Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Tallinn Trad on November 09, 2019, 05:48:10 AM
-
There are examples over the past decades of converts and reverts who take up positions of teaching responsibilty whether in cloth, (Fr. John Corapi, Fr, Z, Father R, Father Moderator, Dimond Brothers), or have appointed themselves thanks to the new media, (Matt, Voris, Marshall, keating, Jimmy Akin). Often we know nothing of the backgrounds of such people, yet, their opinions appear to carry more weight with more Catholic, than do those of Bishop Williamson who has been plugging away for decades. And certainly more than those of the remaining 3 SSPX bishops who are more or less silent.
Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of Catholics are accessing the information they use to make determinations from these new media platforms. They are not seeking out the thrice annual newletter of the SSPX which is 3 months behind every new heresy coming from Rome.
The Catholic identity conference was oversold. Next year it will have well over 1000 attendees. There is no doubt there is a momentum building coming from Pope Francis wringing the sponge and forcing conservatives to take a position.
So, as to these new media priests and laymen.
We have to forgive their past sins, yet have to be prudent not to be lead into error.
We have to be gentle as lambs, yet wise as serpents.
We have to accept late workers to the vineyard, but what grandmother likes to be taught how to suck eggs?
What is the correct way to make a determination as to whether to listen or ignore, or whether to encourage or warn. The example of St. Paul is often used to defend these lay preacher (Voris particularly), but how far do we take this? If George Soros converts and becomes a traditionalist do we believe him, or think he is infiltrating? The infiltrators are hardly likely to make it obvious.
How many St. Pauls are there in history? How do we know who is a St. Paul and who is Paul VI?
If we make any prudential decision to critique them, or question their sinful past, or their current suitability to preach, we are labelled as judgmental. If they seek to "unite the clans", and we point out that some of the clans have infectious diseases and it would be prudent to have a state of quarantine we are labelled as "schismatic".
Prudence therefore appears to be useless, except for our own ability to ignore and reject. As soon as we make our prudential doubts heard we are attacked as judgmental. There appears to be no underlying guiding principle to determine which cannot be shot down as judging.
Whilst being right does not depend on numbers of supporters, the impact of any group, trend, change, in the world does depend on those with the loudest voices and largest audiences. If General Patton had the newspapers behind him in 1945/46/47 we would not have the world we do today and he would have taken the fight to the communists. If Marcel Lefebvre had a billion dollar war-chest and JP2 firmly on his side and making him a cardinal in 1979, we would not have the mess in Rome we do today. Even if JP2 has been killed in the 1981 assasination attempt, that a martyr Pope had backed Cardinal Lefebvre would have made an ENORMOUS difference and during the rest 1980s Lefebvre would have got the support of 100million Catholics. He might have even been made Pope Pius XIII.
Barring any divine intervention, the future will be determined, steer, influenced by these talking heads in the new media, just as the present was determined by the past actions and non actions.
There appear to be 2 actions one can take.
1. Ignore being called judgmental and just continue to warn and speak your mind. The problem with this is that so many people buy into this idea of judging nobody ever.
2. Say nothing, look after yourself, and let the talking heads spread the error they spread.
What do you think? How do you make these determinations?
-
You've brought up a good subject.
Just my opinion here. You mention that barring divine intervention, the future will be determined, steered, and influenced by the new talking heads media, just as the present was determined by past actions and non-actions. I personally don't mind the new talking heads, except that most of the new ones tend to think that Francis' predecessors were good popes, and that the problems in the Church really only began with Francis. At least Michael Matt, who has been around for awhile, knows the truth about B16 and JP2. When I try to point this out on the new blogs, I get a lot of flack, because many new (and sometimes old) trads really miss B16 and JP2. I think, too, that sometimes the new talking heads have a tendency to be overly dramatic, in a tabloid sort of way, maybe in order to grab everyone's attention. That's why it is better to have a priestly fraternity provide a good analysis of the current state of affairs in the conciliar church, and in Tradition.
The SSPX used to tell it like it is, with charity, clarity, and Truth; they could be relied upon to give a good analysis of the state of the conciliar church; but not anymore. Now that they rely on Francis for hearing confessions, they don't want to offend him. There are other reasons, too, for their silence (more or less, as you say).
I'm not sure that things would have been much different if +ABL would have been made a cardinal, though you may be correct of course. It's something to think about. There were too many Modernists and sodomites even then who were determined to change the Church into their own version of "truth." I think that God has allowed error to proliferate so that it will finally be seen for what it is.
-
Pardon if I misunderstand, but the implication is that ''our' opinion matters and we are part of a clan worth uniting. This is not so. These people have many cogent arguments and in a lot of ways, they are on the right path, superficially. The underpinnings of all of these Michael Matt and Taylor Marshall groups is that Vll, although not "loved" is still licit and is to be followed, or at least given a "hat tipping" as a valid council. They will complain about Francis when Paul Vl and JPll did the same or worse ( just didn't have the immediate info-spreading of the internet- they were able to hide and deny a lot easier) even while Michael Matt seems to reject Vll, his actions belie him- he only invites consiliar bishops (Schneider) and has only recently expanded to SSPX since they started to make their move towards acceptance by the Romans. He does not consider Bishop Williamson et al "legitimate', or at least not mainstream enough to include.
The four Bishops holding fast to the Faith without compromise are not even considered a part of the Church by these people.
So the conservative semitrads consider this a 'new" crisis, when the institutional Church has been in crisis for over 60 years, if not longer.
I suspect the "unite the clan" movement would come to an abrupt halt if BXVl were re-installed as pope and Francis was kicked out, and everything returned to it's recent consiliar past. They consider that "Tradition" enough.
-
This subject has been on my mind lately -- the "johnny come latelies" who act like they discovered Tradition, completely ignoring the fact that +ABL and his successors (especially +Williamson) have been preaching this for decades. But they give NO credit at all. They take full credit, attention, fame, and advertising revenue for themselves.
It doesn't seem fair to me.
Like the OP said -- how nice of them to join us. But know your place. No seasoned veteran likes to be bossed around by a new recruit that just came out of Basic Training! Generally speaking, such new recruits have *nothing* to teach a 30-year seasoned veteran. And frankly, they should show some respect.
-
Where did this guy Taylor Marshall come from? He is everywhere now when I go online. Google is pushing him on me and amazon is trying to get me to buy his book. I do wish the talking heads would make certain things obvious and clear so we could judge them. Clearly state their position on the Jєωs and what they think about 9-11 would be a good start.
-
This subject has been on my mind lately -- the "johnny come latelies" who act like they discovered Tradition, completely ignoring the fact that +ABL and his successors (especially +Williamson) have been preaching this for decades. But they give NO credit at all. They take full credit, attention, fame, and advertising revenue for themselves.
It doesn't seem fair to me.
Like the OP said -- how nice of them to join us. But know your place. No seasoned veteran likes to be bossed around by a new recruit that just came out of Basic Training! Generally speaking, such new recruits have *nothing* to teach a 30-year seasoned veteran. And frankly, they should show some respect.
What then of the parable of the workers in the vineyard? Are veterans entitled to complain when being told how to harvest grapes by newcomers? The master condemns them for complaining about their wages, not the behavior of their co-workers.
There's something else I have noticed that is even more sinister. I saw it in a thread at SuscipeDomine, when one poster was complaining about Voris they were called out as "being judgemental", the poster who made a compliant then offered to pay a contribution to the forum for every similar judgment anyone could find anywhere on the internet about Voris. I looked myself and could not find any and neither could anyone else. I think someone came up with a grand total of 1 in the end. Nearly every comment was supportive of Voris'. Almost zero were in anyway judgmental. I cannot find the thread any longer but that was the crux of it.
