Author Topic: Is Michael Voris a legitimate voice? (Read 2247 times)

LaramieHirsch · « **on:** August 22, 2011, 04:47:21 PM »

Howdy Cathinfo. I posted this same question over at the other forum, and I'm wondering what y'all think.

I'm watching Voris' "No Bull in Madrid" talk. And a fact comes to my mind. At the head of the vanguard of the Catholics' army, as we charge against the world that is being taken over by Lucifer--at the head is Michael Voris. It is a former newscaster who is leading this charge. Not a pope, bishop, or priest. But a media guy.

Is this right? Proper? Is the man in his proper place? Does he speak with proper authority? Would he be allowed to speak like this at the height of the Church?

Don't get me wrong, I like Voris. But...he's a former media guy who preaches much like protestant youth group ministers when I was a baptist. And he's preaching on matters of faith and culture.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2011, 04:58:03 PM »

What other forum?

Michael who?

Arborman · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2011, 07:04:24 PM »

I saw Michael Voris speak at my old NO Parish and he was very impressive! Some of the priests there were squirming in their seats when he talked about the theology of the Mass. He talked with no notes for 30-40 minutes and sounded very traditional.

Even though he was impressive I do not support him because of his lack of support for the SSPX

Sigismund · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2011, 08:29:05 PM »

I have not seen that much of his stuff, but he seems generally sound.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2011, 09:20:16 AM »

I discovered Michael Voris when I was still NO. I found him to be a voice in the wilderness, really. Every time I went to Mass, I came home angry and confused about something and Michael Voris gave me validation for what I was experiencing.

So, IMO, he does have a purpose. 11 out of 12 bishops or priests are either perverted, modernists, liberals, or corrupt. They no longer are able to be the teachers or leaders the Church needs. People who consider themselves faithful Catholics are being led down the road to Perdition and don't even know it.

Sadly, the NO needs people like Michael Voris to open their eyes.

However, I do not support Michael Voris currently. I think he is hopelessly stuck in the conciliar Church and blind to some things, especially in his defense of the Popes.

I do believe, though, that eventually Mr. Voris will see things much more clearly in the future.

Man of the West · « **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2011, 09:35:56 AM »

I fully agree with you, Mom of Seven. I converted to Catholicism through the Novus Ordo, and Michael Voris was an immeasurable assistence to me when it came to keeping the faith in that toxic environment. I've also lamented his pope-worship, but I trust that he will come around as well.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #6 on:** August 23, 2011, 03:43:14 PM »

He says a lot of things about Catholic issues, even basics, which are completely lacking in the mindset of most of your pewsitters.

The only thing I've ever objected to was his treatment of the SSPX, which is erroneous, about their canonicity and seems to ignore what Cardinal Hoyos has already said.

Anyhow, anyone who's helping get the tires back on the vehicle and changing the oil, can't be all that bad.

He's even a Monarchist.

Sigismund · « **Reply #7 on:** August 23, 2011, 06:29:49 PM »

A monarchist? Really? Wow.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** August 23, 2011, 08:57:33 PM »

Quote from: Arborman

I saw Michael Voris speak at my old NO Parish and he was very impressive! Some of the priests there were squirming in their seats when he talked about the theology of the Mass. He talked with no notes for 30-40 minutes and sounded very traditional.

Even though he was impressive I do not support him because of his lack of support for the SSPX

He does not have a "lack of support for the SSPX".

He positively condemns the SSPX as schismatic and outside the Church and a danger to souls. This is just one of many reasons I don't pay him too much mind.

Caminus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 23, 2011, 09:39:18 PM »

It is somewhat subjective. When I reconverted, I used to read and listen to all the neo-conservative pop-apologist stuff. But as I progressed towards traditional Catholicism, they not only lost their usefulness, but I discovered that they were actually harmful in many respects.

Caraffa · « **Reply #10 on:** August 23, 2011, 09:58:50 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

A monarchist? Really? Wow.

Yes, but of the type monarchy he advocates is close to what some call regalism, which might work when you have a decent Catholic in charge, but can pretty much lead to state positivism otherwise.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #11 on:** August 23, 2011, 10:22:35 PM »

Voris never said the SSPX was in schism, but he doesn't seem to be aware of what Ecclesia Dei had to say about it. Anyway. He gets a lot of flack from the same kinds of people the SSPX gets flack from. Big shock there...

Actually, the following is the official statement, which I think is sadly misinformed. I don't know if anyone's tried to inform Mr. Voris about how his position is erroneous, but I can't imagine he's been too concerned about it either.

Quote

Dear.....,

Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX and was excommunicated from the Church as a consequence of his illegitimate ordination of bishops without the proper papal mandate. The SSPX remain out of communion with the Church and none of their bishops or priests exercise legitimate ministry within the Church.

The position of RealCatholicTV.com concerning the SSPX is that of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, as expressed in his motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, issued July 2, 2009:

In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the "Society of St Pius X" to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

There are two important points here:

1) The SSPX are not in full communion with the Church and are invited by the Church to rediscover this path.
2) The SSPX has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

We are well aware of ongoing dialog between the SSPX and Rome. It is to be fervently hoped that these dialogs result in a return of the SSPX to full communion with the Church, granting their bishops and clergy canonical status and the authority to exercise ministry. Until such time as this occurs, our judgment must remain that of the Holy Father.

Accordingly, we believe there is “an obstacle” to receiving the Sacraments from an SSPX minister. Namely, to receive the sacrament from them would be (firstly) to encourage another human being to disobey the Church (by illicitly offering ministry) and (secondly) to participate in an illicit act.

We cannot and will not condone or support such actions. We hope and pray the SSPX will “rediscover the path to full communion with the Church”.

God bless you.

Terry Carroll
Executive Producer

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=395913&sid=1ebf68a51097cb60d11459bf45f9b883

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #12 on:** August 23, 2011, 10:23:19 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

Quote from: Sigismund
A monarchist? Really? Wow.

Yes, but of the type monarchy he advocates is close to what some call regalism, which might work when you have a decent Catholic in charge, but can pretty much lead to state positivism otherwise.

No, he advocates a Catholic Monarchy.

TKGS · « **Reply #13 on:** August 24, 2011, 10:55:08 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Voris never said the SSPX was in schism, but he doesn't seem to be aware of what Ecclesia Dei had to say about it. Anyway. He gets a lot of flack from the same kinds of people the SSPX gets flack from. Big shock there...

Forgive me, I don't have the evidence at hand. But Voris, or his spokesman, did indeed say that the SSPX is schismatic. It was in an email reply to a friend (who shared it with me). The friend was trying to get Voris to look to the SSPX but he refused because, he said, they were schismatic.

I'm not sure if this reply was directly from Voris or his lately discredited assistant. But it was made as being the direct policy of the Voris organization.

In any event, as it stands now, it is just hearsay. On the other hand, what doesn't he "seem to be awar of what Ecclesia Dei had to say"? Does he say "not in communion" rather than "schismatic"? If so, what's the difference?

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #14 on:** August 25, 2011, 01:25:45 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Augstine Baker
Voris never said the SSPX was in schism, but he doesn't seem to be aware of what Ecclesia Dei had to say about it. Anyway. He gets a lot of flack from the same kinds of people the SSPX gets flack from. Big shock there...

Forgive me, I don't have the evidence at hand. But Voris, or his spokesman, did indeed say that the SSPX is schismatic. It was in an email reply to a friend (who shared it with me). The friend was trying to get Voris to look to the SSPX but he refused because, he said, they were schismatic.

I'm not sure if this reply was directly from Voris or his lately discredited assistant. But it was made as being the direct policy of the Voris organization.

In any event, as it stands now, it is just hearsay. On the other hand, what doesn't he "seem to be awar of what Ecclesia Dei had to say"? Does he say "not in communion" rather than "schismatic"? If so, what's the difference?

Yeah, I could actually see him saying that they are Schismatic, but I've never seen him actually say it.

I hope he finds the time to educate himself like others are about the true status of the SSPX.