Author Topic: Michael Voris (Read 9653 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #15 on:** April 04, 2013, 03:47:53 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Without reading the other postings, my initial reaction is to say his look, sound, style and approach irritate me. He is your typical NO conservative whinger. You know: the type who go on and on and on complaining but cannot see the writing on the wall or the elephant in the dining room.

Did someone mention the Elephant in the room?

Commentator:.........Well done as far as it goes, but you have not gone far enough. On the subject of “Protestantizing the Liturgy,” I’m still waiting for you to address the elephant in the room: that the Novus Ordo is itself a Protestantizing of the Traditional Mass, and is therefore deadly to Catholics............ ............. ...........
. ............The elephant in the room. You didn’t address this in your note, but the inescapable fact is that the Novus Ordo is the creation of progressives...................To me, it boils down to this non sequitur: progressives are poisoning the faith and the faithful, says RCTV rightfully, but the Novus Ordo they created is spiritually enriching! Sorry, that just doesn’t make sense.

Voris Inc.: What is overlooked, a true “elephant in the room,” is that in this act of disobedience they have set themselves in the position of judge of the Church, in a sense “more Catholic than the Pope.”

s2srea · « **Reply #16 on:** April 04, 2013, 04:11:22 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

From what I've been told, Voris' 'subscription based' materials are very good, though I do not have a subscription,

I was thinking about subscribing to to those other programs. My wife and I were watching last night, and it was very good. Its part of one of his subscription programs, FBI (Faith Based Investigations). I think I might take the leap. I'll let you know what I think if I do.

Napoli · « **Reply #17 on:** April 04, 2013, 06:52:56 PM »

I agree with nadir. He says a lot, but, seems to say so little. Plus, he gets annoying the more you watch him. I definitely wouldnot label him a ttraditional. He's willing to go wherever the honey is.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #18 on:** April 05, 2013, 02:22:10 AM »

Agreed. He says so little with so much time and production values.

He spent 7 minutes defining gαy.

Interminable. That video is 1.5 hours, by the end of it I expect he'll have explained to the viewer that there are gαy people and society seems to be accepting of it.

s2srea · « **Reply #19 on:** April 05, 2013, 10:50:16 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Agreed. He says so little with so much time and production values.

He spent 7 minutes defining gαy.

Interminable. That video is 1.5 hours, by the end of it I expect he'll have explained to the viewer that there are gαy people and society seems to be accepting of it.

I haven't finished the video, so am unsure of how it ends. So far, I am in complete agreement with him on it, and am glad he calls out the militant ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and their agenda in the way he does. I dont' think I'll be in agreement with him on every issue, and I do feel that he is wrong on other matters. But on this one, he seems spot on, thus far.

I think it would be difficult to say that there are not people who carry this cross in society, or even in the Traditional movement. How they carry the cross is another matter, but the issue is one which is not addressed enough, I think. I was speaking with a very learned member on this forum who said, wisely, I think, that the nature of man somehow changed after WWII; he said that he was reading books written very well in advance of VII, and when the issue came up, it said that the matter was very rare; that is certainly not the case today! Hopefully those who are burdened with this unnatural lust will consult with a good spiritual advisor who can guide them in such matters.

TerryCMTV · « **Reply #20 on:** April 05, 2013, 07:28:35 PM »

Hello everyone,

Just in the event that it might be helpful, I thought I would register here, make myself available to answer any of your questions and, hopefully, dispel the need to speculate unproductively.

Thank you.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #21 on:** April 05, 2013, 07:34:31 PM »

How interesting.

Why does Michael Voris (or, CMTV) not criticize any of the public and scandalous sins against the faith committed by the post-conciliar pontiffs?

TerryCMTV · « **Reply #22 on:** April 06, 2013, 06:39:47 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Why does Michael Voris (or, CMTV) not criticize any of the public and scandalous sins against the faith committed by the post-conciliar pontiffs?

I'll try to give you a reasonably short but still truthful answer: Because there is no authority over the Pope to whom we can complain or appeal, so all that would be accomplished by criticizing the Pope is to facilitate a loss of Faith in the Church by already troubled Catholics. And then, Quo Vadis? If any other religious person or office abuses their office in some way, there is an appeal process that at least allows the hope for correction. So we choose to emphasize whatever is good in the life and actions and teachings of the Holy Father, and pretty much ignore everything else, at least in public.