It made me realize how many conservative Catholics see ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as just another sin. I am doubtful that the church can ever recover as people almost never become less liberal in their views about such things. It has led me to think that God has to wipe out most people to restore anything resembling Catholicism. The mindrot is too deep.
-
Like the OP said -- how nice of them to join us. But know your place. No seasoned veteran likes to be bossed around by a new recruit that just came out of Basic Training! Generally speaking, such new recruits have *nothing* to teach a 30-year seasoned veteran. And frankly, they should show some respect.
Nothing new. Even here the 30 year veterans presume to teach and boss around the 70-80 year old veterans. :fryingpan:
-
Where did this guy Taylor Marshall come from? He is everywhere now when I go online. Google is pushing him on me and amazon is trying to get me to buy his book. I do wish the talking heads would make certain things obvious and clear so we could judge them. Clearly state their position on the Jєωs and what they think about 9-11 would be a good start.
He is a former Episcopalian priest and a convert with 8 children. I think he is full time TLM, does not go to the new mass at all.
Of all of the talking heads he is the most sympathetic to the 1970-2000 SSPX position. Recently, he has being talking well about Arch. Lefebvre in both videos and comments. I have never heard him call the SSPX schismatics. He has said that reading Michael Davies and others brought him around.
He has done several videos with Michael Matt in the last month or two.
-
I saw it in a thread at SuscipeDomine, when one poster was complaining about Voris they were called out as "being judgemental", the poster who made a compliant then offered to pay a contribution to the forum for every similar judgment anyone could find anywhere on the internet about Voris. I looked myself and could not find any and neither could anyone else. I think someone came up with a grand total of 1 in the end. Nearly every comment was supportive of Voris'. Almost zero were in anyway judgmental. I cannot find the thread any longer but that was the crux of it.
Wait, everyone supported Voris? I did not. I publicly do not support Voris right now. I think he should be silent as the humblest monk in a monastery for at least a few years, though I will not question his sincerity, and not be the most public spokesman for conservative Catholicism. He is not getting married so this would be possible. It is like the Jєωs chose him for us in jest and said to us "we know you hate sodomy so we will make your leader a sodomite and you will not complain or we will shout you down as a bigot!"
-
Taylor Marshall not much of a Traditionalist in 2014 while he was dean at Fisher-More College-This article from AKA Catholic, Louie Verrechio
Taylor Marshall weighs in on FMC
Louie (https://akacatholic.com/author/louie/) March 4, 2014 203 Comments (https://akacatholic.com/taylor-marshall-weighs-in-on-fmc/#comments)
Dr. Taylor Marshall has broken his silence to share his reasons for leaving Fisher More College and to weigh-in on Bishop Olson’s recent decision to forbid celebration of the traditional Mass in the college’s chapel.
In a FaceBook (https://www.facebook.com/DrTaylorMarshall/posts/400180263452671) post today, Dr. Marshall offers the following allegations as indicative of the “serious pastoral problems” at FMC:
1. Mr. King, president of FMC, refused to disassociate himself from a faculty member who made public statements suggesting that Vatican II is invalid.
2. Financial mismanagement on the part of Mr. King.
3. FMC hosted a “public repudiation of Vatican II and the Ordinary Form.”
4. Mr. King would not allow the so-called “Ordinary Form” to be celebrated at the college.
5. Mr. King “contracted an irregular / suspended” priest.
Let’s review each one with some common sense observations and questions, of which there are many.
1. Does Dr. Marshall mean to say “disassociate the college and its curriculum?” If not, this sounds like a private matter. If so, it would make sense that the bishop would feel compelled to act. Even the SSPX recognizes Vatican II as valid in that it met the canonical requirements of an ecuмenical council, even as its text suffers from any number of serious flaws.
Assuming that he did mean “the college” and not just Mr. King personally, one cannot help but consider the various “Catholic” colleges throughout the nation that routinely teach flat out heresy and yet suffer no censure whatsoever. I digress.
2. Internal financial considerations are institutional matters for trustees and board members to address.
3. What is meant by “repudiation” of the Council and the Novus Ordo? If it means questioning validity, that invites the bishop’s attention. If it means pointing out very real and serious flaws in each, that’s another story.
4. Apart from someone demanding a celebration of the Novus Ordo in the college chapel, this lack of permission would not be known. Given the nature of the college, this causes one to wonder who has been requesting it and why. Was someone doing so to intentionally agitate matters? Too many questions remain.
5. How does Dr. Marshall know that the “contracted priest” in question is suspended? Was he contracted to teach and lecture, or to celebrate the sacraments? Again, more questions remain than answers.
Getting to the crux of the matter, Dr. Marshall makes a mistake when he concludes:
Regarding Summorum Pontificuм in this situation. It doesn’t apply here since the college chapel does not have a priest requesting to say the Latin Mass and the chapel therefore falls under the direct pastoral control of the bishop.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
There is no need whatsoever for a priest to “request the Latin Mass.” It is enough simply for a priest to wish to offer it. Period. That’s the entire point of Summorum Pontificuм.
As for the chapel falling under the bishop’s pastoral control, fine, but based upon Summorum Pontificuм, or more properly speaking, the Instruction Universae Ecclesia (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docuмents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html), that control only allows for him to restrict the traditional Mass under the following condition:[/font][/size][/font][/size]
The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church. (Article 19)
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
It would seem to me that the worst case scenario at Fisher More, based on all that has been shared, is that Bishop Olson has reason to suspect that Mr. King and at least one of his faculty members is “against the validity of the forma ordinaria and/or the Roman Pontiff.”
A reasonable reading of Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesia would seem to indicate that this alone is not enough to deprive the entire college community of the traditional Mass; rather, it would seem fairly obvious that the intent of UE 19 concerns groups that are organized in opposition to papal authority and the validity of the forma ordinaria. Otherwise, we must believe that one rotten apple is enough to put an end to the traditional Mass in any given community. Clearly, that’s not what the instruction is encouraging.
That being the case, a more prudent action on Bishop Olson’s part would have been to request in writing a statement from the college as to its official position as an institution, while addressing any remaining problems with specific individuals directly. Taking the traditional Mass away is a severe action, not an initial step.
As it stands, Bishop Olson is depriving the entire college community of a celebration of the Roman Rite that is rightfully theirs as faithful Catholics. It is difficult to reconcile this action with the appropriate esteem for the traditional liturgy that we rightly expect of our bishops, as opposed to merely tolerating it on a limited basis.[/font][/size][/font][/size]
-
Wait, everyone supported Voris? I did not. I publicly do not support Voris right now. I think he should be silent as the humblest monk in a monastery for at least a few years, though I will not question his sincerity, and not be the most public spokesman for conservative Catholicism. He is not getting married so this would be possible. It is like the Jєωs chose him for us in jest and said to us "we know you hate sodomy so we will make your leader a sodomite and you will not complain or we will shout you down as a bigot!"
Matto, you may have misread what I wrote above. I did not say that everyone supported Voris at Suscipedomine.com but rather that with one part of the forum labelling the others "uncharitable and judgmental" that when offered monetary incentive to demonstrate this judgmentalism existed anywhere outside the forum, nobody could find much, if any, such comments critical of Michael Voris within the hundreds if not thousands of supportive comments after he admitted being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ in April 2016.
As a lerker I felt that was something of a wake up moment for me. The fact was that judgmentalism is very rare, and getting rarer as the younger generation are brainwashed to think all perversion is just youthful error at the very worst. It was impossible to find in the many, many comments of the conservative Catholic bloggers who wrote about Voris's mea culpa. I read dozens of blogs and could not find any.
