Author Topic: YOU - on the RIGHT (Read 3048 times)

cassini · « **on:** March 14, 2014, 04:01:27 PM »

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-03-13

I did not know there is a RIGHT (WING?) Catholic, did you? I know there is a LEFT-(WING) Catholic. I thought a Catholic is a Catholic who adheres to the faith and defends this Catholicity out of Charity. To defend tradition against the utterences of a pope's modernism - one is RIGHT WING - 'responsible for the souls one causes to be lost.' Since when did tradition lead souls to be lost?

I wonder what VORIS considers himself, a middle wing Catholic? Sit-on-the-fence Catholics?

What do you think after watching this?

songbird · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:21:26 PM »

voris can not see the wood for the forest that surrounds him. But, who am I to judge? Ha! Does he tell you who is correct? I didn't catch it,if he did. I ignore him. He has had traditionalist communicate with him and yet he stays where he is, in an indult. Trouble is, whenever pope or papacy is mentioned, people either forget or are ignorant that there is a definition to pope and to nomination. Maybe one day he will get it. And when he does, there will be no money making, if he decides to come to the "Right".

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:27:16 PM »

I am certain that he has been told: "If you were right then, we are right now. If you are wrong now, you were wrong then." We believe what you once were, We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshipped.

Man of the West · « **Reply #3 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:45:23 PM »

Voris' attitude is about what I'd expect from a Notre Dame alum. Catholicism seems to be at most for him a sort of professional affiliation, a club to which he belongs and vies to be the official spokesman of.

I have no doubt that he accepts the Catholic creed, but in terms of his actual life and conduct and interaction with the modern world, he acts no different from the Mormons down the street.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:46:42 PM »

He’s from the “don’t worry, be happy” camp. They, too, go to Hell, but quietly. Yep! :cool:

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2014, 05:39:37 PM »

Quote from: cassini

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-03-13

I did not know there is a RIGHT (WING?) Catholic, did you? I know there is a LEFT-(WING) Catholic. I thought a Catholic is a Catholic who adheres to the faith and defends this Catholicity out of Charity. To defend tradition against the utterences of a pope's modernism - one is RIGHT WING - 'responsible for the souls one causes to be lost.' Since when did tradition lead souls to be lost?

I wonder what VORIS considers himself, a middle wing Catholic? Sit-on-the-fence Catholics?

What do you think after watching this?

From the outset, Voris tells a lie. He speaks a falsehood when he says the following:

Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia: Where Peter is, there is the Church. [So far, so good; but then he goes hog-wild and makes a fool of himself, when he says......]

Without the Papacy, there is no Church.

Apparently Michael Voris was absent that day in Logic class when they talked about the fundamentals of thinking (but wait, that was the ENTIRE CLASS!!)?

Let's take a closer look. "Where my wallet is, there is my driver's license." Okay, but what about the flip side of this coin: "Without my wallet, there is no driver's license." Uhhh, no, sometimes I carry my license in my pocket without my wallet. Sometimes I empty my wallet to clean it out. Sometimes I throw away my wallet and get a new one, &c.

During an interregnum, for example there is no pope. Does that mean there is no Church? Likewise, the pope could be non campus mentis. Does that mean the Church itself is not of sound mind?

There are many possibilities, obviously, but to say that "Where Peter is, there is the Church," does not translate to the Church's non-existence in the absence of a competent pope on active duty. It just doesn't.

Further on, Voris say that it is a "sin of disobedience" to notice when the pope says something scandalous (not Voris' words). He's talking in context of the Pope "coming out and saying something definitive against abortion or in defense of traditional marriage..." But wait. When has Pope Francis EVER said one thing definitive about ANYTHING? His first priority, it would seem has been to AVOID DEFINITION AT ALL COSTS. Everything he says is so deliberately VAGUE and AMBIGUOUS, that he gropes at straws to find some nuance of unexplored triviality yet to be untouched by his predecessors. At some point we must ask, "How could there be anything else left to misinterpret?"

"But, when he says something that needs more clarity -- and he does; he is a MAN, after all -- then they POUNCE, distort, mistranslate and so forth, and make sure it gets on EVERY SINGLE PAGE of the Internet you can find!"

