In Which I Agree with Mark Shea

Agreeing with something Mark wrote in criticizing Michael Voris?  This might just be my last post at The American Catholic.

All kidding aside, I second Mark’s concerns regarding Vorris’s association with E. Michael Jones.  As Shea details:

Let us be clear about what is happening here. Marc Brammer and Michael Voris, Folk Hero to the Utterly Undiscerning, will be working hard to mainstream somebody
Jim Stone shows Israel Behind Fukashima Disaster
The European Jewish Union Exonerating Everything Jewish
Jewish Child Molesters
Mossad Involvement in 9/11
Jewry’s push for War with Iran
Jewish Atzmon Says Merah Was a Mossad False Flag Agent
and, last but not least, E. Michael Jones: Who is the World’s Real Enemy?(Guess who?)
(For a full catalog of Sungenis’ vast corpus of crazy statements about the Jews, go here.)

I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes Mark can exaggerate (I’m being charitable here) others’ viewpoints, but I don’t believe he is doing so here.  Jones has a fairly extensive record of what can only be described by any reasonable person as anti-Semitism, and yet Voris is happy to give the man a platform.

I’m sure there will be those that object that Voris himself does not hold these views, and that this is a game of guilt by association.  I would counter that providing an open platform to such a person as Jones is beyond reprehensible.   People should be able to engage in honest discussion with others who hold differing viewpoints, but this goes well beyond that.  There are certain lines that when crossed should disqualify individuals from ever being taken seriously again.  When you willingly not only associate yourself with such individuals, but actually provide a forum which grants a certain amount of legitimacy, then you should also be taken to task

And of course leave it to the very first commenter on Mark’s post to play the “but what is anti-Semitism?” game.  It’s an insipid attempt to change the discussion and avoid having to address the issue at hand.

I haven’t gotten involved with previous discussions about Voris because I haven’t really seen that much of his work.  And I think it’s fairly well-known that I have had my share of disagreements with Mark, to say the least.  So I have no personal axe to grind with Voris.  But he should be held to account for his decision to associate with Jones.

StumbleUponRedditPrintFriendlyShare

101 Responses to In Which I Agree with Mark Shea

  • There is an alarming trend with ultra-conservatives (don’t get started, I am a frequent EF Mass attendee and can sing a mean Missa del Angelis!) towards anti-semitism. From Mel Gibson to SSPX BIshop Wiiliamson, they have moved from praying for Israel to accept her Saviour to downright sinful anti-semitism.

  • Scott W. says:

    Right-wing commentary is the most potent stuff in the sphere…..and then someone mentions the joooos and it is like watching a helicopter with its rear rotor shot off.

  • Mark Shea says:

    It should be understood that Voris didn’t just happen to do this interview. He, Marc Brammer, and Jones are now business partners. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/01/uh-oh-3.html

    That’s why I say Voris is deliberately mainstreaming Jones’ antisemtism. The goal is to make this stuff normal and acceptable, all while portraying themselves as valiant champions of True Catholic Faith who are standing up to evil bishops (like Chaput(!)). And note the kooks in my comboxes who are cheering for it. This guy is poison.

  • Bonchamps says:

    I don’t endorse anti-Semitism as I’ve always understood it, which is a hatred for Jews as a race or for the Jewish religion.

    But I sure get accused of it often enough for simply questioning the wisdom of the United States’ apparently unconditional support for Israel or for my own traditional Catholicism. And I think some of us are a little sick of this card being played, over and over again. I really resent it, and I can see how it can push some people right into anti-Semitism.

    It seems both sides, Jewish activist groups like the ADL/SPLC, as well as traditional Catholics, are pushing each other into mutual hatred sometimes. The SPLC puts traditional Catholic groups on their “hate watch” list, groups that have never made a single threat against a single Jewish person organization, who have simply taught what the Church has taught for 2000 years. The traditional Catholics react with hostilities for Jews as such, which further justifies the scrutiny they’ve been put under. It’s a cycle I’d like to see come to an end, but don’t think will.

    The bottom line is that while I absolutely reject the insane conspiracy theories of the sort advocated by this writer (of whom I’ve never heard), I also reject the race-baiting that Jewish groups engage in with people who simply disagree with their political positions, or who proclaim the traditional faith. I am willing to die for the traditional faith, including its teachings on the Jews and the Old Covenant. And no matter how the teaching itself may offend the Jews, it is also a historical fact that the Papacy absolutely forbade anyone to do violence to Jews, or to spread blood libels, despoil them of their property, etc. Those bulls are still in force as far as I am concerned.

  • Michael Voris is absolutely wrong in supporting an anti-Semite.

    I have been accused of being a Zionist. That gratifies me. I hope Israel kicks the Islamic fanatics back into the stone age.

    I want a strong and powerful Israel with lots of thermonuclear weapons. Don’t like that? Too bad. I don’t care any longer. I won’t argue the point with anyone. Say what you want. Israel free and secure forever!

  • When it comes to Jews my sentiments are those of Pope Pius XII:

    “On the 28th of April 1944 the Palestine Post published an article entitled ‘A Papal Audience in War-Time’. A young Jewish man told how three years before he had managed to meet the Pope with the help of a German priest. In 1941, after escaping from Germany, the young man entered the Apostolic Palace. He was filled with fear since there were also a few German soldiers present at the papal audience, but he managed to talk with Pius XII for a few minutes. He told the Pope about the conditions of five hundred Jewish refugees living in poverty in Rhodes and held captive by the Italian military who were waiting to hand them over to the Germans.

    After telling the Pope who he was, Pius XII replied “You have

    done well to come to me and tell me this. I have heard about it before. Come back

    tomorrow with a written report and give it to the Secretary of State who is dealing

    with the question. But now for you, my son. You are a young Jew. I know what that

    means and I hope you will always be proud to be a Jew!”

    Then raising his voice so those who were close by could clearly hear his words, Pius XII said “My son, whether you are worthier than others only the Lord knows, but believe me, you are at least as worthy as every other human being that lives on this earth! And now, my Jewish friend, go with the protection of the Lord, and never forget, you must always be proud to be a Jew!”

    In the latest issue of ‘Inside the Vatican’, the American scholar William Doino, author of several papers and articles on Pius XII, managed to give a name and a face to the author of this story (http://moynihanreport.itvworking.com/author/billdoino).