And this leaves me wondering today where Prudence lives and how it operates, since it would appear to require judgment. How for example would Catholics stop the Church from being infiltrated by sodomites, freemasons, etc, if they had to give every effeminate seminarian the benefit of the doubt and avoid "judgmentalism". And if every freemason simply confessed it and was forgiven with no more said how could they be stopped from becoming priests?
There is a reason we don't let felony convicts own guns, if you get my point. Society judges them to be far too risky. I am certain that some of them are reformed and one or two are holy. Yet they are not allowed firearms to defend their homes.
-
Taylor Marshall not much of a Traditionalist in 2014 while he was dean at Fisher-More College-This article from AKA Catholic, Louie Verrechio
In the last 5 years he has changed his mind and admitted he was wrong about Trads and the SSPX. I watch his videos and he is moving right at warp speed.
-
In the last 5 years he has changed his mind and admitted he was wrong about Trads and the SSPX. I watch his videos and he is moving right at warp speed.
I follow him on twitter and he just tweeted that Archbishop Lefebvre was never schismatic.
-
In the last 5 years he has changed his mind and admitted he was wrong about Trads and the SSPX. I watch his videos and he is moving right at warp speed.
That's a really good thing; though maybe he's fine with +ABL and the SSPX because of the new orientation of the SSPX and their watered-down version of +ABL. Has he read any of +ABL's books? If not, he should do so.
There was more to the Fisher More college situation than Mr. Marshall admits of. According to one source who worked at the college when Marshall left, Marshall said that he would keep quiet about what went on at the college if they would give him a large severance pay package. He wasn't given the larger severance pay package.
-
1) I never heard of him before 4-5 months ago;
2) He is promoted by all the wrong people;
3) He is supportive of the rallied SSPX;
4) Never heard him promote the Resistance.
All of this adds up to an unavoidable conclusion:
He is basically an indultarian.
-
I saw it in a thread at SuscipeDomine, when one poster was complaining about Voris they were called out as "being judgemental", the poster who made a compliant then offered to pay a contribution to the forum for every similar judgment anyone could find anywhere on the internet about Voris. I looked myself and could not find any and neither could anyone else. I think someone came up with a grand total of 1 in the end. Nearly every comment was supportive of Voris'. Almost zero were in anyway judgmental. I cannot find the thread any longer but that was the crux of it.
Here is the main thread about Voris: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=14274.0 (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=14274.0)
The offer to pay for internet comments was in a different thread: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=14274.0 (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=14274.0) reply #121
-
I finally found the thread. It is 50 pages long, so I hope the URL here jumps to the right page where the point is made that nearly all comments on the Catholic blogsphere are supportive.
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=14274.390
Quickly reading up to this point first 25 pages, (perhaps quickly is not the best word, as it took me an hour), the impression I get is about 1/3 of the forum are cautious and 2/3 are saying " the past sodomy is not relevant " and comparing Voris to St. Dismas or St. Paul.
How does one decide which school to send your children to, which summer camp to let your children attend, which adults to interact with without exercising prudential judgment? It is even termed 'prudential judgment' come to think of it, which means prudence involvement judging people. That just occured to me.
Interested to learn, discuss where the dividing line is between being too harsh and being just prudent.
-
Thanks Jaynek. You are clearly smarter than me at searchin'.
-
Michael Voris would have never had "confessed" about his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity had he not expected "Cardinal" Dolan to come out with some sort of info on him. He confessed because he was going to be outed.
In 2009 St Michael's Media ( the original name of Church Militant) employed a Simon Rafe, who was an on camera reporter at the time. It was exposed that he was writing fantasy ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ porn online. (I checked the website-it was true) Simon Rafe was demoted to behind the scenes work at St Michaels- he was never fired. Recently I saw his picture in one of their ads/videos, so I suspect he is still employed there.
Forgiveness is one thing. But there is a total innapropriateness to all of these "former" homos and perverts carrying the banner for Catholic conservatism. What happened to penance? I guess God is now demanding media stardom instead...
No matter how they rail against sodomy, they are normalizing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity to the conservative Catholic- how could they not?
-
Also, E Michael Jones wrote a scathing report on Michael Voris. It was almost too personal and hurtful, but maybe it was necessary. I don't know.
-
Michael Voris would have never had "confessed" about his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity had he not expected "Cardinal" Dolan to come out with some sort of info on him. He confessed because he was going to be outed.
In 2009 St Michael's Media ( the original name of Church Militant) employed a Simon Rafe, who was an on camera reporter at the time. It was exposed that he was writing fantasy ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ porn online. (I checked the website-it was true) Simon Rafe was demoted to behind the scenes work at St Michaels- he was never fired. Recently I saw his picture in one of their ads/videos, so I suspect he is still employed there.
Forgiveness is one thing. But there is a total innapropriateness to all of these "former" homos and perverts carrying the banner for Catholic conservatism. What happened to penance? I guess God is now demanding media stardom instead...
No matter how they rail against sodomy, they are normalizing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity to the conservative Catholic- how could they not?
I believe Simon Rafe is back in front of the camera now.
-
I found multiple videos of Rafe speaking with just a Google search.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aTof42eKSq8
-
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/realcatholictvs-voris-had-no-idea-about-internal-problems (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/realcatholictvs-voris-had-no-idea-about-internal-problems)
Rafe never got fired!
-
Forgiveness is one thing. But there is a total innapropriateness to all of these "former" homos and perverts carrying the banner for Catholic conservatism. What happened to penance? I guess God is now demanding media stardom instead...
This part really rang true with me. The same goes for converting from Protestantism (or something else) to Catholicism.
They should be spending some years learning, catching up, etc. before they become media stars.
Even if they ARE more fervent than many life-long Catholics. ("One convert is worth two apostles.")
Let's put it this way: there is an incentive -- even in this world alone -- for ANY high-profile sodomite to convert and become a nationwide-famous figure. It's not like ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a life of pleasure. It is degrading and disgusting, filled with drugs, alcohol abuse and self-caused diseases, for those who have emotional issues and hate themselves.
For both ex-heretics and ex-sodomites:
What do they have to teach the majority of us, since they are so NEW to the Faith themselves?
-
This part really rang true with me. The same goes for converting from Protestantism (or something else) to Catholicism.
They should be spending some years learning, catching up, etc. before they become media stars.
Even if they ARE more fervent than many life-long Catholics. ("One convert is worth two apostles.")
Let's put it this way: there is an incentive -- even in this world alone -- for ANY high-profile sodomite to convert and become a nationwide-famous figure. It's not like ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a life of pleasure. It is degrading and disgusting, filled with drugs, alcohol abuse and self-caused diseases, for those who have emotional issues and hate themselves.
For both ex-heretics and ex-sodomites:
What do they have to teach the majority of us, since they are so NEW to the Faith themselves?
Well said. Regarding the fact that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have emotional issues and hate themselves, this is also described by E. Michael Jones, in his effort to show why Michael Voris should not be in front of the public as he is. I'm not usually a fan of Jones, but what he writes about Voris/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity makes sense; he says that the intolerable feeling of self-loathing that a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ has, needs to be projected outward, and that the primal wound of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is narcissism. He also says that in the hierarchy of sins, it's farther up there in seriousness.
-
I should also add:
the Church's position on certain sins, was that A) sure, God forgave you, here's your absolution, but B) you're still damaged goods; you need to do penance in a monastery for life.
This especially applied to fallen priests.
Part of the spirit of penance should be wanting to avoid the public limelight -- not seek it out like a Protestant who has "found Jesus". (What's up with that, anyhow? I kid you not, if I had been raised protestant, I think I would have gone astray for a year or two, just so I'd have a "my story" to tell all my devout church friends later, so I could write a book, give speaking tours, etc.)
