The Stupid, Never-ending Voris Debate

[KnightofChrist]

His own intentions behind what he's saying aren't relevant, because there's no way anyone can know what they are. What we CAN know is how people react to his videos. If a group of people say something is problematic and offensive, it's probably problematic and offensive to that group of people.

Okay, what about this: If I made a video talking about history and receiving on the tongue while kneeling being a false invention by the Gallicans who injected unworthiness theology into the liturgy that was based on their reverence of their secular leaders and had no basis in the original practice of Christianity, then added something about the US bishops making receiving while standing the norm in our country and although they technically don't outlaw receiving while kneeling, and then finished with a statement about how receiving while standing has a strong connection with being a member of the Elect in Christ just like the first Christians....

How would you perceive such a video?

I wouldn't take it personally, or be personally offended, strongly disagree yes. I would take it at face value, only seeing what you actually stated. If I chose to reply I would only counter what I believed to be in error and only focus on what you actually stated.

[Basilisa Marie]

He disagrees with you. When we get down to the root of it, I fall much more on 'his' side than 'yours'. Such is life in the Church. I think you are making much more of this than necessary.

 

I'm not making more of this than necessary.  What you're basically saying is that my experiences don't matter, that they shouldn't be taken seriously.  

 

I say it's offensive, you guys blame my "feelings."  I say it's offensive, you guys say "just ignore it."  

 

That's a problem. 

[Groo the Wanderer]

i smells man-haters

[Basilisa Marie]

i smells man-haters

 

...add straw-manned to the list.  :|

[KnightofChrist]

I'm not making more of this than necessary. What you're basically saying is that my experiences don't matter, that they shouldn't be taken seriously.

I say it's offensive, you guys blame my "feelings." I say it's offensive, you guys say "just ignore it."

That's a problem.

I'm not blaming your feelings or asking you to ignore your feelings. I'm saying it is unwise to accuse someone of wrong doing based more on personal feelings than objective facts. Like I said I do see how you could take offence at Voris. So I do feel for you. But I need facts and proof to believe your position. You need facts to defend your position, not personal feelings.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm not making more of this than necessary. What you're basically saying is that my experiences don't matter, that they shouldn't be taken seriously.

I say it's offensive, you guys blame my "feelings." I say it's offensive, you guys say "just ignore it."

That's a problem.

I said nothing about your feelings one way or another. I simply pointed out that this debate is business as usual, and nothing we have not all discussed before. If you want to take offence then that is your right, but there is nothing whatsoever special about Voris in that regard.

[Groo the Wanderer]

feelings  :guitar:  nuttin more than feelings  :guitar:   WOO WOO WOO feelings  :guitar:

[Evangetholic]

Those of us who dislike Voris's approach are not basing that on this video. At least I'm not. I agree with Empress Marie's assessment of the video, but even absent this video, there are others. I do not as individual feel right receiving standing or in these wicked hands--but I may not take that individual disposition of mine and try to conflate that with Ecclesial law and saving piety. The Church allows reception in the hand. So much for that.

 

My complaints about Voris are based on:

 

1. A video where he essentially says that only men are called to be Soldiers of Christ, the Church is overly feminized, and that men have some special duty for dragging the Church out of her current problems.

2. The insistence on calling out by name bishops and priests that the powers that be (ie the Pope, the CDF, bishops in the case of the priests)  have not disciplined.

3. He believes in some kind of conspiracy of gay men to subvert Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

4. He has publically advocated that in an ideal society non-Catholics, or bad Catholics would not have voting rights.

5. He dismisses everyone who finds his style of delivery offensive as "modernists." I have spent a considerable amount of time for years with the documents of the Medieval and Tridentine Church. Even as a Protestant I was not a modernist.

6. He, largely without naming names, goes after other orthodox Catolic bloggers as being weak when they show the docility and subservience I think we are supposed to show to clerics.