    It is Heinz Wisla: Jewish, born in Germany, at the time of the audience he was 21 years old. In his writings during the winter of 1941-1942, Wisla attested that, thanks to the personal intervention of the Pope, the Red Cross saved the Jews who had been imprisoned and took them to Italy. This is yet another testimony of the behaviour and actions of Pius XII, wrongly considered an ‘anti-Semitic’ Pope by some publications.”

  • Dale Price says:

    If Jones had ended that little history lesson with “Well, what are you going to do about it, whitey?” it would not have been out of place.

  • Mr. Price,

    I did NOT say that I hope Israel kicks the Islamists back into the stone age. I said the Islamic fanatics – you know the kind: those who make women wear hoods over their heads and treat them as slaves, those who teach little children to be suicide bombers on Israeli school buses, those who declare that Israel should be driven inot the sea, those who pilot jet aircraft into towers filled with thousands of innocent people.

    And by the way, we are only branches grafted in. We had better not become haughty and self-satisfied as the “new Israel.” Read Romans 11. St. Paul said that all Israel will be saved.

    I despise and loathe anti-Semitism. I also despise and loathe Muslim women and children being treated in the way that their religion treats them – just for the record.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Paul,

    You’re right. We shouldn’t be haughty and self-satisfied as the New Israel.

    But the Catholic Church IS the New Israel, and Jesus Christ was the son of God. Both beliefs are antithetical to Judaism, and there are some Jews, especially in Israel, who virulently hate Christianity.

    It would really be shocking and amazing if there was ANY group of people on the Earth that didn’t have members who really hated people of other groups.

  • Dale Price says:

    Paul, it was a misfired attempt at humor. As in, they’re only two hours out of the Stone Age *right now.*

    “How can you tell if they’ve been bombed back to the Stone Age?” and the like.

    The main difference I can see between the murderous fanatics and Islamists is the former tries to murder you and your loved ones, while the latter patiently explains to you why you deserve it.

  • HA says:

    “It seems both sides, Jewish activist groups like the ADL/SPLC….”

    The SPLC is not a Jewish organization in any explicit sense. In fact, claiming that they are would plausibly be considered defamatory to any number of Jews — or at least those who recognize Morris Dees as the shamelessly self-aggrandizing huckster that he is. (And for what it’s worth, Wikipedia lists him as a Unitarian.)

  • Just a tangential observation, Voris’ identification of Murray as a participant of the infamous Hyannisport, MA meeting with the Kennedy’s (around the 40 minute mark) is historically incorrect — Murray not only wasn’t present, he reportedly perturbed by Kennedy’s attempt to sever any connections between one’s religious and political creeds. “To make religion merely a private matter,” Murray argued, “was idiocy.” (See: JFK’s Houston Speech at 50: Three Views, by George J. Marlin. The Catholic Thing 9/9/10.

    If there’s one thing I’ve gathered from reading Murray, it’s that he is appropriated by both ends of the Catholic political spectrum, and what Murray actually countenanced in his lifetime is often different from speculation of what Catholics like to imagine he would have, or might have endorsed. (Of course, being dead, he’s not very adept at defending himself from exploitation).

  • Gotta hand it to Jones, though — that part about Archbishop Chaput being involved in a black operation, continuing the devious work of Murray, Luce and the CIA to the point of infiltrating the papacy itself (“occupying the mind of [Pope Benedict XVI] and he doesn’t even know it“) was a new twist I hadn’t heard before.

  • T. Shaw says:

    This runs rampant through Shaw’s alleged mind. “Why do we live like this? The violence and the hatred, Bernardo . . . ” With apologies to whoever copied “West Side Story” from Shakespeare.

  • Dale Price says:

    I have a copy of Murray’s “We Hold These Truths,” and what I’ve read so far is very worthwhile. I think the problem is that he’s been soundbitten and turned into a totem, mostly by the left. I suspect he would not appreciate it.

  • Jasper says:

    I don’t know Mike Jones, I’ll make my judgement after watching the video with Voris.

    So far, I know he got fired from Notre dame for being pro-life.

  • Francis says:

    I think you mean that you know Jones says he got fired from Notre Dame for being pro-life. As a good friend of mine likes to say, sometimes Christians are persecuted for their Christian beliefs and sometimes they’re just persecuted for being a-holes. Some people (think Fr. Corapi) use their identity/credibility in one area as a cover for other garbage. Just a thought.

  • @ Francis

    “Some people (think Fr. Corapi) use their identity/credibility in one area as a cover for other garbage.” True in general cases, but in this specific one, is there material evidence, or is there simply circumstantial occurrences and innuendo? OK, don’t answer that. Not relevant to the topic. I hope and pray Fr. Corapi is innocent, but I am a pessimist by nature. :-(

    @ Dale

    Sometimes I am the anal orifice. Sorry I didn’t see the humor. I had a boss once who is an Iranian Shiite. He had a Koran on his desk just as I have a Bible on mine. He turned out to be more Christian in his behavior than most so-called Christians I know. How’s that for irony?

    @ Bonchamps

    If we are members of the new Israel, then we should each and everyone of us go to Eucharistic Adoration and get prostrate before the Blessed Sacrament for as long and as often as possible, begging forgiveness for our sins and thanking the Ruler and Creator of this universe that He grafted us into the Olive Tree because clearly we don’t deserve it. BTW, St. Paul does say that all Israel will be saved, and I don’t think he is referring to just the Gentile grafts, and I still support the modern State of Israel over the barbaric fanatics running most Middle Eastern countries.

  • Jasper says:

    Mike Jones sounds reasonable, he rejects anti-Semitism in his interview with Voris.

    “I think you mean that you know Jones says he got fired from Notre Dame for being pro-life. ”

    what evidence do you have that he got fired for another reason?

    “Some people (think Fr. Corapi) use their identity/credibility in one area as a cover for other garbage.”

    Fr. Corapi was an excellent priest who has taken a terrible fall, I hope he comes back.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    Jasper, if you find Michael Jones to be “reasonable,” then there’s honestly nothing we can do for you.

    he rejects anti-Semitism in his interview with Voris.

    And then immediately engages in a bizarre tirade that essentially blames the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world. If I were to go on a long rant about how black people were responsible for all the crime and villainy in the world, and then said that “of course, I’m not a racist,” that declaration would not in fact absolve me of racism.

  • Jasper says:

    “And then immediately engages in a bizarre tirade that essentially blames the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world. ”

    I didn’t get that Paul. What I heard is that we should be preaching the Gospel to jews instead of just going along with them.

  • Francis says:

    Listen a little more closely to how Jones defines anti-Semitism. That’s a very narrow understanding of it. A person can be an anti-Semite without having a purely racial prejudice against Jews. Some of the commenters at Shea’s blog (including Shea) already picked up on that. I think Paul Zummo’s point (above) is on target as well.