-
I should also add:
the Church's position on certain sins, was that A) sure, God forgave you, here's your absolution, but B) you're still damaged goods; you need to do penance in a monastery for life.
Yes, and on top of that, there's a question of credibility. So, for instance, we know that Rush Limbaugh is a completely fake conservative. He just postures as such because he found a potential untapped market ... and he's become incredibly wealthy doing so. I don't know that I trust someone like a Michael Voris to be "for real" ... vs. just someone trying to become a celebrity (along with everything that it entails). None of this has anything to do with whether they're forgiven or whether people hold a "grudge" against them. That's not the case.
Same thing would apply to a Father Corapi. If he tried to come back now, he'd have lost all credibility.
This lack of trust is corroborated by Voris' continued association with Rafe.
-
Thanks Jaynek. You are clearly smarter than me at searchin'.
You're welcome, but I'm not so much smart as I happened to remember the right details to make a search work well.
Anyhow, I browsed through the thread, since I had looked it up. I think that part of what was going on was that people were reacting to the abrasive tone of the poster. (Remember, this is someone who got banned from CI for basically being a jerk.) I noticed several people explicitly mention that and I suspect there were others who did not say anything who were just irritated by his crass language. Also, he did not just call for prudence, but he stated that he was a better person than Voris. That really is judgment.
I think that if a person raised the question in a pleasant and reasonable way as you have here, most trad Catholics would agree that, even though God forgives the sins of a person who repents and confesses, there is still a need for prudential judgment about what responsibilities to entrust him with.
In that SD thread, St. Paul was given as an example of someone who preached and taught after a life of serious sin. But I don't think that anyone mentioned that St. Paul was accompanied by St. Barnabas, a seasoned and virtuous Christian. I think that St. Barnabas may have played a role similar to a spiritual director for St. Paul.
I remember from my early days as a trad (and there is a permanent record of my posts on Fisheaters from that time, in case I ever forget) how completely unaware I was of how much I needed to learn. I figured that I had an M.Div so I was already an expert. In fact, a degree from a conciliar institution does not make one an expert on traditional Catholicism. If anything, it is the opposite. One needs to unlearn much of what one was taught. And I thought that my background being raised in a Jєωιѕн family gave me special expertise on Judaism when that is probably one of the areas where I was most ignorant about the traditional understanding.
The point is that people don't know what the don't know. Probably anyone in a position of teaching or leadership should have some sort of spiritual director, but especially new converts/reverts. No matter how sincere they are, they need oversight from someone who can see their blind spots. I think that in itself is a good measure for prudence.
-
1) I never heard of him before 4-5 months ago;
2) He is promoted by all the wrong people;
3) He is supportive of the rallied SSPX;
4) Never heard him promote the Resistance.
All of this adds up to an unavoidable conclusion:
He is basically an indultarian.
I learned of Voris over 10 years ago and he was fully into Novus Ordo, somewhat skeptical to Tradition. However, "thanks" to Francis, he has been turning gears even to the point of saying in a recent conference in Rome that Francis needed to step down. God's ways are not our ways.
Praying that all of us may meet in Heaven.
-
JayneK
How is it that the other posters were able to judge Gregg for being a "judgmental jerk", despite that, from his posting history, he has always gone to TLM mass and is married with 7 children? Gregg is an anonymous internet poster, like the rest of us, who has no media company or platform of his own. And yet, Gregg was NOT justified to judge Michael Voris as being unsuitable to run a very public lay preaching and teaching media company, without being labelled an uncharitable or judgmental jerk for expressing that view on a forum.
How is a long term practicing catholic father of 7 not "better" than someone who commits sodomy for two decades?
I hear phrases like "there but for the grace of God go I", but the undeniable truth is that Marcel Lefebvre was a better man than Joseph Stalin. If Marcel Lefebvre judged himself to be "better than Stalin" in the 1940s, why would it be wrong? It is the truth after all. I don't see how holding a view that is true can ever be wrong, or arrogant.
If Marcel Lefebvre thought he was a worse sinner that Stalin, or about the same, I would question his sanity. Pious sounding platitudes cannot trump the objective truth. Everyone posting regularly on this forum is "better" than Jeffrey Epstein or the Head of Planned Parenthood. That last sentence is hardly a wildly presumptous statement.
I understand of course that God finally judges, but I assume that God judges on the basis of actual sins and not some strange esoteric formula that humans can make no rhyme or reason of and where sins committed carry no weight.
What does a "state of grace" mean unless someone in a state of grace is "better" than someone in a state of mortal sin? I find the idea that we are floating around in some sort of indeterminate state impossible to comprehend.
I ask because this really touches on the crux of my question. Where does prudential judgment stop and judgmentalism begin? And how would the Church, in the future, stop itself being infiltrated by sodomites, Jєωs, freemasons, communists and other enemies able to damage it, unless a judgment was taken to exclude such people early on. Which by the standards of those defending Voris against those "judging" him would be labelled "too judgmental and lacking in charity".
WOULD IT BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO SAY, that a reticence to grasp the nettle of reality and judge how damaging sodomites and communists are to the Catholic faith allowed the infiltration and damage of the last 70 years? Who gets to make that determination? Only clerics, only laypersons? Only reformed sodomites? It appears to me that Lefebvre made a judgment about a council, then lots of laypeople and seminarian candidates judged that judgment right and now the resistance have made a judgment too. Judgments are everywhere. Michael Voris is making them weekly.
-
The point is that people don't know what they don't know. Probably anyone in a position of teaching or leadership should have some sort of spiritual director, but especially new converts/reverts. No matter how sincere they are, they need oversight from someone who can see their blind spots. I think that in itself is a good measure for prudence.
Thanks for this. Just what I was wanting as the basis for a conversation
A head of a lay Catholic apostolate can and should have a spiritual director because right or wrong Voris/Taylor Marshall/ Jimmy Akin are seen as something of a guru, by their followers.
A forum poster cannot have a spiritual Dir, however as it is completely impractical and forum posters almost never acquire guru status in the way media figures do. Their opinions influence far less people.
So, perhaps, we should be MORE forgiving of forum posters who are not asking for donations or funding a "retreat at sea" in the caribbean and supporting a middle class lifestyle from their guru status, than self-appointed talking heads of the new trad catholic media who can give 1000s of people a good or bum steer while simultaneously earning a reasonable living from it
-
JayneK
How is it that the other posters were able to judge Gregg for being a "judgmental jerk", despite that, from his posting history, he has always gone to TLM mass and is married with 7 children? Gregg is an anonymous internet poster, like the rest of us, who has no media company or platform of his own. And yet, Gregg was NOT justified to judge Michael Voris as being unsuitable to run a very public lay preaching and teaching media company, without being labelled an uncharitable or judgmental jerk for expressing that view on a forum.
If Gregg had simply said that Michael Voris is unsuitable to run a lay teaching and preaching company, I think that Gregg would have gotten a different reaction. People respond to things like tone and writing style. If someone comes across as harsh and abrasive, then it is not surprising if some people think he is a jerk. And if someone claims to be a better person than another, then it is not surprising if some people think he is judgmental.
How is a long term practicing catholic father of 7 not "better" than someone who commits sodomy for two decades?
I am a long term practicing Catholic mother of 7. I am not prepared to say that I am a better person than any sinner you can name, no matter what he is done. Only God knows how culpable people are for the sins we commit. We only know about how bad sins are objectively. We can compare one sin against another sin, but we cannot compare one sinner against another sinner. A person might commit a worse sin but be less culpable for it than a person who committed a lesser sin. For example, I have so many blessings in my life and have been given so many opportunities to learn what is right, I have far less excuse to sin than people without such blessings and opportunities. I am receiving all the graces from regularly attending a traditional Mass. When I sin, I do so in spite of all those graces. That adds to the gravity of my sins.
