Michael Voris
#21
(10-27-2012, 06:37 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-27-2012, 06:27 PM)SpiderDweeb Wrote: I think Boris has become disappointed with the neo-con crowd and is embracing the trad movement more and more.

As any red-blooded Russian man is wont to do.

:rofl:
Reply
#22
(10-27-2012, 02:12 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: We do not.  It was a non-dogmatic council and it taught error.  I don't think Voris is one of those guys who says it was interpreted wrong.  I think this crowd is interesting because the people who say the problem is in interpretation never say which parts we are interpreting wrong.  They just say there was a liberal highjacking of the teachings of the council but don't appeal to the council to prove it.

To be fair, some have tried to show how certain documents (e.g., LG, DH) don't contradict prior teaching, but what's really interesting is how they make their attempts from very different angles.  You would think that proving B doesn't contradict A would be simple and straight forward.
Reply
#23
(10-27-2012, 08:49 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-27-2012, 02:12 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: We do not.  It was a non-dogmatic council and it taught error.  I don't think Voris is one of those guys who says it was interpreted wrong.  I think this crowd is interesting because the people who say the problem is in interpretation never say which parts we are interpreting wrong.  They just say there was a liberal highjacking of the teachings of the council but don't appeal to the council to prove it.

To be fair, some have tried to show how certain documents (e.g., LG, DH) don't contradict prior teaching, but what's really interesting is how they make their attempts from very different angles.  You would think that proving B doesn't contradict A would be simple and straight forward.

I didn't word that right.  What I mean is that no one uses VII documents to combat the misinterpretations of VII.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#24
(10-27-2012, 09:38 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-27-2012, 08:49 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-27-2012, 02:12 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: We do not.  It was a non-dogmatic council and it taught error.  I don't think Voris is one of those guys who says it was interpreted wrong.  I think this crowd is interesting because the people who say the problem is in interpretation never say which parts we are interpreting wrong.  They just say there was a liberal highjacking of the teachings of the council but don't appeal to the council to prove it.

To be fair, some have tried to show how certain documents (e.g., LG, DH) don't contradict prior teaching, but what's really interesting is how they make their attempts from very different angles.  You would think that proving B doesn't contradict A would be simple and straight forward.

I didn't word that right.  What I mean is that no one uses VII documents to combat the misinterpretations of VII.

Just say "hermeneutic of continuity" three times fast, close your eyes, and all your problems disappear.
Reply
#25
(10-27-2012, 10:29 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: His principle, if I understand it well, is that below the Pope is open season. He won't criticize the Pope. So the Council is part of the papal actions. With that said, if you listen to him you can see that he has opinions. He isn't in willful denial, so to speak. He spoke about VII on one of his Mic'd Up shows, and he distinguished between the Council as an official act of the Church, and the subsequent rebellion of the bishops and faithful in its wake -- artificial contraception being the point of explosion. Note this topic was removed from debate and taken off the agenda by Paul VI in the Council (as was women's ordination). In the speeches, though, the Bishops said quite clearly that were a good number already contracepting, and itching for acceptance of it. 1968 was when it just hit all-out open rebellion. The sexual revolution took any problems relating to the Council and hyper-drived them into the insanity we have now. "Do what thou wilt" was the motto. Ultimately Voris is in the model of Fulton Sheen. Fulton Sheen remained tough, orthodox, and a clear voice for the Faith, while he accepted the validity and liceity of the New Mass, and believed in the vision of the Council. It's essentially the same view, except updated for our time, since he has over 30 years of more information by which he can judge the situation.
He is friendly with traditionalists, and seems sympathetic to the SSPX's situation. Since there are 51 flavors of traditionalism, the label is somewhat useless at this point for describing someone beyond an attachment to the traditional Mass. I do believe that he is a positive influence and contribution to the Church today.

This one: http://en.gloria.tv/?media=262993
And many others.

      I share your sentiments and views on clergy who use VC II  to promote  heterodox  agendas  that were/are never part of the VC II's "vision."  That is just my personal observation; but  I believe we can safely say something is wrong in the Church today.    There are clergy who openly disobey Vatican mandates while others distort greatly the same.  Take for instance the "Morning After Pill" the Vatican says this is a form of abortion.  But there are whole dioceses where MAP use is allowed even in Catholic hospital settings.  This is more or less open rebellion to the Vatican.

Militaris Christi





       



Reply
#26
(10-27-2012, 02:04 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-27-2012, 01:35 PM)TradCathYouth Wrote:
(10-27-2012, 06:54 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: I've noticed the opposite. He's gotten much more trad these days.

This is what I've noticed as well.

Yes, he's even refusing to go in the tank for Romney, which is admirable.

Taco Bell is da bomb.   :eats:
The above.

Reply
#27
It might be the bomb if you've never had authentic Mexican food.
Reply
#28
(10-27-2012, 11:10 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: It might be the bomb if you've never had authentic Mexican food.

Oh dear.  No one is claiming Taco Bell is authentic anything.  It is what it is, which is a once every three months or so treat.  I'd eat it more often but it's unhealthy.  And expensive.  And it seems like every time I go there the entire cast of Glee is working the counter. 

My goodness, people on FE really will argue about anything.  :rofl:
Reply
#29
(10-27-2012, 06:54 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: I've noticed the opposite. He's gotten much more trad these days.

Me too!
Reply
#30
(10-27-2012, 10:29 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: His principle, if I understand it well, is that below the Pope is open season. He won't criticize the Pope. So the Council is part of the papal actions. With that said, if you listen to him you can see that he has opinions. He isn't in willful denial, so to speak. He spoke about VII on one of his Mic'd Up shows, and he distinguished between the Council as an official act of the Church, and the subsequent rebellion of the bishops and faithful in its wake -- artificial contraception being the point of explosion. Note this topic was removed from debate and taken off the agenda by Paul VI in the Council (as was women's ordination). In the speeches, though, the Bishops said quite clearly that were a good number already contracepting, and itching for acceptance of it. 1968 was when it just hit all-out open rebellion. The sexual revolution took any problems relating to the Council and hyper-drived them into the insanity we have now. "Do what thou wilt" was the motto. Ultimately Voris is in the model of Fulton Sheen. Fulton Sheen remained tough, orthodox, and a clear voice for the Faith, while he accepted the validity and liceity of the New Mass, and believed in the vision of the Council. It's essentially the same view, except updated for our time, since he has over 30 years of more information by which he can judge the situation.

He is friendly with traditionalists, and seems sympathetic to the SSPX's situation. Since there are 51 flavors of traditionalism, the label is somewhat useless at this point for describing someone beyond an attachment to the traditional Mass. I do believe that he is a positive influence and contribution to the Church today.



This one: http://en.gloria.tv/?media=262993

And many others.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)