    In regard to Jones’ firing at Notre Dame (supposedly merely for being openly pro-life), all I’m pointing out is that all we have is his personal say-so. What corroborating evidence is there for Jones’ claims? Considering his affinity for conspiracy-theories, it seems reasonable to question whether he may have imagined or exaggerated a conspiracy against him at Notre Dame as well. In my experience, people like this tend to be a bit on the paranoid side in general. Maybe what he says about his firing is true. Maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s partially true.

    Regardless, from what I have seen, it’s a mistake for Voris and his enterprise to collaborate with Jones. This is bound to end very badly.

  • Jasper says:

    “In my experience, people like this tend to be a bit on the paranoid side in general.”

    was he paranoid about the corruption and heresy in church when he wrote about it back in the 80′s?

  • Francis says:

    You missed the point about Jone’s view of what “anti-Semitism” means, Jasper. It’s unduly narrow. And your point about what he wrote isn’t really relevant to mine. I didn’t say Jones has never been correct about anything. I said that he’s into conspiracy theories and in my experience people like that tend to be a bit on the paranoid side in general – increasingly so the longer they stay engaged in that kind of theorizing. I said he may or may not be right about what actually happened at Notre Dame. But I’d like to see corroborating evidence other than his personal say-so.

    If Voris intends to increase his collaboration with Jones, I think it’s a mistake that will not end well for him and his enterprise.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Paul P,

    “If we are members of the new Israel, then we should each and everyone of us go to Eucharistic Adoration and get prostrate before the Blessed Sacrament for as long and as often as possible, begging forgiveness for our sins and thanking the Ruler and Creator of this universe that He grafted us into the Olive Tree because clearly we don’t deserve it.”

    I don’t disagree.

    “BTW, St. Paul does say that all Israel will be saved, and I don’t think he is referring to just the Gentile grafts”,

    Even if he isn’t, he still wouldn’t be referring to people who reject Christ. The New Israel originally consisted of converted Jews, people who accepted Christ as the Messiah. The “grafting” (what a word!) of Gentiles did not take much longer. There is no Jew or Greek in Christ – hence his words in Galatians. Such distinctions no longer matter. Our faith is what counts, and our membership in the Body.

    “and I still support the modern State of Israel over the barbaric fanatics running most Middle Eastern countries.”

    I support us minding our own business. Had we done so consistently, Islam would not have become the potent political force it is today. Saddam Hussein was a secular socialist. So was Yasser Arafat. So was Momar Qaddafi. Meanwhile our most cherished ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, has been an Islamic regime for ages.

  • Jasper says:

    Franicis,

    I came into this thread being accused of being an ‘Undiscerning’ idiot. I wonder now who is being undiscerning, neither Voris’s video or McClarey’s have convinced me. Arn’t we suppose to try and convert jews? after all, they are flawed in what they believe What am I missing?

  • Francis says:

    I didn’t call you or anyone an “undiscerning idiot”, Jasper. I’ve just pointed out some things about what you wrote in regard to Jones. I think the kinds of things documented at Shea’s blog, like calling Jews “the enemy of the human race” and the interviews Jones gave to a white supremacist and another extremist are disturbing. There’s more over there, did you read it all?

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/04/since-various-people-have-shown-up-in-the-comboxes.html

  • Francis says:

    Christine – I hope you’re right, but how do you know this? Shea put up some information supporting a different conclusion. Are you saying Voris and Jones are not collaborating at all? Or are you just saying that they are not strictly “business partners”?

  • @ Bonchamps,

    I mostly agree. To your point about Saudi Arabia: Had we fully developed our nuclear energy capability in the 1970s, then we would by now be producing liquid fuels or hydrogen from nuclear power plants to fuel our cars, trucks, trains and airplanes. But after TMI, Jimmy Carter allowed the industry to become emasculated by the excessive regulations of the US NRC, and thus coal (which has to be transported to coal fired power plants by diesel fueled trains), oil and natural gas became dominate. So now we import much of our oil from Canada while our military keeps the sea lanes open from the Middle East to Europe so that Europe can get Saudi oil (there’s only so much oil to go around). Renewable energy is a joke that natural gas companies just love – always got to have spinning reserve. So we support Saudi Islamic extremism – Wahhabism – in the name of “democracy.” We have enough thorium and uranium to tell these fanatics to go drown in their mineral slime, but we can’t because we are now hopelessly addicted.

    I won’t go on further right now because it’s not on topic, but I agree that we made our own mess. As for Israel, supporting them is probably the only right thing we did. You’ll disagree, of course. That’s OK. Personally, I just wish we’d go all nuclear and tell the Muslim fanatics (not the Muslims – there’s a difference) to take their oil and shove it. But first, NRC Chairman Jackzo has to be fired and the NRC has to go from being an antagonist to actually living up to its charter in ensuring the SAFE use of nuclear power, not the non-use of nuclear power. Of course that’s not going to happen under Obama. It was happening under Bush with his GNEP initiative, but that’s a story for a different blog post.

  • PS, sorry I wasn’t on topic, but I agreed with Bonchamps for reasons that Bonchamps might not have expected. Now that this rare moment of lucidity has passed, I shall return to being an ultra-conservative pro-Israel pain in the neck. ;-)

  • “Arn’t we suppose to try and convert jews?”

    We are supposed to convert everyone Jasper. That has nothing to do with the fact that E. Michael Jones is an anti-semite, who believes in bizarre conspiracies to support his hate and who peddles wretchedly bad history while doing so.

  • Christine says:

    Francis wrote: “Christine – I hope you’re right, but how do you know this? Shea put up some information supporting a different conclusion. Are you saying Voris and Jones are not collaborating at all? Or are you just saying that they are not strictly “business partners”?”

    I know because I know. Shea has a very fertile imagination, and he lets it take him to rather interesting places. Voris is not collaborating with E. Michael Jones, nor are they business partners. He had him on his show “Roman Forum” for an interview–that’s it. He’s had a number of people on for interviews, and he doesn’t necessarily agree with everything his interviewees say or do. This whole “guilt by association” tactic is nonsense.

  • Vincent Lewis’ comment is a You Tube video by Brother Nathanael, a Jew and now a Russian Orthodox Monastic who himself is ironically anti-semitic:

    http://www.realzionistnews.com/

    http://www.thebrothernathanaelfoundation.org/about

    I watched several You Tube videos and browsed around. There is only so much fecal matter I can stand in any one day. According to this guy, Jews are in control of the banks and the Congress and everything else, and soon Christmas will be outlawed and we’ll be forced to celebrate Hannukah instead while the goyim get taxed to death. What planet is this guy from? Or am I the one in outer space?