I hear phrases like "there but for the grace of God go I", but the undeniable truth is that Marcel Lefebvre was a better man than Joseph Stalin. If Marcel Lefebvre judged himself to be "better than Stalin" in the 1940s, why would it be wrong? It is the truth after all. I don't see how holding a view that is true can ever be wrong, or arrogant.
If Marcel Lefebvre thought he was a worse sinner that Stalin, or about the same, I would question his sanity. Pious sounding platitudes cannot trump the objective truth. Everyone posting regularly on this forum is "better" than Jeffrey Epstein or the Head of Planned Parenthood. That last sentence is hardly a wildly presumptous statement.gmental and lacking in charity".
I would not be surprised if Archbishop Lefebvre did think of himself among the worst of sinners. I say that because I suspect that he is a Saint and that seems to be a pretty usual way for Saints to think. There are many examples of Saints saying such things about about themselves. It seems that the more people grow in holiness that the more they understand how far short they fall of meeting God's standards and how much they depend on God's grace. "There but for the grace of God go I" is not a pious platitude. It is an important spiritual truth.
I ask because this really touches on the crux of my question. Where does prudential judgment stop and judgmentalism begin? And how would the Church, in the future, stop itself being infiltrated by sodomites, Jєωs, freemasons, communists and other enemies able to damage it, unless a judgment was taken to exclude such people early on. Which by the standards of those defending Voris against those "judging" him would be labelled "too judgmental and lacking in charity".
Prudential judgement is a matter of practical decisions in specific circuмstances. Deciding whether or not to support an "apostolate" run by Michael Voris is a prudential judgment. One ought to weight all the factors when coming to a decision about whether to subscribe to a service or make a donation. That is not being judgmental.
Judging somebody's worth as a person or the state of his soul is being judgmental. These are not judgments that we have any business making because they belong to God alone.
-
That thread on Suscipe Domine, regarding Michael Voris, reminds me little bit of the tranny fiasco on Fisheaters years ago, which I participated in. I was against trannyism on the forum. I think the term "judgmental" was used to describe my attitude towards transgenders, not surprisingly.
I don't see anything wrong in what Greg writes on the thread. He seems rather reasonable, in a Greg sort of way:
In post #395, he writes:
"I don't want to stone him to death.
I just want him to not publicly teach the Faith. That seems reasonable and prudent, given his background, his covering up that background for a decade and his twenty year history as an active participant in the very same cancer he is loudly complaining is destroying the church.
If the Church were being destroyed by dramatic irony, metaphor, puns, parody, litotes and satire, would you want me repenting and becoming a public face of Catholicism? I put it to you that that would be a terrible and dangerous mistake.
Repentant sodomites in the past were disappeared into monasteries. Today in these enlightened and merciful times, I'd be happy with Michael Voris becoming anything EXCEPT a public face of Catholicism.
It's not really comparable to stoning a prostitute to death."
-
Gregg nailed it.
-
Can nobody get his name right?
It's ggreg.
Hi, ggreg, if you are tuned in. :cheers:
-
If Gregg had simply said that Michael Voris is unsuitable to run a lay teaching and preaching company, I think that Gregg would have gotten a different reaction. People respond to things like tone and writing style. If someone comes across as harsh and abrasive, then it is not surprising if some people think he is a jerk. And if someone claims to be a better person than another, then it is not surprising if some people think he is judgmental.
I am a long term practicing Catholic mother of 7. I am not prepared to say that I am a better person than any sinner you can name, no matter what he is done. Only God knows how culpable people are for the sins we commit. We only know about how bad sins are objectively. We can compare one sin against another sin, but we cannot compare one sinner against another sinner. A person might commit a worse sin but be less culpable for it than a person who committed a lesser sin. For example, I have so many blessings in my life and have been given so many opportunities to learn what is right, I have far less excuse to sin than people without such blessings and opportunities. I am receiving all the graces from regularly attending a traditional Mass. When I sin, I do so in spite of all those graces. That adds to the gravity of my sins.
I would not be surprised if Archbishop Lefebvre did think of himself among the worst of sinners. I say that because I suspect that he is a Saint and that seems to be a pretty usual way for Saints to think. There are many examples of Saints saying such things about about themselves. It seems that the more people grow in holiness that the more they understand how far short they fall of meeting God's standards and how much they depend on God's grace. "There but for the grace of God go I" is not a pious platitude. It is an important spiritual truth.
Prudential judgement is a matter of practical decisions in specific circuмstances. Deciding whether or not to support an "apostolate" run by Michael Voris is a prudential judgment. One ought to weight all the factors when coming to a decision about whether to subscribe to a service or make a donation. That is not being judgmental.
Judging somebody's worth as a person or the state of his soul is being judgmental. These are not judgments that we have any business making because they belong to God alone.
Jaynek's post says it all. I was about to respond with the following, but her post does it so much better.
I ask because this really touches on the crux of my question. Where does prudential judgment stop and judgmentalism begin? And how would the Church, in the future, stop itself being infiltrated by sodomites, Jєωs, freemasons, communists and other enemies able to damage it, unless a judgment was taken to exclude such people early on. Which by the standards of those defending Voris against those "judging" him would be labelled "too judgmental and lacking in charity".
Judging people is not the same as making judgements about statements. I guess the best way to do this is to forget who said what and concentrate solely on what was said - then address what was said. How many of us can be truly objective?
If we deem someone as being a better person it has nothing to do with salvation. I suspect, however, that the question was asked with the intention of trying to discern who to believe is teaching the truth; which priest? which Bishop? etc.
I think the following passages in Scripture are well worth pondering:
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.(Jeremiah 31-34) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him.(John 4 : 23)
..
-
I think we should welcome anyone who loves the Catholic Tradition.
:) :) :)
-
Can nobody get his name right? It's ggreg.
Hi, ggreg, if you are tuned in.
Seconded!
Jaynek's post says it all.
All too true, alas! It says that she abnegates her responsibility as a Catholic adult to make an intellectual and moral assessment of the genuineness of the repentance of someone who has practiced a particularly degraded form of sinful conduct for an extended period of time and who furthermore has shown no inclination to make the sort of thoroughgoing and proportionate public restitution one might reasonably expect from a truly repentant person in his situation.
Put slightly oversimply, Voris said, "Rather than wait to be outed by the local ordinary, I'm revealing tonight that I've been a practicing queer for years. Now here are the latest headlines." To which Jayne replied, "Who am I to judge?"
This endless prattling about judgmentalism—a bullying term beloved of people who consider the sight of a rightly formed conscience an imposition on their own (im)moral conformity with the tenets of contemporary society—confuses the sin of detraction with the virtues of prudence and justice, whether culpably or otherwise, and muttonheadedly equates the differing actions proper to these opposed moral categories. In this instance, readers are called upon to forgo the use of their wits and all their moral instincts, as if informed skepticism about Voris's bona fides is in some way equivalent to denouncing the man's conduct and revealing his checkered past and dubious present to people on the other side of the planet, people who know nothing whatsoever of him or his public and private activities. The latter behavior alone ought to be regarded as improper and sinful, whereas the former is appropriate and may even be essential in certain circuмstances—for example, to protect the innocent, the uninformed, or the unwary.
-
How harsh and abrasive does this sound to modern Catholics, even then conservative minded ones?
"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church".
Or a women getting pregnant out of wedlock who in the past, in a Catholic town, would have been treated as a shameful thing. Or kicking all of the Jєωs out of Spain. That seems very harsh to modern era Catholics. Expelling an entire population of people.