7. I think that while his statements on many issues are broadly orthodox, they are also reactionary, and mean (by which I do not mean that ignorant American word for cruel--I mean small and short-sighted).

8. I do not think it is ever wise to advise people to leave the Church. I almost died outside of the Church, because my admittedly Protestantized mother was not encouraged by loudmouthed laity during the first year of this interminable sex scandal to pray and research; but to leave.

9. I've yet to hear him say much of anything about Church History that is actually true.

10. And as someone who has been called homophobic more times than I can even begin to count, I have to say it again, we best not try to turn gay people into the new Jews--the new acceptable objects of abuse in Jesus's name. They have souls and fantasies of massive gay conspiracies to Protestantize the Church is not how we'll go about saving those sould. I'll also out myself as a 60/40 bisexual and say that I am chaste (and dating a woman I'd very much like to bear my children), but that Voris's style assaultive harping really makes me afraid that his view of my utter unworthiness and propensity for heresy might be the Church's view. Which does not deepen my walk with God or my love for the Church--it makes me feel condemned and like no institution that has misunderstood how Jesus and I feel (yes feel) about each other so radically could possibly be the True Church; but then I realize that he isn't speaking the Church's teachings with the Church's merciful and grace-filled attitude. 

 

[KnightofChrist]

*Violates self-imposed exile, again*

Bump that noise, you should come back and stay! You are most welcomed!

Those of us who dislike Voris's approach are not basing that on this video. At least I'm not. I agree with Empress Marie's assessment of the video, but even absent this video, there are others. I do not as individual feel right receiving standing or in these wicked hands--but I may not take that individual disposition of mine and try to conflate that with Ecclesial law and saving piety. The Church allows reception in the hand. So much for that.

My complaints about Voris are based on:

1. A video where he essentially says that only men are called to be Soldiers of Christ, the Church is overly feminized, and that men have some special duty for dragging the Church out of her current problems.
2. The insistence on calling out by name bishops and priests that the powers that be (ie the Pope, the CDF, bishops in the case of the priests) have not disciplined.
3. He believes in some kind of conspiracy of gay men to subvert Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
4. He has publically advocated that in an ideal society non-Catholics, or bad Catholics would not have voting rights.
5. He dismisses everyone who finds his style of delivery offensive as "modernists." I have spent a considerable amount of time for years with the documents of the Medieval and Tridentine Church. Even as a Protestant I was not a modernist.
6. He, largely without naming names, goes after other orthodox Catolic bloggers as being weak when they show the docility and subservience I think we are supposed to show to clerics.
7. I think that while his statements on many issues are broadly orthodox, they are also reactionary, and mean (by which I do not mean that ignorant American word for cruel--I mean small and short-sighted).
8. I do not think it is ever wise to advise people to leave the Church. I almost died outside of the Church, because my admittedly Protestantized mother was not encouraged by loudmouthed laity during the first year of this interminable sex scandal to pray and research; but to leave.
9. I've yet to hear him say much of anything about Church History that is actually true.
10. And as someone who has been called homophobic more times than I can even begin to count, I have to say it again, we best not try to turn gay people into the new Jews--the new acceptable objects of abuse in Jesus's name. They have souls and fantasies of massive gay conspiracies to Protestantize the Church is not how we'll go about saving those sould. I'll also out myself as a 60/40 bisexual and say that I am chaste (and dating a woman I'd very much like to bear my children), but that Voris's style assaultive harping really makes me afraid that his view of my utter unworthiness and propensity for heresy might be the Church's view. Which does not deepen my walk with God or my love for the Church--it makes me feel condemned and like no institution that has misunderstood how Jesus and I feel (yes feel) about each other so radically could possibly be the True Church; but then I realize that he isn't speaking the Church's teachings with the Church's merciful and grace-filled attitude.

Well speak of the devil! (Not that you are or are like the devil in actuality.)