  • Francis says:

    Well, I was kind of hoping for something a bit more than “I know because I know”. ;-) I still hope you’re right, though. And maybe it’s me, but I thought Voris seemed a bit more than a simple, disinterested interviewer with Jones. IMO, he came across as someone who really admires Jones – someone very sympathetic to his view of Jews. I don’t remember ever seeing him smile and chuckle so much. Considering the fact that he obviously knows about Jones’ reputation in regard to Jews (he mentions it in the interview), it’s hard to understand how he could not be aware of the disturbing things about Jones that are documented at Shea’s blog. The information is readily available on the Internet.

  • Christine says:

    Francis wrote: “I thought Voris seemed a bit more than a simple, disinterested interviewer with Jones. IMO, he came across as someone who really admires Jones – someone very sympathetic to his view of Jews. I don’t remember ever seeing him smile and chuckle so much.”

    As someone who has watched every interview Michael has done on Roman Forum, he smiles and laughs with every single one of his guests. I didn’t notice that he was any friendlier toward Jones than toward the others. As to your other questions, I don’t speak on Michael’s behalf. Perhaps you should send him an e-mail at RealCatholicTV.com and ask him directly yourself.

  • Whenever the subject of Jews is raised on a Catholic website nutcases start coming out from underneath rocks to proclaim their undying hatred of the Children of Abraham. That is simply not going to be tolerated on The American Catholic. I deleted the idiotic video of the racist and anti-semite who goes by the name of Brother Nathanael Kapner and banned Vincent Lewis for posting it. Anyone who wishes to engage in paranoid rantings against the Jooos!, or defend those who do engage in such paranoid rantings, will have to find another venue to do so.

  • Mark Shea says:

    “I know because I know”.

    Irrefutable.

    Meanwhile, Voris *entire* defense against his bishop when he was ordered to stop using the name “Catholic” was, “Who? Me? I don’t run Real Catholic TV! Brammer does! And he lives in Indiana! Talk to him! I just work here.”

    Yes. Brammer lives in Indiana. And by a strange coincidence he shares exactly the same mailing address as Jones for his business.

    So yeah, these guys are in bed together, Christine’s ineffable and incommunicable knowledge to the contrary notwithstanding. We’ll see more from these guys. They are in cahoots. And Voris *is* trying to mainstream Jones–with some success. Not good.

  • David Palm says:

    (at 31:44 in the video)

    Jones: And so what was neo-conservatism? 2003. We are involved in a war. Who would have thought we were going to get involved in this war? Who was responsible for this war? It was the neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatism is a Jewishrevolutionarymovement. And that got me thinking, how is this fit into history. And that’s the genesis of the book that I wrote called The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.

    Voris: Some people have read that book and said, “Oh, Michael Jones is clearly an anti-Semite”

    Jones: Anti-Semitism is very clear. Every Catholic has to condemn anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism says that the Jew cannot be trusted, is an evil person, because of his racial inheritance, because he’s got bad DNA. No Catholic could ever say that. Okay? What we are saying here is, the traditional teaching of the Church is basically, when Jesus Christ came to this earth He came for one group of people, and that was the Jewish people. And the Jewish people had to make a decision. They had to either accept Him as the Messiah or not. The Jews who accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah are now known as the Catholic Church. The Jews who rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah are known as Jews. Okay? When they rejected Jesus Christ they rejected Logos, which is the order of the universe. When they rejected the order of the universe they rejected the social order as well and when you reject any possible social order you become a revolutionary. And they confirmed that decision by choosing Barabbas over Christ. And the history, the history of history since that time is the battle between the descendants of the Jews who accepted Jesus Christ and the descendants of the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ. And that’s what that book is about. And that is not anti-Semitism, in any way, shape or form. And I go on record, I condemn anti-Semitism. I do not believe in any form of racial determinism, period.

    Paul Zummo observed that “[Jones] rejects anti-Semitism in his interview with Voris. And then immediately engages in a bizarre tirade that essentially blames the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world” To which Jasper responded, “I didn’t get that Paul. What I heard is that we should be preaching the Gospel to jews instead of just going along with them.”

    Really, Jasper? That’s all you heard? Jones had just been asked to defend himself against the charge of anti-Semitism. And what does he do? Exactly what Paul Zummo said–he charged the Jews, all Jews, with rejecting the order of the universe, rejecting “any possible social order”, and therefore being by nature “revolutionary”. He made absolutely no distinctions or qualifications, he just broadbrushed all Jews of all time in the very place in which he was supposedly defending himself against the charge of anti-Semitism. How did you miss that?

    But more seriously, Jones has his theology all screwed up. The Church does not teach that Jesus Christ “came for one group of people”. It teaches that He came for all men, the Jew first and then to the Gentile. Taken at face value, Jones’ statement is heretical. On the contrary, “as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation” (Nostra Aetate 4).

    Second, it seems to me that Jones here outlines a sort of second Original Sin, in which the decision of many of the Jews of that day to reject Christ–”the Jewish people had to make a decision”–and some of them to put Him to death–”they confirmed that decision by choosing Barabbas over Christ”–was a decision made on behalf of all Jews, those living and all those yet to be born. By that corporate decision, all Jews automatically (and apparently culpably) a) reject Logos, and therefore b) reject the order of the universe, which leads automatically to them c) rejecting “any possible social order”, and therefore d) they are all, by definition and intrinsically, “revolutionary”. Not treated in any way as individuals by Jones, the “Jewish people” without any distinctions all share in this revolutionary inheritance of the decision of those living at the time of our Lord. Thus all of subsequent history comes to be defined as the struggle of these revolutionaries against “any possible social order”. No wonder, then, that they can be fairly described as the enemies of the universe.

    But that’s not anti-Semitism, mind you. (Wink, wink.)

    It’s not that the Jews are evil and not to be trusted on account of their DNA. No, that would be racial determinism. It’s just that they’re not to be trusted because they all share in the corporate sin of their forefathers, they have corporately rejected Logos, they corporately reject “any possible social order” and therefore they are all revolutionaries, bent on subverting all good order and right morals. Who could possibly see anything dangerous about that?