When making judgments about people, is it reasonable, is it right, to consider how our Catholic forefathers would have judged them? We are self-labelled as traditionalists after all.
Perhaps we don't need to go back that far. If in 1982 if one of the founders of a major trad newspaper, say Christian Order or The Remnant, had revealed that prior to his reversion during the second Vatican council he had been a swinger from after WW2 to '69, would our respective fathers and grandfathers have said, "oh well, forgive and forget"?
Is this fair as a principle? Does "Traditionalism" imply this? Would a Catholic of the Vendee brought to earth see us as a Catholic? Would we see them as a harsh and abrasive jerk?
-
"There but for the grace of God go I" is not a pious platitude. It is an important spiritual truth.
The source is actually an English Protestant reformer who was burnt at the stake by the Catholic Mary Tudor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bradford
Rather curious that a Catholic church today, reformed at Vatican II, with a huge input from protestants has this as a new super-doctrine.
Judgment versus charity must surely be far more nuanced than this or we could never avoid bad actors.
I can see how such a non-judgmental doctrine is a positive boon to evil men. It allows them to give the appearance of contrition and humility and do enormous damage while anyone judging them is told not to because they "are a sinner too". Since everyone is a sinner the clear conclusion is that nobody can ever judge anyone else bad actor or not.
-
That thread on Suscipe Domine, regarding Michael Voris, reminds me little bit of the tranny fiasco on Fisheaters years ago, which I participated in. I was against trannyism on the forum. I think the term "judgmental" was used to describe my attitude towards transgenders, not surprisingly.
Meg, in a current thread, you show that you do not even understand the problem with using the word "gαy" to describe sodomites. Your problem is inability to think clearly, not judgmentalism.
-
The last post and a short drive got me thinking.
In 1500 it was acceptable to judge people and burn them at the stake for their religious views. Why? Because a large chunk of society was on your side and conscious to the threat to their soul from religious heresy. Today 99.999% of westerners would be against burning people at the stake. Radical Muslims still judge you and kill you for blasphemy and public apostacy (notably when suŕrounded by other muslim radicals).
In 1900, no monotheist denomination, Catholic or Protestant, Mormon or JV sect would have supported a preacher, teacher or writer who was a former ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Why, because sodomy was seen as disgusting by the vast majority of people in society. A sin that dare not speak its name.
In 2016 to 2019, Democratic voters see fit to judge Trump, Kavanaugh and fabricate false stories to remove them because 50% of US voters are on their side. If they were 10% they could not stand the backlash.
Most people today would still consider a former paedophile, who was contrite, to be a very poor choice for a school teacher or politician or philosopher. Because a majority of people still see pederasty and paedophilia as evil. Whereas they accept ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and even transɛҳuąƖism.
I think this is what it comes down to. Judgmentalism is really the 'sin" of calling out as evil, or an occasion of sin, what is seen as 'normal' by a majority. This is why asking women to wear skirts and cover their heads at mass is labelled judgmental. By going against the majority, a person is necessarily implying that their judgment is better than the group conscensus and people feel they are being judged and that the person must perceive themselves as morally superior to be making that call that something is wrong.
Those who defend Voris right to come out, carry on preaching and treat it like water under the bridge, (many praised him for his bravery), and say it has no reflection on his credibility as a Catholic pundit are not really thinking, "there but for the grace of God go I", but rather, I accept ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as just one of those things and if there are implications for Voris, then there must be implications for me and my sins. I don't want to face those, so I will defend Voris so I don't have to face them.
They don't say, there but for the grace of God go I, when it comes to pedophiles or nαzιs. You never hear people say that.
Sorry to use Michael Voris as an example, but he is an illustrative example, because he appointed himself and he is now sitting on panels with Bishop Schnider and Michael Matt and making all sorts of judgment and condemnations all the time about those to the left and the right of him.
-
All too true, alas! It says that she abnegates her responsibility as a Catholic adult to make an intellectual and moral assessment of the genuineness of the repentance of someone who has practiced a particularly degraded form of sinful conduct for an extended period of time and who furthermore has shown no inclination to make the sort of thoroughgoing and proportionate public restitution one might reasonably expect from a truly repentant person in his situation.
Put slightly oversimply, Voris said, "Rather than wait to be outed by the local ordinary, I'm revealing tonight that I've been a practicing queer for years. Now here are the latest headlines." To which Jayne replied, "Who am I to judge?"
Catholics have no responsibility to make judgments about people's hearts or the state of their souls. It is not our job to decide if a conversion is sincere or contrition genuine. These things can only be known by God. He is the judge of such matters.
We judge, and yes, we have responsibility to so, words and actions on how they conform to truth revealed through Catholic teaching. In that thread, I said that I was more concerned about what Voris was teaching about the SSPX at the time than his past sins which he had turned away from. I was happy to judge that his condemnation of the SSPX was incorrect. I have no ability to read people's minds and hearts so I cannot judge those.
The question of whether it is prudent for a new convert/revert to be in a position of teaching or responsibility, is something that must make judgments about, at least to the extent that we decide to support the person's business. Questioning the genuineness of a person's repentance is making judgments about what is known to God alone.
Your "oversimplification" of that thread goes beyond oversimplifying to being inaccurate. If you wish to comment on something that I said, it would be better to quote me than to make things up.
-
Most people today would still consider a former paedophile, who was contrite, to be a very poor choice for a school teacher or politician or philosopher. Because a majority of people still see pederasty and paedophilia as evil. Whereas they accept ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and even transɛҳuąƖism.
True. And one of the problems with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is that pedophilia is sometimes (though not always) a factor. The majority of sɛҳuąƖ abuse victims by priests have been boys, which shows that there is a direct correlation between ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and pedophilia, though not all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are pedophiles. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is intrinsically disordered.
And there's the problem, too (Fr. Ripperger mentioned this in a talk he gave on why ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ men should not be ordained), in that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, if they are ordained, will be less likely to correct their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ peers in a direct manner. Voris has been guilty of this, in that he will interview active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, but rarely correct them about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
Since ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are not supposed to be ordained to the priesthood, why is it then okay for them to have an apostolate were they are teaching the Faith?
-
I think this is what it comes down to. Judgmentalism is really the 'sin" of calling out as evil, or an occasion of sin, what is seen as 'normal' by a majority. This is why asking women to wear skirts and cover their heads at mass is labelled judgmental. By going against the majority, a person is necessarily implying that their judgment is better than the group conscensus and people feel they are being judged and that the person must perceive themselves as morally superior to be making that call that something is wrong.
Greg explicitly said that he considered himself to be a better person than Michael Voris. Greg, who says that he has never been tempted by the sin of sodomy, sees that as a reason to see himself as better than a person who committed it and repented.
How is not committing sins that one has never been tempted to commit a virtue? It requires no moral strength nor devotion to God. Probably most people, even non-Christians, do not commit sins that they have not been tempted to. Every day (presumably) we pray "lead us not into temptation" when we pray the Pater Noster. When God answers that prayer, should we congratulate ourselves on what good people we are for not being tempted or thank Him for answering our prayers?
There is a huge difference between judging oneself as better than others and judging how words and actions conform to the truth of Catholic teaching. People in that thread were not objecting to what Greg said because they compromise on Catholic teaching on sodomy. Many made statements in that thread which showed they recognize its seriousness. In addition, a large proportion of the posters there left or were banned from Fisheaters for their opposition to its owner's way of handling a member "coming out" as transsɛҳuąƖ.
They don't say, there but for the grace of God go I, when it comes to pedophiles or nαzιs. You never hear people say that.
On this forum, you will be able to hear (see) quite a few people say that nαzιs were not evil. We have posters who can explain that nαzιs have been misrepresented and misunderstood and were actually great patriots for Germany. So, that does not really work well here as an example of universally accepted ultimate evil.
