Wooooow....Shea goes after Voris
#31
(04-15-2011, 01:34 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-15-2011, 01:22 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: There was an Anglican bishop who converted some time ago and stunned some by not demanding to be given some sort of Church office.  If I recall correctly, he said that this was a chance for him to become versed in the faith.

The point is that converts at the very least need time before educating others in the Faith because 2000 years of organic development is a lot to handle.  Clearly, given the bizarreness eminating from various Neo enclaves, most don't have a good grasp.

There are some very good and orthodox converts though, obviously.  Many of whom are members on the forum. :)

I understand what you are saying, but I can't blame the lack of grasp solely on the converts who suffer it.  It's not like the bishops are demanding a good grasp from them.  In fact, there are too many bishops that probably think the convert Neo-Catholics over-converted.

I'm one of those converts! ;D  And, yes, people think I've "taken it to the extreme".
Reply
#32
I've been reading a number of neo-Catholic blogs on this issue and without being overly hopeful, this could be a beginning of a breakthrough moment for Militant Catholicism (not quite trad Catholicism but a good start-the rest will follow) in the English speaking world  I think a number of neo-Catholic bloggers are stunnedy by the defenses of Voris and their assertions of "He goes too far" or "He's mean."  aren't sufficient for people.  

The Neo-Catholics just need a comparatively small amount of overt  resistance to be rolled over.  If they are either converted or relegated to a small minority in the Church, that will be the last obstacle between the trads and the liberals and the liberals are the absolute wimpiest of Catholics.  They are so convinced of their hippy, peace and love and elitism, they are not prepared or capable of putting up a fight.  They will fold very quickly under trad attacks and either stay or go. They, in general do not have the fight in them that the liberals of the early and mid-20th century had.

I was watcing an old NIghtline episode the other day with a debate between Fr. James Lebar (RIP) and Fr. Richard McBrien on Exorcism.  McBrien was telling us his weakness the whole time and it hit me.  He denies possession and traditional understanding of the faith because he thinks it holds the Church up to ridicule.   My recent experiences on liberal websites and blogs has shown me that ridiculing liberals' ideas directly for what they are and attacking their idols intelligently with ridicule is something they just can't take.  Showing them they are imbibing in Karl Rahner who is a "poor man's incomplete and heretical Bonaventure" absolutely drives them up the wall.  
Reply
#33
(04-15-2011, 01:35 AM)Gerard Wrote: I was reminded of this quote from Pius X's "Pascendi" 

You could easily say that the Neo-Catholics are the children of the Modernists.  They hate the heirarchy of the Church prior to Vatican II in varying degrees, St. Peter was the first Pope and John XXIII was the second. 

"This being so, Venerable Brethren, there is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause."

This is very true.  And more then that, many neocaths I know act like JPII was the last....whenever BXVI says something as remotely "conservative" as even suggesting that the Latin mass is worth preserving or that people who "self-identify" as "gay" shouldn't be priests, suddenly there's all this handwringing about JPII's "era".

Voris will be vindicated when this whole mess rights itself...his vision is increasingly in line with what the faithful actually want.
Reply
#34
(04-15-2011, 02:07 PM)Gerard Wrote: I've been reading a number of neo-Catholic blogs on this issue and without being overly hopeful, this could be a beginning of a breakthrough moment for Militant Catholicism (not quite trad Catholicism but a good start-the rest will follow) in the English speaking world  I think a number of neo-Catholic bloggers are stunnedy by the defenses of Voris and their assertions of "He goes too far" or "He's mean."  aren't sufficient for people.  

The Neo-Catholics just need a comparatively small amount of overt  resistance to be rolled over.  If they are either converted or relegated to a small minority in the Church, that will be the last obstacle between the trads and the liberals and the liberals are the absolute wimpiest of Catholics.  They are so convinced of their hippy, peace and love and elitism, they are not prepared or capable of putting up a fight.  They will fold very quickly under trad attacks and either stay or go. They, in general do not have the fight in them that the liberals of the early and mid-20th century had.