Really? When Francis is vague, ambiguous or otherwise "says something that needs more clarity" (Voris' own words), it's excusable because he is a MAN, but when anyone ELSE speaks out against it, suddenly THEY are committing SIN of DISOBEDIENCE because they seek a clarification of that which "needs more clarity" (Voris' own words)?

"Does the Holy Father's STYLE give them FODDER? Sure! But they are being DISINGENUOUS in their actions, and for those in the Church, they are committing the sin of disobedience, because behind their manipulation is their DESIRE to so DESTABILIZE the Church that most Catholics will simply IGNORE the TEACHING."

GOOD GRIEF.

This is just NUTS.

Voris has simply LOST IT. The Holy Father's style gives them fodder, okay, but then Voris presumes to know their intentions, that is, a desire to destabilize the Church!!

So when the Pope says things that objectively destabilize the Church, without anyone being able to prove the contrary ---- do we need a list here of Francis' destabilizing statements, like "I believe in a God but not in a Catholic God?" or, in regards to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, "Who am I to judge?" when he has NO PROBLEM judging the Franciscans of the Immaculate when they start to convert and become actually Catholic, or when he says that "No, no, no" (wagging his finger) that Catholics should not encourage anyone to convert and be Catholic to save their soul ---- this is his own "style" of "teaching" the faithful, and anyone who dares to THINK and to NOTICE that the elephant in the middle of the room is dumping a load on the white shag carpet, it's a "sin of disobedience?" Why? Because they're IGNORING THE TEACHING?

KYRIE ELEISON.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2014, 06:37:17 PM »

Quote from: songbird

I am certain that he has been told: "If you were right then, we are right now. If you are wrong now, you were wrong then." We believe what you once were, We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshipped.

You've got it all mixed up, songbird. There is a logical progression that matters. It goes like this:

To modern Catholics:

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshiped.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
If you were right then, we are right, now.

The problem with this is, it doesn't mean much to Michael Voris because he isn't old enough. He represents the transition group that is inevitable as heresy begins to morph into a new breed of tradition. This happened during the Arian heresy to a lesser degree, but now, it's all-encompassing, and generally too overwhelming for most simple-minded Catholics to comprehend because it is the synthesis of ALL HERESIES, not just one heresy like that of Arius.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2014, 06:49:14 PM »

.

Quote from: cassini

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-03-13

The link I copied was not active because I did not ADD A SPACE in front of it.

.

cassini · « **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2014, 06:58:37 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: cassini
http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-03-13

I did not know there is a RIGHT (WING?) Catholic, did you? I know there is a LEFT-(WING) Catholic. I thought a Catholic is a Catholic who adheres to the faith and defends this Catholicity out of Charity. To defend tradition against the utterences of a pope's modernism - one is RIGHT WING - 'responsible for the souls one causes to be lost.' Since when did tradition lead souls to be lost?

I wonder what VORIS considers himself, a middle wing Catholic? Sit-on-the-fence Catholics?

What do you think after watching this?

From the outset, Voris tells a lie. He speaks a falsehood when he says the following:

Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia: Where Peter is, there is the Church. [So far, so good; but then he goes hog-wild and makes a fool of himself, when he says......]

Without the Papacy, there is no Church.

Apparently Michael Voris was absent that day in Logic class when they talked about the fundamentals of thinking (but wait, that was the ENTIRE CLASS!!)?

Let's take a closer look. "Where my wallet is, there is my driver's license." Okay, but what about the flip side of this coin: "Without my wallet, there is no driver's license." Uhhh, no, sometimes I carry my license in my pocket without my wallet. Sometimes I empty my wallet to clean it out. Sometimes I throw away my wallet and get a new one, &c.

During an interregnum, for example there is no pope. Does that mean there is no Church? Likewise, the pope could be non campus mentis. Does that mean the Church itself is not of sound mind?

There are many possibilities, obviously, but to say that "Where Peter is, there is the Church," does not translate to the Church's non-existence in the absence of a competent pope on active duty. It just doesn't.