So let's just stick with pedophiles. As I understand it, usually people turn out that way because horrible things have happened to them to make them so twisted and perverted. It does not lessen the objective evil of their sinful actions to say that I do not know how I would have turned out if such horrible things had happened to me. It is not a denial of the evil to be thankful to God that I did not have such horrible things happen to me when I was a child. There is no reason that we could not say "there but for the grace of God, go I" about them.
-
JayneK -
1. Your above argument would not preclude a former paedophile paedophile priest from becoming the Pope. Once his violent child rape was confessed nobody (certainly not laymen) would be able to judge the state of his soul and mind. It completely opens the church to infiltration by wreckers because their words are slippery and their actions can only be judged post-action when the damage has been done. You cannot prevent anything. Prudence is under such circuмstances a blunt tool.
It's of little use telling your daughter her boyfriend is unsuitable AFTER he has got her pregnant. A good father/mother makes that determination VERY quickly and subjectively by applying what they know and their common sense.
2. How could we determine the sincerity of any seminary director who filled the seminary with effeminate men, if he merely uses the defence that they all appeared to him as contrite and determined to be chaste in future. We cannot be in the interviews and we are wholly relying on his responsible judgment. By the time we find our trust was misplaced, it is too late we have hundreds of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖly active priests.
3. How does a priest determine the state of Joe Biden's soul on that particular Sunday and deny him communion?
4. How many bad actions do we need before condemning the person? Is 1 enough or does it need to be 6, 10, 49? By the time they out themselves they may have 1 million followers and it is too late to do much about it. Their cult members are ensnared.
5. Tradition would not exist without Lefebvre who started the SSPX and made the decisions he did by judging the consciences of bad clergy in Rome. He concluded that they were waiting for him to die but there was never any direct evidence of this. When he did the consecrations in 1988, it could easily be argued that he was judging the hierarchy to be acting in "bad faith" or in other words judging their collective consciences. History proved him right, but it was far from obvious at the time and some significant number of people left the SSPX over that act.
-
In 1500 it was acceptable to judge people and burn them at the stake for their religious views. Why? Because a large chunk of society was on your side and conscious to the threat to their soul from religious heresy. Today 99.999% of westerners would be against burning people at the stake. Radical Muslims still judge you and kill you for blasphemy and public apostacy (notably when suŕrounded by other muslim radicals).
I agree. I don't think that burnings at the stake occurred very often, but at that time, it was believed that public heretics who were teaching against the True Faith posed a real public danger. I'm not sure that they should have burned anyone at the stake, but I can understand why it was done. As a protection against error. That was important at one time.
I think that people are championing the cause of Michael Voris because he has fought (or appeared to fight) against the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ infiltration in the Church. But I don't trust his motives.
I agree with E. Michael Jones that there is a case of narcissism involved with Voris (which is an outcome of his [hopefully former] ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lifestyle), and that's not a good thing. It is a part of the intrinsically disordered nature of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
-
Since ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are not supposed to be ordained to the priesthood, why is it then okay for them to have an apostolate were they are teaching the Faith?
For me this is the $64,000 question.
CMTV has far more influence than any priest in the period in history we find ourselves in today. We are not even sure who controls it. Seems to have Opus Dei money and other backers.
-
Since ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are not supposed to be ordained to the priesthood, why is it then okay for them to have an apostolate were they are teaching the Faith?
This is an example of a legitimate question concerning prudential judgement. It deals with the practical issue of who should be serving in lay apostolates. It does not involve making judgments of people's hearts or souls.
These are the things we look at in order to tell the difference between judgmentalism and prudential judgements.
-
This is an example of a legitimate question concerning prudential judgement. It deals with the practical issue of who should be serving in lay apostolates. It does not involve making judgments of people's hearts or souls.
These are the things we look at in order to tell the difference between judgmentalism and prudential judgements.
You keep going on and on about that one thing that Greg said. So what if he said he's better than Voris. I don't see that as a such a HUGE cause for concern. I, for one, also think that Greg is better than Voris. So there. And I'm not the only one.
-
For me this is the $64,000 question.
CMTV has far more influence than any priest in the period in history we find ourselves in today. We are not even sure who controls it. Seems to have Opus Dei money and other backers.
It could be Opus Dei, yes. I too wonder about who controls it. Voris has said in the past that he is not a member of Opus Dei, but he believes that Opus Dei offers the best solution to the problems in the Church. You may be aware of that already.
-
JayneK -
1. Your above argument would not preclude a former paedophile paedophile priest from becoming the Pope. Once his violent child rape was confessed nobody (certainly not laymen) would be able to judge the state of his soul and mind. It completely opens the church to infiltration by wreckers because their words are slippery and their actions can only be judged post-action when the damage has been done. You cannot prevent anything. Prudence is under such circuмstances a blunt tool.
A pedophile (as I understand it, there is no such thing as a former pedophile) should not even be serving as a priest, more the less as a pope. While we have no business judging the sincerity of his repentance and confession, we have good reason to think that this is a propensity that does not go away. As a matter of prudence, this is a person who needs limited responsibilities and significant oversight.
2. How could we determine the sincerity of any seminary director who filled the seminary with effeminate men, if he merely uses the defence that they all appeared to him as contrite and determined to be chaste in future. We cannot be in the interviews and we are wholly relying on his responsible judgment. By the time we find our trust was misplaced, it is too late we have hundreds of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖly active priests.
The sincerity of the seminary director is irrelevant. He is disobeying Church directives that men with a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclination should not be ordained as priests. The director is objectively wrong. We can recognize that without making any judgments about what is going on inside his head.
3. How does a priest determine the state of Joe Biden's soul on that particular Sunday and deny him communion?
The priest does not need to determine the state of Joe Biden's soul. The priest follows canon law on the matter as interpreted
by the Congregation for Faith and Morals. It is an objective matter that “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” constitutes “personal formal cooperation” in grave sin. Such actions by politicians are considered public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion rather than a judgement on the subjective state of the their souls.
4. How many bad actions do we need before condemning the person? Is 1 enough or does it need to be 6, 10, 49? By the time they out themselves they may have 1 million followers and it is too late to do much about it. Their cult members are ensnared.
Every single time that a public person commits a bad action or gives a wrong teaching, those actions and teachings ought to be condemned. It is our duty to judge actions and teachings. But we have no business condemning people. We are not the ones who judge whether a person is going to hell or not. Pointing out the wrong actions and teachings ought to be sufficient to prevent the person from gaining followers. If that does not work, then it seems unlikely that condemning the person would make any difference.
5. Tradition would not exist without Lefebvre who started the SSPX and made the decisions he did by judging the consciences of bad clergy in Rome. He concluded that they were waiting for him to die but there was never any direct evidence of this. When he did the consecrations in 1988, it could easily be argued that he was judging the hierarchy to be acting in "bad faith" or in other words judging their collective consciences. History proved him right, but it was far from obvious at the time and some significant number of people left the SSPX over that act.
I know of no evidence that he judged anybody's conscience. As I understand it, he ordained the bishops in 1988 because he believed (with good reason) that it was necessary for the survival of the Church and the salvation of souls. And yes, history does seem to have proven him right. But I see no reason to think that he was making judgments about the subjective state of people's souls. He was judging objective actions and teachings. As a shepherd of souls, this was even more his duty than the general duty that all of us have to do this.
-
How is not committing sins that one has never been tempted to commit a virtue?
Imagine there was a 10 year old boy from a middle of the road Catholic family who read the story of Dominic Savio and decided to reject and fly from sɛҳuąƖ temptation.