The reality is that we who frequent settings like this are all more aware of things going on in the Church than most of the world around us. The typical Catholic in the pews is not a "Catholic news junkie" and they don't need to know what they don't need to know, by which I mean "news" that would make them feel hopeless and possibly cause a crisis of faith.

We are absolutely aware of things that we choose not to report. We (CMTV) were attacked during "The Assisi Events" for not criticizing them. We know as well as anyone that those "Assisi Events" were capable of causing (and did cause) great scandal because, even if not intended, those events looked like "religious indifferentism on display." The participants, of course, would all reject this interpretation, so reporting on this "awkward" moment would merely stir up trouble among people who most likely didn't even know the event was happening and then they would hear (maybe) that what looked like "religious indifferentism" really wasn't. We would be causing confusion, not providing helpful clarity.

We deliberately ignore "Uncle Billy"moments out of a desire to maintain as much unity as possible within the rather fractured Catholic family. The crisis in the Church today is beyond description. It's important that people know this. It's not important to know what they can do nothing about. We maintain union with the Holy Father and encourage others to do the same. We don't see any other alternative as either workable or consistent with Our Lord's promises to His Church. We seek to fraternally correct our brothers and sisters, which includes elder brothers and sisters in authority, but we are not leaving the family or attacking the head.

Does this help?

Napoli · « **Reply #23 on:** April 06, 2013, 07:12:40 PM »

That last post sounds un-Voris. Long winded though. But, I do appreciate it that they take the time to answer.

Napoli · « **Reply #24 on:** April 06, 2013, 07:16:43 PM »

I would like to add that I think you are obligated to report the truth. Even if it offends the typically uninformed Catholic. It is our obligation to seek out the truth, but once we find it we need to share it. Michael Voris is in an excellent position to do this.

Chus Brea · « **Reply #25 on:** April 06, 2013, 09:42:10 PM »

Quote from: TerryCMTV

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Why does Michael Voris (or, CMTV) not criticize any of the public and scandalous sins against the faith committed by the post-conciliar pontiffs?

I'll try to give you a reasonably short but still truthful answer: Because there is no authority over the Pope to whom we can complain or appeal, so all that would be accomplished by criticizing the Pope is to facilitate a loss of Faith in the Church by already troubled Catholics. And then, Quo Vadis? If any other religious person or office abuses their office in some way, there is an appeal process that at least allows the hope for correction. So we choose to emphasize whatever is good in the life and actions and teachings of the Holy Father, and pretty much ignore everything else, at least in public.

The reality is that we who frequent settings like this are all more aware of things going on in the Church than most of the world around us. The typical Catholic in the pews is not a "Catholic news junkie" and they don't need to know what they don't need to know, by which I mean "news" that would make them feel hopeless and possibly cause a crisis of faith.

We are absolutely aware of things that we choose not to report. We (CMTV) were attacked during "The Assisi Events" for not criticizing them. We know as well as anyone that those "Assisi Events" were capable of causing (and did cause) great scandal because, even if not intended, those events looked like "religious indifferentism on display." The participants, of course, would all reject this interpretation, so reporting on this "awkward" moment would merely stir up trouble among people who most likely didn't even know the event was happening and then they would hear (maybe) that what looked like "religious indifferentism" really wasn't. We would be causing confusion, not providing helpful clarity.

We deliberately ignore "Uncle Billy"moments out of a desire to maintain as much unity as possible within the rather fractured Catholic family. The crisis in the Church today is beyond description. It's important that people know this. It's not important to know what they can do nothing about. We maintain union with the Holy Father and encourage others to do the same. We don't see any other alternative as either workable or consistent with Our Lord's promises to His Church. We seek to fraternally correct our brothers and sisters, which includes elder brothers and sisters in authority, but we are not leaving the family or attacking the head.

Does this help?

“It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.” pope St. Gregory the Great

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #26 on:** April 06, 2013, 09:50:44 PM »

Quote

We know as well as anyone that those "Assisi Events" were capable of causing (and did cause) great scandal because, even if not intended, those events looked like "religious indifferentism on display." The participants, of course, would all reject this interpretation, so reporting on this "awkward" moment would merely stir up trouble among people who most likely didn't even know the event was happening and then they would hear (maybe) that what looked like "religious indifferentism" really wasn't. We would be causing confusion, not providing helpful clarity.

