Friday, October 5, 2012

ChurchMilitant.TV "Mic'd Up" Radio Show

If you like Michael Voris on “The Vortex”, you will probably enjoy ChurchMilitant.TV’s new blogtalk radio show. The show airs live on Wednesday evenings, and then a video version is posted on Thursday. And actually, if you don't like Voris's "style" on the Vortex, you might like him better on the radio show, as he has a more conversational style. 

I watched/listened to parts of the discussion on the October 4/5 episode. You can see it here.

Voris discussed the enigmatic continued support of the Democratic Party by the Black population; it is really difficult to find reasons to help understand why Black voters remain loyal to the Dems. Voris pointed out that especially for Black Christians, it is impossible to ignore what the Dems stand for (by their official party platform, no less), which is one assault against Christ after the other. Black pastors are beginning to exhort Black voters to reconsider; case in point, this video – an excellent summation of the problem by a pastor named E.W. Jackson (see the transcript of this video here).

Voris points out that the Democratic Party hasn’t helped Blacks out at all. He presents some statistics, including these:

In 2008, 25% of Blacks were living in poverty; in 2011, 28%.

In 2008, the unemployment rate (actively looking for work) was 5% overall; it was 9% for  Blacks. In 2011, it was 8.2 overall and 13.6 for blacks.

In 2008, the unemployment rate for young Americans (age 16-24) overall was 16%; for young Blacks it was 25%. In 2011, overall it was 17%; for Blacks – 29%.

It seems clear that social justice and anti-poverty programs are not helping anyone, really, and are helping Blacks less than Whites.

There’s been a 10% increase in the number of blacks on welfare in the last 20 years.
Voris also talked about Mormonism, since Romney was taken to task by Harry Reid; he gave a description of some of the beliefs of Mormonism and pointed out that it is not a Christian religion. Voris also noted that there is no doctrinal statement in Mormonism regarding pro-life issues and many of the other issues which the Catholic Church defines and takes a stand on, so it’s pointless to say that Romney will/should/could follow a “Mormon” approach to the issues of the day.

I was particularly captivated by Voris’s closing comments, which were sparked by a caller who asked whether Obama was consciously trying to undermine the Catholic Church.

Voris said that he doesn’t think Obama’s trying to create a fissure, but that he knows there is one. Think about the Catholics Obama has surrounded himself with:Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius. Then there are the honors he’s been given, for instance by Notre Dame. And remember that Obama got his start in the 1980’s under the “Bernardin machine” which was run by the Catholic social justice/social action crowd.

Voris thinks Obama has been aware of the split. “Maybe he doesn’t see it as a split, maybe he sees traditional Catholics as just some marginal thing…which, frankly, we are,” Voris chuckled. “He recognizes that, sees an opening, and he doesn’t care about Catholic moral teaching. He grew up under the ‘cape’ of social justice Catholics. So he’s fine with ‘Catholics’ like Carolyn Kennedy standing up at the Democratic convention” and saying things that go against Church teaching.

The rest of what I’ve written is a combination of transcription and paraphrase of Voris’s comments:

Probably he’s not the mastermind of his scheme. He has a world view. The Catholics he’s come into contact with have been nurtured and fed on this world view of social justice, and theology doesn’t matter, and man is the center of things, and let’s build a utopia here on earth. Those are the Catholics he’s been around; he doesn’t know any other Catholics, and if he did he would have dismissed them…as would the Catholics he already knew.

I don’t want to ascribe motives to Obama like he’s the antichrist and he’s conscious of it, but he does antichrist things. I believe he is in full possession of the diabolical mind and gives himself over to that and is simply a tool of hell. I don’t think it’s even in his mind to create a schism or division in the church. He’s plugged into a division that’s already been there. He was born in 1961…as you look at his history (his biography, speeches, his involvement in various movements), he’s grown up expecting that the Catholic Church is what so many Catholics have accepted that it is. It’s just a thing that has the trappings of a powerful institution; if you push a liberal agenda, a social justice/social action agenda, then you’re in. Anything else would seem strange [to him]. Because the American Catholic Church has become so Protestantized, Obama doesn’t see what the Catholic Church is. He sees what’s been presented to him of the Catholic Church.

Obama is simply a tool of the diabolical, and the diabolical is interested in creating schism and division and confusion and doubt in the Church – no doubt. So in that sense Obama has seized on the split in the Church and has caused it to widen.
In one sense we can be grateful, because for faithful Catholics and the younger bishops in America, it’s now very visible, it’s out on the table. There’s no wondering. You can see Obama’s disparaging comments and attitude toward Christianity in general and toward Catholicism in particular.

He has a view of Catholicism that is similar to a view that many Catholics have. He grew up alongside the Church (young adulthood in Chicago) – what’s he being presented with? The church of Bernardin which ruled the roost, and his surrogates are still in power or at least the long shadow of those people is still in chancery offices.

Obama’s not really trying to cause division; he just sees the Church for what it’s become – on an earthly level, not on a Bride-of-Christ level. And he says this is what it is, so let’s just use it.

1 comment:

  1. December 17, 2012
    When will Michael Voris and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf say there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II ?
    Michael Voris has asked to know from viewers the cause of the crisis in the church.He has mentioned some factors (1).None of them cite the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with alleged exceptions of being able to see the deceased saved. This is a widespread error among Catholics including those at Church Militant and Fr.Z's blog?

    The reason for the crisis is that most Catholics assume that those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known exceptions to the centuries old dogma.

    For instance, could comment on how can Wikipedia say the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Why is Wikipedia allowed to teach this misinformation ?

    Similarly how can the American Catholic Encyclopaedia and other encyclopaedias in the USA state the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? We do not know any such case for it to be an exception in 2012?

    When are Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris going to comment on this?

    A few years back Simon Rafe in e-mail communication also assumed that these cases were explicit and so exceptions to the dogma. Irrational.

    In Church Militant TV ’s Can Non Catholics be saved ? it is said that the Church is the only way to Heaven. True! But non Catholics could be saved and so they are saved in 2012 and so they contradict the dogma?!?

    If Church Militant TV said all non Catholics in 2012 (Protestants included) are oriented to Hell and there are no known exceptions, this would be in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the thrice defined dogma. But how could Church Militant defend itself when callers-in say:
    " You’re wrong. The Church says a person can be saved in invincible ignorance so every one does not need to enter the Church”. Phone calls would be claiming that these cases are not just accepted in principle but are known to us in the present times.

    It has to be explained to them that these cases are irrelevant to the dogma or Vatican Council II (AG 7).

    Similarly there could be questions:" Was not Fr. Leonard Feeney excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire and holding the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?” Even Catholic Answers and Catholics United for the Faith members could be screaming.

    It has to be explained to them that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not state that these cases are explicit and known to us. It does not state that these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney. One has to imply that these cases are exceptions.

    If the Letter of the Holy Office stated that these cases were explicit exceptions it would be an objective mistake. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead. This would be a factual error. The Letter mentions disobedience and not heresy for the excommunication.So we cannot fault the Letter.

    Similarly there is no text in Vatican Council II which makes this false claim. One has to assume and imply wrongly. The text does not say it.

    Yes, Jesus called only the Catholic Church “my church” and yes, Scripture says most people are oriented to Hell and so ‘enter through the narrow gate’ but do magisterial texts say the same today? Is this the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II?


    Michael Voris and Fr. Z need to mention this so that at some time I can quote them.This is the cause of most of the problems in the Church. When you give up the dogma with alleged exceptions; a false premise, then you open the door to a new ecumenism, inter religious dialogue...


Please be courteous and concise.