He completely avoided porn and therefore had no real temptation towards it as he never became addicted. He courted women but never allowed himself to be in an occasion of sin with them. He never masturbated and in doing so he never had a strong urge to masturbate because he was not after the dopamine rush.
Would such a teenager merit any reward on his own merit or would it all be down to God? This teen has grown up in the same porn filled world with lust sold on every billboard but some how through the strength of his will has avoided all serious sɛҳuąƖ sins.
Would you define such a teenager as "better" than the vast majority of teenagers? Or just lucky that God did not subject him to the same temptations?
Difficult then to see how our works merit heaven.
-
You keep going on and on about that one thing that Greg said. So what if he said he's better than Voris. I don't see that as a such a HUGE cause for concern. I, for one, also think that Greg is better than Voris. So there. And I'm not the only one.
That is a rather strange response to a post in which I said nothing about Greg. I was addressing the question of the OP about what is the difference between judgmentalism and prudential judgment. I used a comment of yours as an example of prudential judgment and explained why it was this rather than judgmentalism. I am not sure why anyone would consider that to be "going on and on" about Greg.
-
I have to disagree with you on Lefebvre. Bishop Williamson makes it clear in a 1988 talk one month after his consecration that the Archbishops decision was very much based in judging the intentions (good will or bad will) of the men he was negotiating with. They had promised him a Bishop and then gave him various reasons for delaying.
Surely, as his religious superiors in Rome he should have given them the benefit of the doubt and trusted in God's providence?
What he actually did is makes a judgment that they were duplicitous rats, who could not be trusted, and the stakes were too high since it would leave his society dead in the water. He subjected himself to excommunication on this basis, since he was sure he was right.
They didn't tell him they were duplicitous rats and I am sure they treated him very politely and nicely as this is what frauds do when they are trying to trick you.
-
It could be Opus Dei, yes. I too wonder about who controls it. Voris has said in the past that he is not a member of Opus Dei, but he believes that Opus Dei offers the best solution to the problems in the Church. You may be aware of that already.
Voris' good friend and benefactor, Marc Brammer is bigtime Opus Dei. There is a link
-
Imagine there was a 10 year old boy from a middle of the road Catholic family who read the story of Dominic Savio and decided to reject and fly from sɛҳuąƖ temptation.
He completely avoided porn and therefore had no real temptation towards it as he never became addicted. He courted women but never allowed himself to be in an occasion of sin with them. He never masturbated and in doing so he never had a strong urge to masturbate because he was not after the dopamine rush.
Would such a teenager merit any reward on his own merit or would it all be down to God? This teen has grown up in the same porn filled world with lust sold on every billboard but some how through the strength of his will has avoided all serious sɛҳuąƖ sins.
Would you define such a teenager as "better" than the vast majority of teenagers? Or just lucky that God did not subject him to the same temptations?
Difficult then to see how our works merit heaven.
There almost certainly are people whose lives are more meritorious than others. God knows who they are. Sometimes, in the case of canonized Saints, they are held up as examples for us. But we are not in a position to make these judgments about others. And it is probably even worse to make such a judgment about oneself.
I cannot think of any Saint who said anything that even approached claiming that he deserved rewards on his own merits. Any Saint that I know of spoke of his own unworthiness and sinfulness, if he said anything about it. Saints, pretty consistently, attribute all the good that they do to the grace of God. It seems to me that we ought to imitate them.
-
I have to disagree with you on Lefebvre. Bishop Williamson makes it clear in a 1988 talk one month after his consecration that the Archbishops decision was very much based in judging the intentions (good will or bad will) of the men he was negotiating with. They had promised him a Bishop and then gave him various reasons for delaying.
Surely, as his religious superiors in Rome he should have given them the benefit of the doubt and trusted in God's providence?
What he actually did is makes a judgment that they were duplicitous rats, who could not be trusted, and the stakes were too high since it would leave his society dead in the water. He subjected himself to excommunication on this basis, since he was sure he was right.
They didn't tell him they were duplicitous rats and I am sure they treated him very politely and nicely as this is what frauds do when they are trying to trick you.
This seems to be your personal interpretation rather than anything than anything ++Lefebvre actually said. I would be interested in seeing some quotes from him that indicate that was judging their souls rather than their actions. It was clear enough that they were delaying giving him a bishop. That was cause enough for him to act.
-
Voris' good friend and benefactor, Marc Brammer is bigtime Opus Dei. There is a link
Good to know. So there is an Opus Dei supporter of CMTV.
-
If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these thesis, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (said 10 years before the consecrations in 1978 )
Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)
“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome are being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even in His Mystical Body here below… This is what has brought down upon our hearts persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work on the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican on Religious Liberty prove…” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to the future Bishops, Aug 29, 1987)
I am pretty sure those are judgments by Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
And these
“So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…”( Archbishop Lefebvre, Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988 )
He does not merely judge them but says they are condemned!!!
No beating around the bush there.
“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Address to his priests, Econe, 1990)
-
I found it at 5mins in the video below.
The "Archbishop clearly understood",
In short, he judged them Ratzinger and others to be duplicitous Had he believed them to be sincere he would not have done it. There was no action on their part that triggered it. He judged the complex mixture of their minds, behaviors and gauged their intention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A3iVQixyTg& (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A3iVQixyTg&)
Lefebvre never met JP2 in the 1988 discussions.
-
1) I never heard of him before 4-5 months ago;
2) He is promoted by all the wrong people;
3) He is supportive of the rallied SSPX;
4) Never heard him promote the Resistance.
All of this adds up to an unavoidable conclusion:
He is basically an indultarian.
Um the term should be indulter or indulteress
-
I hear phrases like "there but for the grace of God go I", but the undeniable truth is that Marcel Lefebvre was a better man than Joseph Stalin. If Marcel Lefebvre judged himself to be "better than Stalin" in the 1940s, why would it be wrong? It is the truth after all. I don't see how holding a view that is true can ever be wrong, or arrogant.
If Marcel Lefebvre thought he was a worse sinner that Stalin, or about the same, I would question his sanity. Pious sounding platitudes cannot trump the objective truth. Everyone posting regularly on this forum is "better" than Jeffrey Epstein or the Head of Planned Parenthood. That last sentence is hardly a wildly presumptous statement.
Humility of Heart,
Fr. Cajetan Mary da Bergamo
Thoughts and Sentiments on Humility
11. There is no Saint however holy and innocent who may not truly consider himself the greatest sinner in the world. It is enough that he knows himself to be man to recognize that he is liable to commit all the evil of which man is capable. As man, I have in my corrupt nature a proclivity to every evil; and so far as I am concerned I am quite capable of committing all kinds of sin, and if I do not commit them it is through a special grace of God which preserves and restrains me.
A tree does not fall while bending under its own weight, and this must be attributed to the strength of its support; and in the same way if I have not fallen into every kind of iniquity, it must not be attributed to my own inherent virtue but only to Divine grace, which by its goodness has supported me. Therefore how can I esteem myself more than another whilst we are all equal in human weakness? "For what is my strength?" [Job vi, 11] I am a son of Adam like every other man, born in sin, inclined to sin, and ever ready to fall into sin. I have no need of the devil to tempt me to sin; my own concupiscence is only too great a temptation; and if God were to withdraw from me His protecting and helping hand, I know that I should be precipitated headlong from bad to worse. When St. Augustine made his examen of conscience, he did not always find sufficient to excite within him sorrow and contrition, so he dwelt on those sins which he might or would have committed had he not been preserved from them by God's infinite mercy; and he grieved and accused himself and humbly implored pardon of God for the evil capacity he had to commit all kinds of heinous and impious sins. In this practice is to be found an exercise of true humility.