I don't understand this. Catholics have a duty to tell the truth, no matter what others may think.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #27 on:** April 06, 2013, 10:14:02 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

I don't understand this. Catholics have a duty to tell the truth, no matter what others may think.

I'll take the counterpoint for the sake of argument:

1)This is not always true we are to everywhere, all the time *volunteer* the truth.

I mean, if someone is seriously overweight, and they didn't ask you, you don't need to tap them on the shoulder and point it out, charitable as it may be if you're seriously concerned about their health.

So, as far as 'the crisis' goes, let's say nobody asked you. The NO parishioners did not inquire. Are we obligated to proactively inform them? Perhaps. Probably even, but they did not, in fact, *ask* us. Any of us.

2)Then there's the notion that if we know for certain it will change nothing, or quite likely to change nothing. Are we obligated if they'll shrug it off and continue to attend the same Mass, live the same life. Shrug either because they don't care, or think you're niggling, or simply don't even understand what you're talking about. There are simpler folks who will just say, "The Pope said I should pray these Luminous Mysteries, how can a Rosary be bad?" or whatever. Or they figure their priest is a 'nice guy' and who'd want to keep altar girls out of assisting in the Holy Mass?? Etc.

3)Lastly, consider mental reservation. We can reserve portions of the full truth if we feel it will do more harm than good or no good at all and significant harm. I understand some good and holy priests have used this under Godless totalitarian regimes. So consider the case our poster Terry of CMTV has brought up: Some people, when informed will simply despair. They might just stop attending Mass rather than finding a trad chapel, Society or independent or whatever. They might apostasize ("If we're so fractious, I may as well go protestant") or simply abandon the Faith ("We're supposed to be the true Church but it appears the gates of Hell have prevailed, ergo, we are not the Church Christ spoke of"). When you make a video and it is distributed to the masses, you don't know who you are talking to, who is on the receiving end. It could be a hazard to the simple minded, etc.

Terry's approach here seems prudent and has considered several angles all things considered.

They lack brevity, but not sound intentions.

Drumshanbo · « **Reply #28 on:** April 06, 2013, 11:49:39 PM »

Terry Carroll said on October 26, 2012 on Philothea on Phire

Quote

Please take seriously my comment left on the other post: http://bit.ly/RnkcGZ

I could not be more sympathetic to the SSPX as a temptation for those suffering through the insults to Our Lord at so many Novus Ordo Masses. But it is terribly easy to rationalize one's participation on a regular basis as if we were recusants during the period of the English Reformation. The Church Herself has not declared a "state of emergency" and it is hubris to assume that WE can.

SSPX priests are validly ordained, their Masses are valid, but they are in all cases acts of disobedience to the Church. SSPX priests do not have faculties to hear confessions. I, personally, do not wish to "gamble" on "Deus supplet" on a matter so urgent. I, personally, experience even MORE pain at the idea that a priest of God offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in persona Christi disobediently than I do at the worst excuses for Mass that I have experienced in Novus Ordo settings.

Suffer through Novus Ordo Masses, even refrain from receiving Holy Communion, rather than rationalize your participation in a Mass that quite likely is even more insulting to God than the Masses you now endure. The cry of Satan was "Non serviam," the penultimate act of disobedience. It is conceivable that SSPX Masses are as offensive to God as Black Masses. God is not mocked, and God does not bless disobedience. Stay with the Church and, in the best traditional sense, "offer it up" as an act of redemptive suffering within the divine chastisement that we all so painfully experience.

The SSPX are not formally in schism. But the consecration of bishops was declared by Pope John Paul II as "schismatic." This is just a case of hearing "quacks" before definitively concluding that it's a duck. SUFFER through the Novus Ordo Mass and fulfill your obligation to keep holy the Lord's day. Don't pamper your spiritual needs with rationalized disobedience. Pray that the SSPX responds to grace and enters into communion with the Church. This is what the Holy Father asks. As faithful Catholics, THIS is what we should be doing, not reinforcing disobedience.

Philothea on Phire

Mr. Carroll, do you still hold this belief regarding SSPX masses? Is it not hubris for you to assume this?

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #29 on:** April 07, 2013, 01:33:45 AM »

Wow, nice find.

That's a pretty interesting opinion to hold while deciding to register and post here.

I suppose I *am* the one that defended mental reservation though, aren't I?

Reserving this, were you?