Debate on Michael Voris; Particularly Focusing on His Lack of Specificity and Quasi-Defectibility Views

This occurred on my Facebook page, on 2 July 2013. Adrian Combe's words will be in blue; Felix Lopez' words in green.
* * * * *
Do you think the Church is 'all but destroyed'?

No. I'm fighting against this position. This is what Michael Voris thinks, according to his video that I critiqued a few days ago.

So, in your opinion, when God said to St. Francis, "Go and rebuild my church, which, as you see, is falling into ruin?", was He espousing the position of quasi-defectibility?

That's not near-destruction. It was a rough period (one of many through history): arguably much worse than what we are going through today. But St. Francis, like other saints, took the long view and had faith enough to look ahead to the coming revival. This is not what Voris is expressing. Here is an example of his rotgut, from June 21:

The Catholic Church in the West: the establishment Catholic Church, no longer operates with the same set of first principles that we once did [sic]. The entire self-understanding, our own self-conception has been jettisoned, and been replaced by an entirely new and rotten sense: rotten to the proverbial core. Leaders have traded away the notions of truth and goodness and beauty in exchange for accommodation and indifferentism and political correctness.

It would be difficult to find two people more vastly different in outlook than St. Francis (one of my very favorite saints) and Michael Voris. Good grief. Do you really want to go down that road?

I agree that Voris has fallen into this trap. In my opinion, it is probably more emotional/psychological though in which a fact check and some meditation, critical thinking can help relieve. It is not easy to see the good when there is so much rampant moral and spiritual decay that surrounds us daily and then to make matters worst we find it in our local parish on Sunday.

Actually, you can only rebuild something that has fallen apart, so not only does your distinction fail, the position from which St. Francis was operating was more dire than anything that Voris has expressed. 

Sheer nonsense . . . It's a matter of degree. The Church has had many rough periods. I cited Chesterton twice in the chapter I posted above, writing about all the decadent periods, but I didn't include those, to cut down on length. He, like St. Francis, was an optimist, and he noted that the Church always bounced back. He wasn't making a point that the Church's tradition has "been replaced by an entirely new and rotten sense" and all the other hogwash that Voris spews out with regularity.


'Sheer nonsense' is not an argument. There is nothing that Michael has said, or that anyone could say, that is more dire than a church that is falling into ruin and needs to be rebuilt.

I didn't say it was an argument (nice try): it was a comment on your very weak and misinformed argument.

What he is obviously stating is that most church leaders seem to have embraced this 'new and rotten sense' - that is not something I have heard disputed.

Obviously, your unfounded assertion that my argument is flawed...is not an argument either.  

Again, I didn't say it was! I gave a little bit of an argument, about the folly of comparing St. Francis and his outlook to Voris and his. 
So who is part of this "Church within a Church"? Is the pope in there? Is my bishop (Vigneron)? How about me? Are Mark Shea and other critics of radtrads part of it? How about all those "head-in-the-sand" "neo-Catholics" at Catholic Answers and EWTN and the Coming Home Network (where I worked for three years)? Are they part of the "remnant" or already on the dark side?

Voris knows all this stuff, apparently. So let him start giving us some specifics, so we can be on the true and narrow path, with him as the Pied Piper.

This is just a difference in speaking style and personal psychological perspective. In Michael Voris' view the ESTABLISHMENT Church refers to the purely career drivin professional Catholics that Pope Benedict and Pope Francis frequently lamented, it is not much different than from St. Francis' time and no one is saying that Voris is a Saint nor perfect, I agree that his tone and lamentations occassionally go overboard, but not always, he does give kudos to good clerics and other figures every now and then. Keep in mind that in News commentary (both secular and religious) we tend to only focus on bad news.

Okay; cool, Felix. So maybe you will answer my questions from my last comment, if Adrian doesn't.

I don't think Voris ever claimed to have that crystal ball the way you are claiming. But, I think you or I or Felix or Michael can talk to someone for five minutes and figure out where they are at, for the most part. If someone can explain three different ways why the Church's teaching on artificial contraception is true, it is unlikely they are a dissenting Catholic.

So you'll take a pass on interpreting Voris' flatulent rhetoric and actually applying it to real life. Duly noted. Much easier to just throw out the near-blanket condemnations, that collapse as soon as someone asks, "well, who do you have in mind there: how about some examples to illustrate your point? How about Mr. So-and-So?" In other words, what good does it do to say "the Church is 99% bad guys" and then when asked to identify who are the good guys, Voris and his followers go mute . . .

Isn't it supremely important to know who the good guys are, in such a dire end-times scenario? Or is it just expected that we lop up everything Voris says: that he is in effect the pope we are to follow [half tongue-in-cheek] . . . the ultimate "good [trustworthy / orthodox] guy" in the Church and the go-to guy?

Voris has named names and I don't see this as a problem. Neither does the National Catholic Register. I am pretty sure you have named a name or two on your blog.

Okay, so are the ones I names on the light or dark side? The rhetoric is useless if it can't be applied. It's just . . . empty rhetoric (precisely as I have been critiquing it).

I am quite certain Voris has not put himself in this position of infallibility you are insinuating. I am not really sure what you are getting at. You have named folks, good and bad, as has Voris...  

Okay, Adrian. Everyone can see you're unwilling to tell us who are the good and bad guys. You won't even say that the ones I cited are the good guys; part of this infinitesimally small so-called "remnant." That's fine; I knew it was almost certain that you wouldn't, or couldn't, so my point is illustrated. Thanks!

Sorry, not biting...you are doing the same thing Voris does, but you think he should be criticized for it.
Right. Nice try.