    How is this not directly contrary to the teaching of the Church that, “His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures” (Nostra Aetate 4)? And even more pointedly, the Church teaches that:

    “our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.” (Catechism of Trent, Article IV)

    And why the double-standards when it comes to Jews? Historically speaking, the Protestants of today are far closer in time to the fathers of their schism than are the Jews to theirs. Therefore, there is certainly at least equal excuse for today’s Jews for not expressly entering the Catholic Church as there is for Protestants. Lutherans who are born into their faith are quite different from the perspective of moral culpability than Martin Luther and his contemporary followers. The same is true of today’s Jews vs. the Jews 2,000 years ago who actually knew and heard Jesus. And while the selective rigorist who is fixated on followers of Judaism may argue that at least Protestants “accept Christ,” one may counter that rejection of the Church is also rejection of Christ (Lk. 10:16). The notion that all of today’s Jews who haven’t been baptized are consciously rejecting Jesus Christ and His Church–and that this rejection must truly be of Jesus and His Church and not what they falsely believe them to be (perhaps as a result of the kind of “teaching” spewed by people like Robert Sungenis and E. Michael Jones under the guise of “Catholic” theology)–is preposterous.

    Some weeks ago, in a lengthy discussion on the Catholic Answers Forum, I repeatedly challenged Bob Sungenis (a follower, friend and collaborator with E. Michael Jones) to provide magisterial support for his novel and idiosyncratic views on the Jewish people. In the face of these repeated challenges, there was nothing but a resounding silence. The same goes for Dr. Jones, who brazenly claims that he’s simply upholding “the traditional teaching of the Church”. So I issue the same challenge to Jones. Back up your novel theology from magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, Mike.

    I anticipate the same response. Silence.

  • Mark Shea says:

    Exhibit A, Christine.

    And yes, you do–constantly–speak on Michael’s behalf all over the blogosphere, perpetually turning up on any blog that says anything critical of him. You may not have been *sent* by him to speak on his behalf. But speak on his behalf you constantly do.

  • Mark Shea says:

    Indeed, Christine, as I scroll down the comboxes of the link I just posted, there you are! So you *know* that Brammer, who Voris insists is the one in charge of RCTV, and Jones have the same address and phone.

  • Christine says:

    When I see a good man maligned, yes, I will speak on his behalf.

    Brammer owns the domain name for RealCatholicTV.com, which is registered in Indiana. The Institute for New Media is Brammer’s baby; it has nothing to do with St. Michael’s Media or RCTV.

  • Jasper says:

    I understand Mark S’s concerns, I’m sure he knows alot more about EMJ than I do.

    But, let’s take a step back and look at who controls the awful anti-catholic media, anti-catholic hollywood, the porn industry, those who lead the legalization of abortion, the anti-christian legal system, etc. For being just 1-2 % of the US population they sure have wreaked alot of havoc.

    This is my last comment of this thread, I had a good, clean comment up that got deleted…

  • “For 1 to 2 % of the population, they sure have wreaked a lot of havoc.”

    No. Rather, we Catholics with our pitiful embrace of social justice / common good nonsense did that. We wanted bellies filled with the food that perishes instead of the Bread of Life. It’s our very own – Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, Kucinich, Cuomo (Mario and Andy), Leahy, Pelosi, etc ad nauseam who have done this, along with too many effeminate, hand-wringing clerics more interested in the praises of men than of God. NOT the Jews! The Jews didn’t do this.

    BTW, aren’t this week’s daily gospel readings on Jesus’ bread of life discourse?

  • Chris P says:

    I am amazed that absolutly no one has pointed out the mean spirited, unchartible way that Shea makes his points in this article.

    …..Michael Voris, Folk Hero to the Utterly Undiscerning

    What a wonderful thing to say. A nice insult really gets a point across.

    Another charitable description:

    It will be interesting to see how long fanboys of Voris’ dangerous demagoguery will go on defending this or drinking this poison because “He has some good things to say you know”.

    I was completely unaware of this whole situation, but I am glad to be labeled utterly undiscerning and a “fanboy”.

    I am amazed a Catholic blogger can be so nasty and not be called out on it.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    This is my last comment of this thread,

    No jasper, that is your last comment on this blog. Bye.

    Though I will leave your comment up as it destroys the facade you were so careful to erect.

  • Mark Shea says:

    Chris P:

    If Jasper wasn’t on this very thread (and several other over at my blog) demonstrating exactly what I’m talking about, you’d have a point.

    Christine: Somehow your concern for people being maligned only extends to Voris and not to a nation being maligned en masse as “enemies of the human race” while Voris chuckles and rolls his eyes at the dolts who (“get this” says his mocking tone) think Jones is anti-semite. You have no problem with Voris helping to malign Chaput and encouraging contempt for him. Or, really, anybody Voris deems to be not a “Real Catholic[TM]“. Seriously, when the moneybags behind RCTV is Brammer and Brammer is in bed with Jones and Jones is given a softball interview by Voris calculated to mainstream his nuttery and create more Jaspers, Voris passes his sell by date. He is a dangerous demagogue and what he is selling is poisonous Jew-hatred. That the Jew-hatred is dolled up as Traditional Catholic Teaching and not as racism, just makes his poison more toxic. Stop making excuses for him.

  • Chris P is correct. Mark Shea is every bit as diplomatic and “charitable” as Michael Voris is. Sorry, Mark. I agree with you about this particular issue, but you and Michael do share some characteristics. No insult is intended.

    PS, I too am about as diplomatic and “charitable” as a skunk off gassing at Sunday morning Mass. Fortunately, I have little audience if any to speak of.

    ;-)

  • Francis says:

    Yeah, you know how THOSE people are, Jasper. I mean, they’re basically all the same, THOSE people…those…JEWS. They have wreaked a lot of havoc…those enemies of the universe.

    As Paul Primavera pointed out: Who is in control of our government? Jews? No. The Supreme Court? Jews? No.

    Boy, they are pretty tricky mind-controllers, those Jews. They manage to control 98-99% of the population. They must have special Jew-powers. Maybe they’re doing something to us all through our cell phones? I’d really like to see where they all meet to come up with their plans. I hear they don’t even have to all vote on what evil they’re going to perpetrate. They just KNOW! They all think alike, kind of like the Borg!

    So, who invented the birth control pill – the very thing that enabled the sexual revolution? That Jew, John Rock. Oh, wait. John Rock was a Catholic.

    Who did away with the decency code in Hollywood. That Jew, Jack Valenti. Oh, wait. Valenti was an Italian Catholic.

    Who introduced Rock and Roll and crazy sexual gyrations to our youth? That Jew, Elvis Presley. Oh wait, Presley was a member of the Assembly of God.