I was watcing an old NIghtline episode the other day with a debate between Fr. James Lebar (RIP) and Fr. Richard McBrien on Exorcism.  McBrien was telling us his weakness the whole time and it hit me.  He denies possession and traditional understanding of the faith because he thinks it holds the Church up to ridicule.   My recent experiences on liberal websites and blogs has shown me that ridiculing liberals' ideas directly for what they are and attacking their idols intelligently with ridicule is something they just can't take.  Showing them they are imbibing in Karl Rahner who is a "poor man's incomplete and heretical Bonaventure" absolutely drives them up the wall.  

The light of Truth is blinding to those who live in the dark.  They don't like it.
Reply
#35
Patrick Archbold @ CMR comes to Voris' defense:

Quote:The Voris Kerfuffle

I am perplexed. Some of my blogging confreres are a in such a tizzy over the latest missive from the baron of bombast, the kaiser of choleric, Michael Voris. (Apologies to Bill Donohue)

Voris, about whom I am conflicted, did his daily soliloquy on the topic of a letter by Global Warming Inc. requesting that pastors devote the Easter Sunday homily to the topic of Earth Day.

Voris pointed out that global warming is a scam (check) by the forces of population control (check) to encourage people to contracept and abort their way to a greener planet (check).

Voris noted that all of this is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Church. Check again. He goes on to say that Catholics should abandon a Church that promotes such anti-Christian nonsense for the simple reason that this Church is not Catholic in any meaningful way.

He is, of course, right on all counts. But it is his suggested remedy that has unleashed the Catholic blogoshpere's ever ready desire to scold.

Voris suggested that if one hears a homily about Earth Day on Easter, that you should forgo the collection plate and resign from the Parish on Monday.

Even the hyperbolic suggestion of such incivility has given some bloggers the vapors.

Voris makes the case that any local Church that embraces such anti-life and anti-Catholic tomfoolery, especially on Easter Sunday, has probably lost its Catholicity. His conclusion may be questionable, but I think he at least has a point.

I am particularly amused by bloggers who make frequent use of hyperbole as a rhetorical cattle-prod are now so overcome with the brazenness of it all. One even used the hyperbolic and very misleading title "Did Michael Voris Instruct Catholics to Leave the Church?" as a launching point to discuss Voris' incivility. Apparently incivility is ok when deriding the uncivil. One day I will write the best-selling "Irony for Dummies".

While I do not entirely embrace Mr. Voris' remedy, I think he makes some really valid points. So what is all the hubbub about? Mark Shea accuses him of delusions that he is a Bishop. Mark makes a larger point about avoiding talking heads who think they are the arbiter of all things Catholic with which I generally agree, but I don't really see how Voris is supposed to be delusionally usurping the role of Bishop. I don't think he is.

Voris says that if your priest talks to you about global warming on the holiest day of the year instead of our resurrected Savior that your parish is likely so far gone that you should run, not walk, to an orthodox parish. What is so wrong about that?

When I ran into such craziness at my parish, the diocesan Director of Worship advised me to switch parishes, which I did. Was he playing bishop too?

Like I said, I am not sure that bypassing the collection plate and resigning from the parish is really the right remedy in this situation. I had tar and feathers in mind**.

**For those of you that have not yet read my soon to be published "Irony for Dummies",please note that the "tar and feathers" comment is hyperbole which is usually defined as an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally used to make a point. Get over it.

Bravo to Archbold and Voris!
Reply
#36
On the top of Mark Shea's blog article there is a text link titled "Michael Voris apparently does".  When clicked on it takes you to an April 13, 2011 article by Lisa Graas titled "Did Michael Voris Instruct Catholics to Leave the Church?" 

Yesterday I posted this as a comment to the article.
Quote:“Did Michael Voris Instruct Catholics to Leave the Church?”

Um … No.

Did you not watch the video?