Actually, what I stated, was that you have named good folks as good, and bad folks as bad, just as Voris does (which you did not deny, I noticed).

I certainly have named names, as an apologist. I don't say they are out of the Church, though. I don't classify radtrads that way: only sedevacantists, and SSPX is a borderline scenario. Voris' claims are far more dramatic than mine. I talk in apologetic terms; he does in apocalyptic and prophetic and pathetically melodramatic terms.

You have every right to disagree with Voris style and opinions. But, keep in mind, just as there are different equally valid and legitimate theologies in the Church (e.g. Thomist, Augustinian, Eastern, Latin, etc.) there are different equally legitimate and valid apologetics and evangelizing approaches. The remnant Church inside a Church that Voris refers to is the Pope, Bishops, Priests, religious, and laity who uphold Church teaching without illegitimate compromise (this includes the other apologists you cite). Voris does often criticize those who deny that there is a crisis, you cannot fix something you dont believe to need repair.

Felix,

It's standard radtrad boilerplate to accuse anyone who disagrees that the (very real) crisis in the Church must be defined in radtrad terms (with Vatican II, ecumenism, and the New Mass as the usual boogeymen) has their head in the sand. I have been accused of that in recent threads, myself. It's very common.

So I am asking about the people and groups I mentioned, who are often classified in such a way.

As far as I know, Voris hasn't stated anyone is outside the Church. Like you, he notes when someone teaches something that is at variance with the faith. 'Apocalyptic, prophetic and pathetically melodramatic' are descriptors of style, not substance; moreover, they are subjective, rather than objective - and thus, unworthy as subject of debate for an apologist, especially one of your calibre.
 
1) Voris is 100% orthodox and in good standing with the Church just as you and your associations which you named. I know this from personally watching both his vortexes daily and his various other programs. The vortex show is just 1% of all the programing and is intended solely to address internal Church problems and a few political issues in which I do not always agree with him on. It is more opinion and punditry than anything else, much like the Curt Jester blog but in video format.

2) There is honestly not much difference from what you and others do with Voris, the difference is he does so in VIDEO format with his own personal style born from his own human experience and passion. Are errors said or bad choices of words sometimes, certainly just as errors and bad choices of words have been exposed in the various apologists and associations you cited as well, whom I like by the way. Most of the errors at the end of the day are usually personal hypotheses, innocent flawed interpretation, or whatever.

3) I am afraid that you are accusing Voris of intentional malice for things that even Saints have done and you yourself have done in good clear conscience. The Saints also often spoke melodramatic and in apocalyptic style terms. Dont you read any of the medieval mystics?

You're still sidestepping the substance of what I am driving at. He's making extreme statements. They are untrue in the first place. Things are not nearly this bad as he makes out. It harms people's faith.

If he wants to make out that the remaining remnant is so tiny, then why doesn't he tell us who is in it? In other words, he has hung himself with his own ridiculous rhetoric. This is what happens if anyone takes the time to actually critique it. His followers cannot ultimately defend what he says, or interpret who in the world he is talking about.

But he doesn't expect to get critiques at all, let alone to deign to interact with them. He expects that everyone will blithely, happily accept every pearl of wisdom that drops from his mouth. I'm over here interacting with you guys who like Voris, and defending my own positions. Where does Voris do that? He almost certainly won't come here (though I have said he is most welcome and would be treated courteously and fairly).

Voris is neither a saint nor a mystic. Making these comparisons do not help your case. St. Francis built an entire order and revolutionized Christian monasticism. Many mystics did the same. Voris bitches about the Church constantly and makes ridiculous statements. There's no comparison at all. What is he doing about all these things he moans (and sometimes lies) about?

I'm out here actually educating people about the Catholic faith, so they can live it and love it, proclaim and defend it: again: a vast contrast to what Voris does. How does tearing down the Church at every turn and throwing out gross exaggerations of the problems we have in the Church help anyone in any way?

It's not "orthodox" to trash the Novus Ordo Mass when Pope Benedict XVI specifically decreed in 2007 that both forms of the Latin rite were equally acceptable. That is not the Mind of the Church; sorry. People have to choose between his outlook and the pope's in this regard. Everyone knows what side I come down on when it is a question of John Doe vs. the Holy Father. If I wanted to dissent against the popes I'd still be a Protestant; I would have never entered the Church.

I saw that whole documentary on the mass. I do agree he went overboard in it and kind of offended my own sensibilities a bit. I see what you're saying and give you that, but I figure it is just bad insensitive choice of words driven by passion. I give him a pass on it and overlook it only because I can relate to coming across as rude and overly exaggerated when I don't mean it. For one thing, it is easier to be more careful and calculating in writing than in oral statements. I dont think he even waits that long to carefully edit, or ask for independent feedback, and then publish his videos. He probably posts them almost instantly. The mass destruction video was taped in live audience with no feedback from the audience nor did the priest he interviewed even say anything about his presentation.

Why wouldn't he retract it, then, if it went overboard? It gives his opinions! This is what he believes. I don't think it is simply a matter of sloppy language and going overboard; getting carried away or whatever.

His high testosterone ego would be offended to call very late attention to his mistake, lol. But, people have to bring it to his attention first of course.

You said it, not me. LOL Imagine if I had said that? ROFL

He does see the Extraordinary Form as superior and the Ordinary Form as inferior. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I think however the best of both should be syncretized into one as Pope Benedict wanted but couldn't.

The problem is that when he told a bishop that he often receives complaints of being too forceful the bishop beat his breast and said that the bishops have not been forceful enough. From then on he figured it was license to boil peoples' blood all he wants, lol. That bishop is the one shown on the website giving a complete blanket endorsement of everything he does.

*****