    Who founded Playboy? That Jew, Hugh Hefner. Oh, wait. Hefner’s lineage is German/English and he was raised a Methodist.

    Penthouse? That Jew, Bob Guccione. Oh, wait. Guccione was an Italian Catholic.

    Hustler? That Jew, Larry Flynt. Oh, wait. Flynt’s ancestry is English.

    But it’s all the fault of the Jews. These poor, simple Gentiles couldn’t resist the mind-control power of THE JEWS!

    :-/

  • Mark Shea says:

    Paul P.: No disagreement. I know I irk people. I don’t much care about it in this case since people irked on Voris and Jones’ behalf for this are people whose opinion I don’t value and whose approval I would feel ashamed of. I do care about Catholics pretending that declaring the Jews the enemy of the human race is “Traditional Catholicism” and I acutely care that influential demagogues like Voris package, market, and sell that to suckers who have anointed him the latest Folk Hero. That sh*t is poison and he needs to be stopped. I hope the bishops of Detroit and South Bend step on them *hard*.

  • Mark Shea says:

    Paul P.:

    In cyberspace, you’re on your own. In the real world, on rare ocassions, bishops step in to put out fires if they threaten to burn out of control. Vigneron tried it once and Voris defied him while posing as persecuted savior of the American Church and disingenously passing the buck to Brammer. If these guys keep this up, my prayer, frankly, is that Rhoades of South Bend (who already has had to tangle with Sungenis’ nuttery) and Vigneron of Detroit will bring the hammer down on this whole dodgy operation. It’s a faint hope: a poor thing but mine own. And when it happens you can *bet* that there will be screams from the Voris crowd about the liberal gay cabal silencing a brave hero (just like with Corapi). For my part, I will applaud it as a real act of episcopal courage.

  • Ivan says:

    I tend to agree with Bonchamps. Saudi Arabia that excellent friend of the US, is the main sponsor of Islamism. Of course they do not need sponsor Bin Laden or AlQueda to get their job done, merely pour in billions into their taquiyya in various countries. Things will then take care themselves. It turns out that Hans Blix was right: Saddam Hussein neither had nuclear weapons nor the means to produce any. Essentially the US took out a toothless tiger who had some value in preventing wholesale Iranian takeover of the Persian Gulf to no purpose. Christians are routinely hounded and murdered in the new Iraq. A few hundred thousand of them are refugees in the surrounding countries. If the remaining neocons and Hillary Clinton have their way, the two million Christians in Syria would meet the same fate. I don’t think the Israelis give a damn one way or another about the Christians so any hope that the paladins would ride out from Tel Aviv is forlorn indeed. They abandoned their Christian allies the SLA without much heartache in 2000.

  • Greg Mockeridge says:

    Ivan:

    Both the Kay and Duefluer reports affirmed that Hussein posed an even greater threat than even the Bush administration thought. WHile there were no WMD stockpiles found, he was retaining all his experts that could very easily make WMD after the UN sanctions had been lifted, something that was in the works but the US overthrew the regime. Plus Saddam was awash with cash, thanks to the corruption of the Oil for Food program.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Hussein posed a greater threat… to whom, exactly?

    Not the United States of America. In fact he only invaded Kuwait the first time around because he mistakenly believed that our government wouldn’t mind if he did.

  • Tyler says:

    Is the Old Testament still part of the Catholic Tradition to the “Traditionalist Catholics”?….in my recollection I believe there are numerous passages in which God warns in scripture, that the Jewish People are his and he will deal with his people himself.. and that anybody who wrongfully or unjustly persecutes them will bring genuine “creator-of-the-universe-wrath” onto themselves…. as mentioned previously in these forums… history has already shown this, time and time again.

    Mark’s sage-like ability to detect the beginnings of yet another so-called orthodox Catholic personality spectacular falls from their mountain tops is both uncanny & depressing…

  • Art Deco says:

    Not the United States of America. In fact he only invaded Kuwait the first time around because he mistakenly believed that our government wouldn’t mind if he did.

    Nice bit of excuse-mongering. He conquered and despoiled a harmless neighboring principality in an effort to treble his proven reserves of oil. Previously, he had thrown eight years and several hundred thousand lives into an effort to conquer the Iranian province of Khuzestan. You seem to forget the Ba’ath Party was a multinational pan-Arab fascist organization and the limits on his ambitions in and amongst the Arab states were purely practical. From 1972 to the day it was ejected in April of 2003, it was consistently among the half-dozen or so most abusive governments in the world and in a similarly exclusive club as regards the use of military conquest as a political tool and developing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

  • Dale Price says:

    Sometimes I am the anal orifice. Sorry I didn’t see the humor. I had a boss once who is an Iranian Shiite. He had a Koran on his desk just as I have a Bible on mine. He turned out to be more Christian in his behavior than most so-called Christians I know. How’s that for irony?

    Nah, Paul, you’re a good egg, all around. In my attempt at humor, I deliberately used Islamist as opposed to Muslim. Your point is a good one. And since the only doctor to ever cut into my innards is a Muslim, I’m inclined to agree with your distinctions. :)

    In my experience, the Shia are really a good bunch. Alas for Khomeini and the Mullahocracy, who are the worst possible examples of Shiism ever to exist.

  • Art Deco correctly wrote: “He [ Saddam Hussein ] conquered and despoiled a harmless neighboring principality in an effort to treble his proven reserves of oil.”

    If we did this (see web links below), then we wouldn’t need to care about Kuwaiti or Iraqi or Iranian or Saudi oil:

    http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/vhtr.htm
    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Hydrogen_production_from_nuclear_power

    @ Dale – thanks for the kind response.

  • Chris P says:

    If Jasper wasn’t on this very thread (and several other over at my blog) demonstrating exactly what I’m talking about, you’d have a point.

    I really don’t know who Jasper is and it was not relevant to what I said. I didn’t know two wrongs make a right???

    I do know this, when I go to the youtube RCTV I see an excellent video on abortion. I watched an excellent series on overcoming pornography. He talks about attaining holiness and praying for others.

    I found out about this site and some others through RCTV.

    Obviously I don’t agree with everything he says, but why don’t you try pointing out his errors without the snide comments….

  • A rant.

    The reason why the Middle East is so messed up is human envy, greed and lust for power.
    The reason why the US is not energy self-sufficient is human envy, greed and lust for power.
    The reason why some hate Jews is human envy, greed and lust for power.
    The reason why some hate Arabs, Persians, Muslims, etc. is human envy, greed and lust for power.