[Nihil Obstat]

Those of us who dislike Voris's approach are not basing that on this video. At least I'm not. I agree with Empress Marie's assessment of the video, but even absent this video, there are others. I do not as individual feel right receiving standing or in these wicked hands--but I may not take that individual disposition of mine and try to conflate that with Ecclesial law and saving piety. The Church allows reception in the hand. So much for that.

My complaints about Voris are based on:

1. A video where he essentially says that only men are called to be Soldiers of Christ, the Church is overly feminized, and that men have some special duty for dragging the Church out of her current problems.
2. The insistence on calling out by name bishops and priests that the powers that be (ie the Pope, the CDF, bishops in the case of the priests) have not disciplined.
3. He believes in some kind of conspiracy of gay men to subvert Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
4. He has publically advocated that in an ideal society non-Catholics, or bad Catholics would not have voting rights.
5. He dismisses everyone who finds his style of delivery offensive as "modernists." I have spent a considerable amount of time for years with the documents of the Medieval and Tridentine Church. Even as a Protestant I was not a modernist.
6. He, largely without naming names, goes after other orthodox Catolic bloggers as being weak when they show the docility and subservience I think we are supposed to show to clerics.
7. I think that while his statements on many issues are broadly orthodox, they are also reactionary, and mean (by which I do not mean that ignorant American word for cruel--I mean small and short-sighted).
8. I do not think it is ever wise to advise people to leave the Church. I almost died outside of the Church, because my admittedly Protestantized mother was not encouraged by loudmouthed laity during the first year of this interminable sex scandal to pray and research; but to leave.
9. I've yet to hear him say much of anything about Church History that is actually true.
10. And as someone who has been called homophobic more times than I can even begin to count, I have to say it again, we best not try to turn gay people into the new Jews--the new acceptable objects of abuse in Jesus's name. They have souls and fantasies of massive gay conspiracies to Protestantize the Church is not how we'll go about saving those sould. I'll also out myself as a 60/40 bisexual and say that I am chaste (and dating a woman I'd very much like to bear my children), but that Voris's style assaultive harping really makes me afraid that his view of my utter unworthiness and propensity for heresy might be the Church's view. Which does not deepen my walk with God or my love for the Church--it makes me feel condemned and like no institution that has misunderstood how Jesus and I feel (yes feel) about each other so radically could possibly be the True Church; but then I realize that he isn't speaking the Church's teachings with the Church's merciful and grace-filled attitude.

This is the kind of post we should have seen days ago. I might quibble here and there with what you said, but I am largely content with this critique.

[Apotheoun]

I don't see any pastoral problems with the transcription of the video.  The Roman Church should maintain its liturgical traditions (e.g., kneeling for communion, reception of communion on the tongue, etc.), while the other Churches and rites should maintain theirs (e.g., standing for communion, reception of communion by intinction on a golden spoon, etc.).

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't see any pastoral problems with the transcription of the video.  The Roman Church should maintain its liturgical traditions (e.g., kneeling for communion, reception of communion on the tongue, etc.), while the other Churches and rites should maintain theirs (e.g., standing for communion, reception of communion by intinction on a golden spoon, etc.).

Sometimes your posts frustrate me, but today I think you are the coolest.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Apotheoun]

It's a big deal because he's connecting the perfectly legitimate, and normative action of receiving while standing with excommunication.

 

He is implying that I'm less of a perfect Catholic for receiving in this way.  That I have something in common with heretics, heretics that have been stamped out.  

 

It's the big beef of the evening because it was a short video for me to transcribe for your convenience, and is suitably offensive to me.  

Actually the normative practice for receiving communion in the Roman Church remains receiving on the tongue while kneeling.  A special indult permits a member of the Roman Church to receive communion while standing, but the indult does not alter the normative nature of the pre-1970s practice.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

I think many of the people who get upset because of Voris' videos do so because he has an acerbic style of delivery.  Some may also be jealous of his nifty hair style.

[Basilisa Marie]

You guys suck.