Further on, Voris say that it is a "sin of disobedience" to notice when the pope says something scandalous (not Voris' words). He's talking in context of the Pope "coming out and saying something definitive against abortion or in defense of traditional marriage..." But wait. When has Pope Francis EVER said one thing definitive about ANYTHING? His first priority, it would seem has been to AVOID DEFINITION AT ALL COSTS. Everything he says is so deliberately VAGUE and AMBIGUOUS, that he gropes at straws to find some nuance of unexplored triviality yet to be untouched by his predecessors. At some point we must ask, "How could there be anything else left to misinterpret?"

"But, when he says something that needs more clarity -- and he does; he is a MAN, after all -- then they POUNCE, distort, mistranslate and so forth, and make sure it gets on EVERY SINGLE PAGE of the Internet you can find!"

Really? When Francis is vague, ambiguous or otherwise "says something that needs more clarity" (Voris' own words), it's excusable because he is a MAN, but when anyone ELSE speaks out against it, suddenly THEY are committing SIN of DISOBEDIENCE because they seek a clarification of that which "needs more clarity" (Voris' own words)?

"Does the Holy Father's STYLE give them FODDER? Sure! But they are being DISINGENUOUS in their actions, and for those in the Church, they are committing the sin of disobedience, because behind their manipulation is their DESIRE to so DESTABILIZE the Church that most Catholics will simply IGNORE the TEACHING."

GOOD GRIEF.

This is just NUTS.

Voris has simply LOST IT. The Holy Father's style gives them fodder, okay, but then Voris presumes to know their intentions, that is, a desire to destabilize the Church!!

So when the Pope says things that objectively destabilize the Church, without anyone being able to prove the contrary ---- do we need a list here of Francis' destabilizing statements, like "I believe in a God but not in a Catholic God?" or, in regards to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, "Who am I to judge?" when he has NO PROBLEM judging the Franciscans of the Immaculate when they start to convert and become actually Catholic, or when he says that "No, no, no" (wagging his finger) that Catholics should not encourage anyone to convert and be Catholic to save their soul ---- this is his own "style" of "teaching" the faithful, and anyone who dares to THINK and to NOTICE that the elephant in the middle of the room is dumping a load on the white shag carpet, it's a "sin of disobedience?" Why? Because they're IGNORING THE TEACHING?

KYRIE ELEISON.

I really enjoyed that Neil, thanks.

I agree, Voris, who I liked, has got himself into a hole that not even he can word his way out of. To me it is a fruit of Pope Francis's modernism (one minute they are Catholic, the next they are not). Anyone needing a lesson in how such 'papal' ambiguity can destroy the Catholic integrity of a good man (Voris) need do no more than watch this episode. He has blasted the 'left' often, and now the 'right,' so who or what does he think are left to teach? Again I ask, is there a middle Catholic? Are these the Catholics who go to the indult on Sunday and the NO during the week?

cassini · « **Reply #9 on:** March 17, 2014, 04:16:51 PM »

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-03-17

The latest defence of his position by Voris. Blackmail? You will 'lose your soul if you ...............

could someone ask him if one can legitimately PUBLICLY criticise DEAD popes? I mean after all, two of them are about to be made saints and that could cause some to lose their faith and lose their soul.

What is right for the goose should also apply to the gander.

Any sedevacantists here? brother Dimond - you are Voris damned.

According to Voris all on these threads are risking their souls.

This is serious stuff, What about the SSPX, by example they are showing a public criticism of all post Vatican II popes.

songbird · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2014, 04:26:14 PM »

The Threads are risking Voris' business. Good!

cassini · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2014, 01:37:18 PM »

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-03-14

Here Voris warns bishops of their judgement.

Isn't Pope Francis Bishop of Rome? Shame on you Voris.

rlee · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2014, 07:18:49 AM »

"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See-----they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations."-----Melchior Cano, Theologian from the Council of Trent

Voris is a prominent example of why, in matters Catholic, there is no good outside the compact bullseye of the Magisterium. A cannon fired just slightly out of aim misses the target every time. The bullseye of the Faith is well defined and tolerates no expansion by television evangelists, even if well meaning.

It's too bad that the vacuum created by the Shepherds being struck is filled with so many who have decided that being amatuer preachers is great business (Cruise Ship and Dude Ranch retreats, are you kidding me!?).

When was this ever traditional?

Thanks Cassini for sharing this.