    The problem is sin. The problem has always been sin – rebellion against God. And the problem always will be sin.

    Now as for Voris, I really like it when he slames liberal politicians and clerics (sorry, I’m bad and I know it). And no, I am not a shrill for the GOP-Republicans; personally, I prefer the Constitution Party, but that’s a different topic.

    But I don’t like it when Voris goes in with anti-Semitic jerks like Jones or when he unfairly demeans our separated Protestant brethren. I used to post his videos at my blog. I have since stop doing that except in rare cases. My family is all Protestant and I’ll be darned if I am going to insult them with the declaration “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.” My Mom and siblings will learn more about the Catholic faith if I actually live that faith instead of acting like a triumphal jerk (which I am well adept at doing).

  • Christine says:

    Paul wrote: “My family is all Protestant and I’ll be darned if I am going to insult them with the declaration “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.” ”

    Voris didn’t make up that doctrine–he’s merely repeating what the Church has always taught. If merely teaching basic Catholic doctrine offends people, so be it.

    The Church allows for the possibility of salvation outside the fold in cases of invincible ignorance. But that is the exception, not the rule. By the ordinary means of grace, we need the Church to be saved. We do protestants no favors by sugarcoating or whitewashing this teaching, as their very souls are in danger of hell without the sacraments.

    The purpose of proclaiming “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is not to be triumphalist–it is to SAVE SOULS. That should be the only motive for anything we say or do.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Paul,

    The dogmas of the Church will always be insulting to those who reject them. But they are the divinely revealed truths which we MUST believe as Catholics. EENS is not negotiable, and you only cause harm to souls by pretending otherwise. I have many Protestant family members too. Sugar-coating things won’t help them.

  • Oh darn! This is another thing not directly related to the topic. Voris apparently thinks (well, I’m not inside his head, so I don’t know what he thinks) that “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” means “Extra Ecclesiam Romanam Nulla Salus.” That “Ecclesia Romana” recognizes as valid the Holy Orders and Sacraments within the independent autocephalus Eastern Orthodox Churches demonstrates that “Extra Ecclesiam Romanam Nulla Salus” is a false sentiment and one need not be “In Communione Plena cum Sede Petri” to be saved.

    OK, now I suppose that I too will be branded a heretic. Can’t win no matter what.

    :-(

    BTW, my whole family knows exactly where I stand on the primacy of the Catholic faith. If I am an opinionated “loud mouth” here, how do you I am around my own family? Rhetorical question.

    ;-)

    We simply don’t argue the point any longer. Now I guess I should get back on topic.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Paul,

    You certainly can’t win when you disagree with God and His Church.

    Valid sacraments, BTW, have nothing to do with Church membership. The sacraments are valid because they have power in and of themselves, just like the name of Jesus Christ does. But just as NOT everyone who says “Lord, Lord” – including those who even cast out demons with His name – will be saved, neither will people be saved merely because they gave or received valid sacraments.

    The Easterners are still in schism, and none of the basic conditions for unity such as those spelled out by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos have been met. But if THEIR position is precarious, then that of the Protestants is even worse.

    This isn’t some petty academic dispute either. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that outside the Church it is all but impossible to stay free of mortal sin, to acquire the graces and helps needed for salvation. The Protestant confessions present a version of the faith that does not produce saints, nor does it even really acknowledge the validity of sainthood as we do.

    That said, there will be as many Catholics in hell as there are Protestants. Being a Catholic isn’t a one-way ticket to Heaven. It’s just a boarding pass. You can get kicked off the train at any time before you die.

  • Christine says:

    “Voris apparently thinks (well, I’m not inside his head, so I don’t know what he thinks)…”

    No, you don’t know what he thinks, so best to leave all speculation aside and refrain from attributing beliefs to him that are false. He follows the Church’s teachings on EENS–no more, no less.

  • Christine says:

    Bonchamps wrote: “St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that outside the Church it is all but impossible to stay free of mortal sin, to acquire the graces and helps needed for salvation.”

    Very true. Just think: one mortal sin is sufficient to send one’s soul to hell, unless one receives sacramental absolution. And protestants not only reject sacramental absolution, they also in many cases reject the notion that grave sins can cause loss of salvation, and even reject what those sins might be. According to the Catholic Church, using contraception is a mortal sin; masturbation is a mortal sin; indulging in pornography is a mortal sin; sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin; etc. If a protestant has done any of these even ONCE in his life, he has lost his salvation, until he is absolved through the sacrament of penance.

    Our Lady of Fatima said souls are falling into hell like snowflakes because they have none to pray and sacrifice for them. We have the truth that the world is literally dying to hear, and we must share it.

  • David Palm specializes in half truths. First let me say that the only “silence” he received was when I said “we are done” to anymore discussion with Mr. Palm after I caught him divulging a private email on the CA thread I sent him several months prior. As for his “challenge,” Yanni and I spent two weeks informing Mr. Palm about what Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium teach about the Jews, but he simply didn’t want to accept it. That’s because Mr. Palm believes the Jews are “special people” just because they are Jewish, just as Roy Schoeman and David Moss teach. This is nothing more than spiritual racism. It is heretical and sinful, and it is precisely what Dr. Jones and I are fighting against. Neither Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium teach it.

  • Mike Petrik says:

    I apologize, Christine, but it was not obvious to me. You are correct that the related doctrines of invincible ignorance and Baptism of Desire are exceptions to the rule so to speak, but some exceptions swallow rules. The Holy Spirit has not yet revealed the precise contours of these related teachings to the Church, so we must acknowledge them as not being fully understood. Accordingly, we must be cautious in assuming a perfect understanding of the eternal fate of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, including those who are unbaptized. This cuts two ways of course. We must evangelize since we cannot assume our non-Catholic loved ones who live in accordance with natural law will know God, but we may also avoid despair for our loved ones by knowing that the Church most definitely holds out the possiblity that their souls may experinece eternal rest with the Lord. This uncertainty may be a gift in that it avoids the temptation to despair as well as the temptation to dismiss the importance of evangelization.
    Finally, your apparent assertion that a single moral sin necessarily consigns a Protestant to eternal damnation absent the Sacrament of Penance is not a Church teaching; it is but a speculation.

  • Christine says:

    Mike, I was following what you said, up until this: “Finally, your apparent assertion that a single mortal sin necessarily consigns a Protestant to eternal damnation absent the Sacrament of Penance is not a Church teaching; it is but a speculation.”

