ponder an analogy such as, "What does it profit a culture if it gains "economic social justice" but suffers the loss of its soul? How can institutionalized amorality benefit the common good?
Post a Comment