Lisa Graas responded to my comment then a person by the name of Barbara Jensen responded to Lisa with concerns of "how critical the situation in the Catholic Church really is".  Lisa's response to Barbara mentions the "cult of personality", is basically whining because she is being "bombarded with these comments crying “FOUL” and includes this quote,
Quote:I’m critiquing this particular video, I am saying that “breathing one word about Earth Day” in a homily is not grounds for leaving a parish.

But to be truthful in Lisa's article she says more than that.  She makes it sound like Voris is asking people to leave the Church and Jesus.  Lisa is quoted as saying this in her article. 
Quote:As a Eucharistic convert, I’m very dismayed that anyone would ask you to walk out on Jesus

Today the comments on Lisa Graas' article titled "Did Michael Voris Instruct Catholics to Leave the Church?" are now closed.

My name (Mike) in my comment on Lisa Graas' article links to this thread.
Reply
#37
This should be the end of Mark Shea as a credible blogger, I'm afraid.  He's got too many conflicting allegiances.
Reply
#38
(04-15-2011, 06:11 AM)username123 Wrote: Just another johnny-come-lately convert along with Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Father Z etc. who are going to lecture the rest of us on what it means to be Catholic. These guys need a good Church history lesson before spouting off.

No I have absolutely nothing aginst converts. My wife is a convert. I just get agitated at these guys who seem to think that the II after John Paul's name means that he was the second pope after St. Peter. These Neo-Catholic converts weren't in the trenches trying to save the Faith after the shipwreck of V2. They weren't organizing mass centers in hotel conference rooms or garages. Now they are trying to throw overboard those who are trying to preserve the Faith as it has always been practiced. I simply have no time for their ilk.

:thumb:
Reply
#39
It's amazing how the "conservatives" are the ones that are more hateful towards pre vatican II and the old mass and devotions. You would be thinking that the really far out liberals would hate tradition and orthodoxy the most. Its actually the conservatives. Mention the motu proprio, triregnum, second confiteor and the conservatives start foaming at the mouth in convulsions. I liken this to Microsoft being the church and Windows XP being the NO. Rad libs like Pfleger are still living in the old days of Win XP service pack 2 and think it will last forever. Mark Shea, Hahn and the reform of the reformers are arguing if they should upgrade to service pack 3 edition to fix up XP with patches to recapture the true spirit of XP. The traditionalists said the heck with patching XP, lets reclaim the glory days and embrace Windows 7.
Mark Shea, Hahn etc are stuck in the middle. Like in the analogy, they aren't going back to terrible ad libbed NO. However, they aren't upgrading to the Traditional mass in all its glory and even frown upon those who want to reclaim that. They are happy with patching the NO with smells and bells and living that dream.
Reply
#40
(04-15-2011, 01:34 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-15-2011, 01:22 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: There was an Anglican bishop who converted some time ago and stunned some by not demanding to be given some sort of Church office.  If I recall correctly, he said that this was a chance for him to become versed in the faith.

The point is that converts at the very least need time before educating others in the Faith because 2000 years of organic development is a lot to handle.  Clearly, given the bizarreness emanating from various Neo enclaves, most don't have a good grasp.

There are some very good and orthodox converts though, obviously.  Many of whom are members on the forum. :)

I understand what you are saying, but I can't blame the lack of grasp solely on the converts who suffer it.  It's not like the bishops are demanding a good grasp from them.  In fact, there are too many bishops that probably think the convert Neo-Catholics over-converted.

True enough; I am a converso myself.  But since I'm new, I try to be very careful about how I discuss the faith, emphasizing that I am relatively new to the Faith and also hold no teach authority.

You are right on regarding the point about the Bishops.  I once said that the apologetics cottage industry is made possible because Bishops generally are not out there spreading the Faith, converting souls, and being good shepherds in this dangerous world.  In fact I would argue that lay apologetics as a movement and institution could be embraced, but the results have a very Protestant feel and often similar theology.

Part of the on going war on Voris by NeoCatholics is rooted in the fact that Voris has credentials.  This, and the fact that he has a distinct approach in promoting the faith in my view irks many in the NeoCatholic bloc.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)