    The Catholic Church unambiguously teaches that mortal sin causes the death of the soul. There is no speculation there.

    From the Baltimore Catechism:

    “68. Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, what else does mortal sin do to the soul?

    Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, mortal sin makes the soul an enemy of God, takes away the merit of all its good actions, deprives it of the right to everlasting happiness in heaven, and makes it deserving of everlasting punishment in hell.”

    The Church also unambiguously teaches that the only way to be forgiven of mortal sin is through sacramental absolution. There are exceptions of invincible ignorance–but those are the exceptions, and we cannot go about acting as if the exception is the rule.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Mike P:

    Christine may not be a “Feeneyite”, but I am, more or less.

    If you want to debate the merits, I will be happy to do so. If the argument is simply “Feeneyism is heresy”, well, that is a whole different debate. Obviously I don’t think it is, and neither does the current pope for that matter. From all I have read, this is considered a legitimate theological dispute.

    I’ll grant that this is one of the most terribly misunderstood positions a person can hold, and I’ve heard every – and I mean every – concievable argument against it. This might not be the thread to have it out on this topic, or maybe it is.

  • Mike Petrik says:

    Bonchamps,

    Didn’t Feeney reject Church teaching on both Baptism of Desire as well as invincible ignorance as being incompatable with EENS?

    Do you think that martyrs who died absent baptism by water are consigned to eternal damnation?

  • Mike Petrik says:

    Christine,
    It is true that we cannot go about acting as if the exception is the rule, but nor should we assume the exception is narrow when the Church does not teach that. In fact an examination of Church teaching in its fullness strongly suggests otherwise.
    In any case, it would be foolish to evangelize via citation to EENS. One must evangelize by convincing non-Catholics that the Church is Christ’s true mystical body on earth. No thinking person will agree to be received into the Church for fear of his soul until he first determines that the Church is what She claims to be. Leading with EENS is destined to be feckless.

  • Francis says:

    So now Robert Sungenis has gotten into the comments box here defending his associate E. Michael Jones? This is the sort of company Michael Voris is exposing his viewers to. As I said, I think this is going to end badly for Voris.

    Christine, you’re obviously an energetic supporter of Voris. It sounds like you know him personally. Maybe he would listen to you. Have you tried to help him by warning him?

  • Christine says:

    Mike wrote: “It is true that we cannot go about acting as if the exception is the rule, but nor should we assume the exception is narrow when the Church does not teach that. In fact an examination of Church teaching in its fullness strongly suggests otherwise.”

    No one can reasonably come to that conclusion by reading all the magisterial pronouncements on EENS, which proclaim forcefully and unequivocally that the Church is necessary for salvation. It has only been in the 20th century that the teaching seems to have been watered down to near-meaninglessness.

    “In any case, it would be foolish to evangelize via citation to EENS.”

    I leave it to each person to decide the best way to evangelize in a particular situation. I do know that in my experience, downplaying the necessity of the Church never leads to any good, and deprives non-Catholics of the graces of the sacraments they so desperately need. We do souls no favors by watering down this teaching.

    “Christine, you’re obviously an energetic supporter of Voris. It sounds like you know him personally. Maybe he would listen to you. Have you tried to help him by warning him?”

    Michael’s a big boy and needs no advice from me. The fact that his detractors like to make connections that do not exist in order to tarnish his reputation is their problem, not his. His chief concern is the salvation of souls; all the rest is a distraction.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Mike P,

    “Didn’t Feeney reject Church teaching on both Baptism of Desire as well as invincible ignorance as being incompatable with EENS?”

    First, there is no “Church teaching” on Baptism of Desire. It is not a Magisterial teaching. It appears in many catechisms, yes, but there is no “ex cathedra” statement on this. Some point to a passage in the Council of Trent, but if it is studied contextually, it is by no means certain that the council is actually teaching the doctrine – and even if it were, it would have been teaching the doctrine as it was believed by some (though not all or even the majority) of the Church Fathers, which basically limited the possibility of BOD/BOB to catechumens with explicit faith in Christ.

    “Do you think that martyrs who died absent baptism by water are consigned to eternal damnation?”

    There’s no evidence that anyone died without baptism (saying “by water” seems redundant, since the word means “immersion in water”…). There are some martyrs for whom there is no record of a baptism; there is no case that I know of in which historians are absolutely positive that there was no baptism.

    What I do know is that there is no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium for any exceptions to Jn. 3:5, and I find 99% of the attempts to find one to be based upon purely subjective emotions. Are these emotions understandable? Yes. Are they valid as far as establishing the truth of this matter goes? Not in the least. People who worry about their non-Catholic relatives going to hell should recall, as well, what Jesus said:

    “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” — Lk. 14:26

    I’m not saying my take on BOD is dogma and you have to share it to be a good Catholic. I am saying, though, that every person I’ve discussed this with has a personal, subjective motivation for wanting to reject Feeney (and St. Augustine). They are unable or unwilling to seriously and objectively consider the facts. And that’s fine, if you just can’t bring yourself to it. But then usually follows the name-calling, the “you must think you’re so great” line of thought.

    As I see it, I just believe what the man said, and what the Church always taught.

  • Francis says:

    “Michael’s a big boy and needs no advice from me. The fact that his detractors like to make connections that do not exist in order to tarnish his reputation is their problem, not his. His chief concern is the salvation of souls; all the rest is a distraction.”

    Christine, based on the information brought out by Mark Shea, there clearly seems to be some type of collaboration going on between Jones, Brammer and Voris beyond Jones’ appearance on Voris’ show. And he conducted an interview with Jones in which he allowed Jones to white-wash the whole “Jewish issue.” Do you see what that might not be a good idea for Voris’ reputation? Why it might not be good for his audience? Now Jones’ associate Robert Sungenis is chiming in. I don’t think that’s a good thing for Michael Voris, either.

    I’d think that he would appreciate and value feedback from someone like yourself who has devoted such time and energy to defending him. For all we know, maybe he’s not fully aware of these things. So you’d be doing him a real service. Maybe even more of a service than promoting and defending him on blogs. I mean that sincerely.

  • Dale Price says:

    Yes, it’s going to end very badly for Voris. The greater tragedy will be how many people get sucked into the Jew-hating pit with him.

    No one who claims to care for his work seems inclined even to warn him away, which is another, lesser tragedy.

  • Paul asked that this thread return to the topic of his post and his request has been ignored. I am going to disable comments for this thread. Paul may re-enable comments if he wishes. Right now this thread seems to be home to several debates that are far removed indeed from the original topic raised by Paul.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .