Part 3: In defense of Bashing Protestantism

I needed to bring this up before I forgot about it

Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong made a number of statements a while back about a Vortex that can be seen below.

One of his major points is that we cant really trace the things that are going on today to Protestantism, that is that modernism and the contraceptive ideology that flows through modern protestant ciricles, cant be said to come from the protestant heresy specifically.

Just today as I was rereading the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis written by Saint Pope Pius X in 1907, in which the Pope, the reigning Pontiff himself makes this statement as can be seen below:

Modernism and All the Heresies39. It may be, Venerable Brethren, that some may think We have dwelt too long on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary, both in order to refute their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories but in a perfectly organised body, all the parts of which are solidly joined so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies? Were one to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate the sap and substance of them all into one, he could not better succeed than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have done more than this, for, as we have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone but of all religion. With good reason do the rationalists applaud them, for the most sincere and the frankest among the rationalists warmly welcome the modernists as their most valuable allies.For let us return for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue that leads the intellect to God is barred, but the Modernists would seek to open others available for sentiment and action. Vain efforts! For, after all, what is sentiment but the reaction of the soul on the action of the intelligence or the senses. Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Vain, too, from another point of view, for all these fantasias on the religious sentiment will never be able to destroy common sense, and common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth. We speak, of course, of truth in itself - as for that other purely subjectivetruth, the fruit of sentiment and action, if it serves its purpose for the jugglery of words, it is of no use to the man who wants to know above all things whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the Modernists do call in experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience add to sentiment? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of the object. But these two will never make sentiment into anything but sentiment, nor deprive it of its characteristic which is to cause deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on the contrary, they but confirm and aggravate this characteristic, for the more intense sentiment is the more it is sentimental. In matters of religious sentiment and religious experience, you know, Venerable Brethren, how necessary is prudence and how necessary, too, the science which directs prudence. You know it from your own dealings with sounds, and especially with souls in whom sentiment predominates; you know it also from your reading of ascetical books - books for which the Modernists have but little esteem, but which testify to a science and a solidity very different from theirs, and to a refinement and subtlety of observation of which the Modernists give no evidence. Is it not really folly, or at least sovereign imprudence, to trust oneself without control to Modernist experiences? Let us for a moment put the question: if experiences have so much value in their eyes, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that thousands upon thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong road? It is, perchance, that all experiences except those felt by the Modernists are false and deceptive? The vast majority of mankind holds and always will hold firmly that sentiment and experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, do not lead to the knowledge of God. What remains, then, but the annihilation of all religion, - atheism? Certainly it is not the doctrine of symbolism - will save us from this. For if all the intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion are pure symbols, will not the very name of God or of divine personality be also a symbol, and if this be admitted will not the personality of God become a matter of doubt and the way opened to Pantheism? And to Pantheism that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads directly. For does it, We ask, leave God distinct from man or not? If yes, in what does it differ from Catholic doctrine, and why reject external revelation? If no, we are at once in Pantheism. Now the doctrine of immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds and professes that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man. The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of man with God, which means Pantheism. The same conclusion follows from the distinction Modernists make between science and faith. The object of science they say is the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, is the reality of the unknowable. Now what makes the unknowable unknowable is its disproportion with the intelligible - a disproportion which nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Modernist, can suppress. Hence the unknowable remains and will eternally remain unknowable to the believer as well as to the man of science. Therefore if any religion at all is possible it can only be the religion of an unknowable reality. And why this religion might not be that universal soul of the universe, of which a rationalist speaks, is something We do see. Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.

Now one might object that the encyclical wasn't specifically written about contraception, to which we agree.  Yet it hits on the very principles that were used 25 years later at the Lambeth conference in making contraception an ok practice for the Anglicans.  Need more proof of that read CASTI CONNUBII.    

So the take away is simple, Protestantism is indeed identified by perhaps the greatest reigning Pontiff of the last 500 years as the root cause of modernism and the contraceptive mentality that follows.  Waiting for a sorry to Mr. Voris...this could take a while seeing as Voris is now locked in a fight with Fr. Longinecker.  Imagine that, a consecrated lay celebate, against a dispensed Catholic priest on the matter of Professional Catholisism... its actually fun to watch.  Oh and thanks for linking the last post Dave, I apprieciate it and thank you for the kind words.

+ Chip, Chip, Cheerio +

Oh and Dave the point of the vortex wasnt about money as he stated in his follow up.  Nor does it have to do with him having applied for CA as a host in the past.  All of those things are irrelevant to what he identified as the purpose of the vortex post.  And finally if you are so interested in what he makes for a talk why not just ask him?  

Dave Armstrong's clarifications... what makes one a RadCathR or Madtrad or any other thing.

I have been rather critical of Dave Armstrong lately for his take on a Vortex a while back.  I do hope that in taking on the matter I did not scandalize anyone. Armstrong has been a noted apologist and convert for a long time and he probably feels what he said was just.  I disagree with him viametly but respect him as a person and encourage you to use his work as an apologetical source.

He does have this need to go after what he calls RadCathR’s, which means radical Catholic reactionaries.  Others like Patrick Coffin of Catholic Answers have labeled the perceived phenomenon as MadTrads.  As a general rule of thumb sites like Rorate Caeli, The Remnant, ChurchMilitant.tv, Harvesting the Fruits of Vatican II and others fall into this distinction.  I myself frequent such sites and really have no concern as to any label placed on me by anyone.  I love the work of the now deceased Michael Davis, John Senior and Walter Matt, who while traditionalists and probably RadCathR’s to Armstrong remained faithful to the Church, giving obedience due and pointing out the things that needed to either be clarified or fixed going forward. 

In his article where he defends his criticism of Voris (which I thought was better but still problematic), Mr. Armstrong delves into how RadCathR’s can be identified.  I have posted them below and his reason for labeling Voris as such.  I will put myself into the list and see were I come out.  Enjoy!  :-P

My quick four-point identifier of RadCathRism is one who continually and vehemently:

1. Bashes the Novus Ordo.

[I myself don’t go out of my way to bash the ordinary form, or the Novus Ordo whichever way people wish to label it.  I assist at the local Ancient Rite mass at St. Stans in Milwaukee on Sundays and most Holy Days, but it is hard to be there during the week because its not down the street from work, and the Mass times are not helpful.  Therefore I tend to assist at the local OF at The Gesu downtown early in the morning.  It’s the typical Jesuit mass (get the picture), but it’s the same Christ and that’s why I go.  I do have some major concerns with the OF which does play into my theological thinking on the liturgy.  We need to make distinctions like things that are actually part of the NO, and things that were later allowed to be applicable in the NO.  For instance when the new missal was issued by Ven. Paul VI in 1969 there was a push by some including Paul VI (I do have the quotes just ask) to set up the new liturgy so as not to offend protestants in order to draw them in quicker.  Things like the elimination of the collect, eliminating the final Gospel, a lectionary bent on broadness avoiding confrontation at times like Pauls writing against sodomites in Romans and multiple optional prayers are major issues which honest Catholics can and should be aware of and discuss.  Not that we expect anything to change, but we can hope for more.  His Holiness emeritus Benedict XVI called for mutual enrichment of the two forms.  Now put aside that im not sure how the NO is supposed to enrich the TLM outside of driving people to it quicker, we should not be afraid to delve into liturgical issues including how the missal was put together in the first place which many including Catholic Culture have condemned others for doing in the first place.  Below I have posted three videos delving into the NO’s formation by Voris (warning it’s an honest take with citations that doesn’t fit the go along to get along attitude many apologists take today).

2. Bashes Vatican II.

[I don’t bash Vatican II because I see no reason to blanket condemn anything including a valid ecumenical council with all that follows that designation.  Asking for greater clarity or asking whether something actually has binding authority attached to it doesn’t necessitate bashing of anything, its more a matter of putting forth questions that at never answered for reasons not to be mentioned here.  We need to be honest about the council and what it said, and how it applies to us, and I don’t think such clarity can be expected anytime soon.  For instance Cardinal Ratzinger and others were critical of parts of the council but were not bashers.  I think its fair to say even the SSPX really aren’t, as a fraternity, about bashing Vatican II, so much as them are calling those responsible for Holy Mother Church to be clear on the council and the documents that followed.]

3. Bashes popes (since Pius XII).

[Being critical of a Pontiff is not wrong in itself.  Now have the Popes since the council done foolish, or even perceptively wrong things.  I think its possible to say yes to this.  Do we condemn them?  No, we need to be objective about their actions however. This includes Pius XII and even St. Pius X, who anyone familiar with traditionalist thought would know is venerated greatly but his change to the breivery is often criticized.  Pius XII’s change to the Holy Week liturgies is also criticized by trads so its not really about being pre or post conciliar.]

4. Bashes ecumenism.

[Ok I have to be honest here.  When I hear ecumenism a couple things pop up into my head.  Perhaps Terrance you can comment on this.  First is the picture of the ecumenical service at St. Al’s in Greendale were different protestant sect leaders make their way down the aisle in procession along with the priests of St. Al’s for Good Friday service.  This service has really nothing to do with the liturgies that are to be offered according to the rubrics for the day.  In effect its more about reading Christs last words and expounding upon them.  While this might make us feel good about ourselves that we are not killing each other, there is a real problem with indifferentism that penetrates such events (I use this word willingly).  Is it good to have heretical groups parade down the aisle?  Is it good to have people that support heretical thoughts given a pulpit to espouse their views openly to what is usually mostly Catholics who attend the event?  Are their views on things like the atonement which will be necessarily addressed, worthy of being said so as to create confusion on the difference of doctrine for protestants and Catholics?  While most of us accept them as separated bretheren and therefore Christians of a heretical viewpoint, that does not necessitate us pretending that they are due any greater respect for their actions and their views.  I wish to remind the reader that the purpose of ecumenism can be put simply in that such engagements are done so as to call those separated from the Catholic Church back into her fold.  This includes primarily the Orthodox because they have churches, and to lesser extents the protestants who are ecclesial communities as Cardinal Ratzinger put it is Dominus Iesus as confirmed by JPII.  Such gatherings are a grace for the protestant or Orthodox to willingly accept and come home.  If we forgo this final purpose in favor of a mutual non aggression pact we fail Christ who calls all to the unity that the Catholic Church Herself is.  I myself delve into ecumenism but make it clear to anyone that I speak to the necessity of the Church for their salvation.  To forgo that is to mock Christ who is His Church.  Charity rests in Truth.]

Voris definitely (rather outrageously) does #1, did #2 to a large extent in a video about the alleged profound "ambiguities" of Vatican II; I haven't seen him do #3. He did #4 big-time in a pathetic video (August 2013) about Pat Robertson that engaged in some of the worst anti-Protestant vitriol that I've ever seen. [My comments above should suffice here along with my take on his commentary of the Pat Roberson video can be found a few posts back if your bored.]

Therefore, I conclude that if I have to choose a classification for him, it must be radical Catholic reactionary at this time. It's not too late for him to reform his views and become a mainstream "traditionalist" (if I could become a Catholic, certainly anything's possible!) [Not sure what it means to be a mainstream traditionalist.  I would assume it would mean merely a preference for the Latin Mass.  If this is true he does nothing helpful. No so called traditionalist is really interested in being mainstream to begin with.  Our love for the ancient rite, as stated earlier is not merely a preference, but theologically linked.  I cant really think of who is a mainstream traditionalist.  Even FSSP priests are generally shunned for their stance on certain documents of the council.  Perhaps he is appealing to Taylor Marshall who assists with his family at a tridentine mass.  I don’t think I would call him mainstream seeing as he only recently has done so, the same goes for myself.]

The stark differentiation between "traditionalist" and radical Catholic reactionary is very important to acknowledge, so that folks who simply prefer the TLM (Tridentine / extraordinary form) and liturgical tradition are not wrongly classified as radicals and extremists. [Well this could open a can of worms]

I don't think Voris is a "kook" and I hold out hope for him to modify his views, where he is not in line with the Mind of Holy Mother Church [On what exactly he is out of line with im not sure], but to classify him as a mainstream "traditionalist" would be a disservice to those who truly are in that category [This is one of the reasons I don’t like categories.  People that go to the NO are not any less catholic or mainstream then myself.  Even those who are critical of the council while accepting its validity are not outside the realms of Holy Mother Church.  There will always be head butting by so called trads and novus ordo types, neither should be shunned or mocked but listened to attentively.] I've staked out these definitions (I think, rationally and sensibly), and I have to apply them consistently and fairly.

May God lead all of us -- with His grace and power -- into the fullness of truth, and give us the wisdom and humility to accept correction when we are wrong. Lord, help us to be open to that! [Amen]

All of my papers devoted to Michael Voris can be found on my Radical Catholic Reactionaries vs. Catholic Traditionalism page, in one section devoted to him. [Mark Shea is jealous]

So what can we take away from it?  Dave is sincerely concernced about Michael Voris.  He holds that being critical of the council, ecumenism, Popes and the Holy Mass in its ordinary form is unacceptable, probably anathema.  He has set up distinctions within the traditionalist movement, distinguishing many as reactionaries and outside the mainstream of traditionalism (which I would beg to differ). You can read the rest of his article for yourself, it is informative and generally readable without anger consuming you.  Have a fantastic day!

Pulling people out of context: Calling for cool when reading fellow Catholic bloggers

I will admit it, Im a homer.  I love the work ChurchMilitant.tv puts out, and I was always a huge proponent of the apostolate when it was RealCatholicTV.

Having said that, I can understand how some people are standoffish, or even hostile toward the work of Michael Voris.  Most often we hear about how hes uncharitable, anti-semetic…the list goes on.  Is his approach the best way to bring back people into the faith, or bring them to the faith to begin with?  Perhaps not.  He is not as nuancing with his apologetics as Catholic Answers who generally go out of their way to not be too confrontational so as to slowly attract people into the church.  

Its similar with other apostolates.  Voris is defiantly more confrontational and will put out blunt appeals in his daily Vortex episodes.  He gets criticized for this, but really people?  It’s a 7-10 min clip, not with the objective of delving deep into the theology of a situation, but to confront the person where they are at and make them want to delve deeper, which I think he does.  I would note that it was Voris just a little after beginning up RealCatholic who put out a video calling on people to learn the faith, and not just take a back seat calling ourselves something we have no clue what it actually is, that played a role in me coming back to the faith, and it was done by confrontation with the truth and not slowly nipping at the heals.

So today I want to delve into an article I came across recently by a Catholic Apologist by the name of David Armstrong.  You can read his blog here.

My Comments in [RED BOLD AND BRACKETS]

Thursday, August 08, 2013

Michael Voris Engages in Despicable and Ridiculous Anti-Protestant Rhetoric

"Phony Pat Robertson" (6 August 2013)

I am as Catholic as any Catholic is. I wholeheartedly accept all that the Church teaches, and have devoted my life to defending Holy Mother Church (full-time for the last eleven years). No one can tar me as some sort of "liberal" in objecting to this video, or claim that I have "Protestant leftovers" in my belief-system. Don't even try' don't even start.

[blah, blah, blah…ok you’re not a heretic, we are all impressed!   :-P

That said (and it should be utterly unnecessary), the anti-Protestantism [heaven save us from being against the protestant heresy, let us instead be comforting of it] that Voris exhibits here is wicked [with this type of rhetoric to begin any article can we not expect him to put forth that Voris and others not thinking along the lines of Mr. Armstrong are anti-Semites] and dead-set against especially Vatican II [The council that in and of itself defined nothing dogmatically besides that which had been defined prior to the council, the way we approach protestants is not infallible, its an application thing; for more on the authoritative aspects on the council go here]: the ecumenical council that dealt most in-depth with ecumenism and the nature of our relations with Protestant separated brethren: fellow Christians, after all, who are validly baptized, validly and sacramentally married [And invalidly continue to remain outside of the Church at least visibly, please Dave quit with the excuses] (in the case of two baptized lifelong Protestants who are married in a Protestant service) and partake of many other graces [Wrong partake in only actual graces which have the purpose of bringing them to the One Church] and share a great deal in common with us [Well this is subjective isn’t it?  We could say the same about universalists couldn’t we].

As a former Protestant [Ah an expert on all things protestant and therefore the infallible teacher on application], I know what was in my heart, what I believed and didn't believe. I don't recognize myself at all in these absurd word-pictures that Voris creates [Lets make more out of some aspects then others]. Nor do, I'm sure, the vast majority of those converts to the Church who used to be Protestants (nor, of course, Protestants themselves)[Very well he doesn’t say it applies to everyone, if anyone is commiting a wrong its you taking his words and proposing them to mean something else]. This is so bad, I submit that it is evidence enough that Voris should never again publicly talk about Protestantism (arguably or perhaps not even Catholicism, either, if he understands  ecumenism so poorly as this)[In all charity your grudge with Mr. Voris must have something deeper to it, perhaps because Mark Shea is a friend?  We have a bingo don’t we.].

When Voris talks in this fashion, he is thinking and functioning like a wild-eyed radical Catholic reactionary (my newly-coined term for what I used to call a radtrad) [Why people like Coffin, Shea and you wish to place labels on people im not sure.  You probably don’t like it when such reactionaries, as you call them, call you a neo-catholic or an outright modernist.  Although I am certainly not against being refered to by others as a radical traditionalist for reasons mentioned here.]. This is not orthodox Catholicism [Well its certainly not Catholicism as per Dave Armstrong, but then again who is Dave Armstrong, and by what authority does he declare anything to begin with?]. Let's take some of the egregious examples from the video [This should be fun!]:

0:45 Are you looking for a reason or demonstration of why the Protestant heresy has been so harmful to the western world, and been the ultimate reason why the entire civilization has come crashing down? Well, all you have to do is listen to Pat Robertson . . . 

Where to begin? Good grief! [A drama queen too!] This is as idiotic as almost anything I've ever seen [Really Dave?  Come on your bias is showing.], and that is sayin' something, since apologists like myself are always dealing in false ideas and belief-systems [Its not saying anything, this is nothing but showmanship and fools rhetoric to take ones eyes off the actual quote.  Your better than this Dave, this is a weak way to start.]. This reminds me of radical Catholic reactionaries (RadCathRs) pretending / engaging in extraordinary sophistry [Which Mr. Armstrong never engages in, never…never ever….ever] and special pleading of trying to blame every ill imaginable in the Church on Vatican II [Got it?  Its not really about what Voris says its about creating a false dilemma to rile up his readers, sophistry at its core].

In both cases, it is an extremely ignorant social analysis, that relies on propagandistic [Again which Mr. Armstrong knows nothing of], polemics-driven old wives' tales [Rhetoric to take the eye off the ball], that can be accepted uncritically by those who aren't inclined or equipped to do the serious study required to make such claims in the first place [Like any RadCathRs as he puts it, we are actually knuckle draggers unfamiliar with VII and its obvious greatness and are unjustly calling protestants from their great enlightenment opporutunity where they are] . Protestantism is the ultimate reason, huh? [While it is not perfect, it is meeting people where they are at, in a heretical group so it works for this sample that Voris brings up.  That you think its not helpful is a matter of taste that you have overblown into a terrible happenstance.]  Nothing else factors in there [Did he say it was the only thing? No of course he did not.  He is giving “a reason or demonstration, not the ultimate demonstration or the end all be all.  You put words in his mouth and call him anathema for it.] ; our fellow Christians have accomplished such a mighty feat all on their own! [You for you should realize how I can take this one sentence and pull it completely out of context as you have done.  For instance, are you saying they did it without the grace of God?  How dare you deny Gods grace!  Got it now context time] showing in the matter I wrote in a paper dated 2000, in response to RadCathRs, the following cultural observation, that also fits here:

. . . elements of the Renaissance and the earlier nominalism, the Enlightenment, materialistic evolutionism, the utopian ideal of Progress, massive secularization, Marxism, philosophical relativism, political and theological liberalism, the Sexual and Feminist and Unisex Revolutions, idolatrous wealth and all the myriad temptations of modern American life, the disintegration of the family, the incessant propaganda and brainwashing of TV and movies and advertising, lack of education . . . [Again where do these flow from?  But ultimately from a rejection of rightful authority which can be traced to many different things from the original fall, to the Orthodox schism, to yes the protestant rebellion which is who he addressing here specifically.]

Theological liberalism / secularism / atheism in particular attacked all forms of Christianity in the 18th and 19th centuries. Protestantism can hardly have been the cause of all that, when it was as vigorously opposed by these forces of darkness as the Catholic Church was. Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his "Biglietto" speech upon becoming a Cardinal (12 may 1879), placed atheism and "religion" in opposition to each other, not atheism and Catholicism only: 

Hitherto the civil power has been Christian. Even in countries separated from the Church, as in my own, the dictum was in force, when I was young, that: 'Christianity was the law of the land.' Now, everywhere that goodly framework of society, which is the creation of Christianity, is throwing off Christianity. The dictum to which I have referred, with a hundred others which followed upon it, is gone, or is going everywhere; and, by the end of the century, unless the Almighty interferes, it will be forgotten. Hitherto, it has been considered that religion alone, with its supernatural sanctions, was strong enough to secure submission of the masses of our population to law and order; now the Philosophers and Politicians are bent on satisfying this problem without the aid of Christianity. [And just as he gave an example, so to you do here as well….big deal]

. . . As to Religion, it is a private luxury, which a man may have if he will; but which of course he must pay for, and which he must not obtrude upon others, or indulge in to their annoyance. The general [nature] of this greatapostasia is one and the same everywhere; but in detail, and in character, it varies in different countries. For myself, I would rather speak of it in my own country, which I know. There, I think it threatens to have a formidable success; though it is not easy to see what will be its ultimate issue. At first sight it might be thought that Englishmen are too religious for a movement which, on the continent, seems to be founded on infidelity; but the misfortune with us is, that, though it ends in infidelity as in other places, it does not necessarily arise out of infidelity. . . . it must be borne in mind, that there is much in the liberalistic theory which is good and true; for example, not to say more, the precepts of justice, truthfulness, sobriety, self-command, benevolence, which, as I have already noted, are among its avowed principles, and the natural laws of society. It is not till we find that this array of principles is intended to supersede, to block out, religion, that we pronounce it to be evil. There never was a device of the Enemy so cleverly framed and with such promise of success.

(Wilfrid Ward,  The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912, Vol. II, 460-462)

Take your pick [Here comes the false dicodomy.  Its not an either or, it’s a both and as many apologists like to say.]: Newman's penetrating, fine-tuned superb thought vs. Voris' hackneyed [Im sure Voris will come back at you using the name game…child please] pseudo-intellectual gibberish, in this regard, that should make any thinking person blush with shame and embarrassment that such laughable hogwash is allowed to be promulgated in public, with a straight face [At least according to Mr. Armstrong who is the authority on such matters  ;-)  ].

Voris refers in blanket terms to "the Protestant heresy." Yes, in several ways, the various sects of Protestantism are indeed heretical. Yet Protestantism is also Christian [Only Chrisitan in-so-far as it accepts Catholic truths, so don’t act like they have something on their own, which I don’t think you mean to say.]. It's not simply a heresy and 100% false as a result [Well if that’s the game we are playing here then why call anything heresy?  He didn’t claim it was 100% wrong.  Heresy might have some truth to it, like the Mohammadans have, yet they reject the Church Christ established in some way or another, and thus they reject Christ in some way or another (as to their culpability in the matter, that’s another subject as you and I would agree.]. Here is how Vatican II refers to Protestants, in its Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio, 21 November 1964) [all emphases mine] [While this is a valid Ecumenical council it holds 0 binding authority because it didn’t define any absolutes on the matter of anything including how to approach heretical groups like protestants.  It only gave a pastoral approach to the matter, not infallible or strictly binding on anyone which Lumen Gentium affirms]

among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day a movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. Taking part in this movement, which is called ecumenical, are those who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They do this not only as individuals but also as members of corporate groups in which they have heard the Gospel . . . The sacred Council gladly notes all this (1)  [Great affirm what we have in common, now say where and why they go wrong to make it clear, but no, lets be silent on that so as not to offend anyone, after all it’s a new way of doing things, and we are in a world of goodness progressing toward better, ala Gaudium Et Spes]

. . . one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ  [And neither can someone rely on ignorance to guarantee anything as St. Thomas and Ven. Pius IX taught], and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers [Seperated brothers indeed, and we accept them not because they are protestants or for the falshoods they profess, but because they are made in the image of God and profess some Catholic truths]. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. (3) [Boy if people spoke like this and approached the SSPX with such charity I would be amazed (not being SSPX associated myself though.  But more to the pointits not just a matter that Protestants are are imperfect communion, that’s along the lines of the SSPX, more that they are not in communion.  Orthodox, SSPX, Old Catholics, these are different and should be treated differently then protestants, don’t like it then take it up with Cardinal Ratzinger in his affirmation that was booed by the protestants because finally we didn’t delve into ambiguity to make people feel better].

all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ [footnote cites Council of Florence, Session 8, from the year 1439]; they therefore have a right to be called Christians [A right to be called Christians?  Really? What are rights for?  Come on. Rights are given to do what is just according to Gods will, abilities is another thing.]  , and with good reason are accepted as brothers [Though separated, make it clear] by the children of the Catholic Church. (3)

Moreover, some, even very many, of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can [Notice the word can, it is not a definitive by any stance.] exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace [Actual Grace only, unless very strict measures are met]; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these . . . come from Christ and lead back to him [Lead back to him, we must emphasize this, that when we say him we speak of his Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apolstolic Church] . . . (3) 

The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the conditions of each Church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation. [Can, got that, no guarantee, and its not because of the heresies they believe and profess but the Catholic truths that they hold to that are actual graces leading them to the one Church.] (3) 

the separated Churches and communions as such . . . have been by no means deprived [Perhaps no one deprived them, but they have deprived themselves.] of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [When we say them it must be noted that we don’t mean the communities or “churches”, but the people active within them, just as God used Cyris to free the Israelites.] as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. (3)

Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments for our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ [Actual Grace] and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ [Which has a purpose of?], sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. (4) 

Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification [So we as Catholics are missing something, or is it that we need reminding of our own teachings.]. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith [The Catholic Faith that is.]; indeed, it can always bring a more perfect realization of the very mystery of Christ and the Church. (4) 

bond of brotherhood existing among all Christians [But not to forget that that bond has been severed by those who revolted separating themselves from the true vine.]. (5)

All this, and all Voris can say about our Protestant brethren in Christ is that the entire group is a "heresy" that has "been the ultimate reason why the entire civilization has come crashing down"? [You see Dave you cant just appeal to VII to make your point because as Cardinal Kasper said the texts are ambiguous at points, with compromised formulas, and no binding authority to boot.]

I don't think so. He either accepts Vatican II as magisterial Catholic teaching or he does not [False setup, if Vatican II thought anything de fide then show us.  Go back to the link I gave you above. It’s a valid council, but it only provides pastoral approaches, not actual teachings that bind anyone, other than presumably their own consciences.]. This rhetoric highly suggests that he does not [You put words into his mouth here, you take one sentence and thinks it’s a doctrinal statement, have you missed the Mic’d Up Episode and the “A conversation with” episodes with Louie Vorrechio from CNS.  This is bearing false witness, and it is best you stop now and repent.]: that he lines his bird and rabbit cages with pages ripped out of the Vatican II documents that he seemingly despises [More rhetoric…please.]. If he accepts Trent, he must also accept Vatican II [He does as a valid ecumenical council and all that comes with it, but it seems you misunderstand the weighting of whats in the documents.], which according to Pope Benedict XVI in his pre-pontificate interview, The Ratzinger Report, "is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him." [This is correct, but what else did Cardinal Ratzinger say about the council?  You pick and choose what you want heard Dave.  For instance here. Now is he against the council, no yet you accuse Voris of the same crap which you don’t point out the key players there held] He continued:

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself [False statement, if the council clearly expressed itself we would have no need of a hermanutic of continuity and no constant insistence by Popes that it must be read in the light of tradition.  This completely ignores revalations by cardinals as recently as Cardinal Kasper that the text was formed with compromised formulas that create ambiguities.  So too a document cant understand itself but must be understood by a living authority and clearly stated which is one of the things trads are calling for in asking for clarification on certain parts of Vatican two that need to be further defined so they cannot be treated as fodder for dissenters.], at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II [This understanding that Vatican II is the same type of council and called for the same reasons as the previous two is a mistake.  Its placing VII on a level that the council itself did not propose to place itself.  A careful reading of Lumen Genitum makes this apparent as well as the insert from Paul VI himself in Dignatis Humane]. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils [Again false statement, Voris and other traditional minded Catholics don’t reject Vatican II as being an ecumenical council.  Please stop putting words in their mouths Dave.] and thereby detaches them from their foundation [A foundation which is not defined as being along the lines of the other two councils to begin with.]. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism,' also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity [Which is agreed by all, the way we go about it makes a difference which is something Benedict realized] .
To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council [One can defend the council while realizing that not every document carries the same weight, nor the same doctrinal authority to begin with.  I defend the council, even the sedevacantist Fr. Cekeda defended the council, it’s a matter of asking the Vatican to finally give some definitive understanding of what authority the documents carry and how to reconcile them with the tradition as a whole as we are told to do and willingly do so but ask how].

I have also documented that the term "separated brethren" preceded Vatican II by 68 years: going back to Pope Leo XIII. [So where does Voris say its wrong to call them separated bretheran?  In talks with sedevantists I have often been told its wrong to call protestants and orthodox separated bretheren, even Christian to begin with, but not by traditionalist Catholics.  It’s a matter of symantics.  Mr. Armstrong wants to focus on them being bretheren, and that’s all and good but traditionalists, while acknowledging their filial bond, make it clear that they are separated from Christs Body and are called to be in His One Holy Catholic and apostolic church.]

We make our choice. It's with the pope [All popes including the preconcilliar ones?] and Vatican II (including ecumenism [So long as it is in line with the traditions of the Church we agree]), or with Voris and against pope, council, and ecumenism [Again creating a false dicodomy and bearing false witness against your neighbor]. I will always follow the pope and Holy Mother Church: not someone who opposes them (as Martin Luther did) [IE: Voris is nearly Luther, he might be Catholic but leaning as a heretic according to the magestarial teachings of Dave Armstrong]. Everyone always knows where I stand . . . How about you? [I stand with Holy Mother Church Pre and post conciliar giving full obedience to the Holy Fathers and the ordinary magestrium recognizing that not every pronouncement carries with it the same weight as others do.  And am willing to ask the question of how we as faithful Catholics can understand the council in the light of the whole tradition and I willingly do so, just asking how the magestarium reconciles confusing things.  As Neuman said a thousand difficulties doesn’t make a doubt, I have no doubt it doesn’t teach error, I have a difficulty in understanding how to reconcile VII with everything else.]


1:15 . . . the 700 Club: the flagship show of a televangelism empire Robinson constructed around himself . . .

This requires no further comment in its manifest humorous irony . . . [This blog, the flagship site of Dave Armstrongs work, which he constructed around himself.  What goes around comes around.  Just as “Life is Worth Living” was constructed around the personality of Fulton Sheen, so too all apostolates have a character of the person who is responsible for them.]

1:32 . . . Robertson, in typical Protestant fashion (meaning, an answer made up in thin air, based on nothing other than his own feelings and opinions and misreading of Sacred Scripture) . . . 

The asinine stereotyping and prejudice here is its own refutation. Any Protestant, former Protestant, and even almost all folks who have never been Protestant, but know Protestants or have read Protestant literature, instantly know how outrageous this is. He doesn't even qualify it by saying "some Protestants [Playing symantics here again.  He gives a qualification using the word “typical”.  Now this might now be sufficient in the mind of Mr. Armstrong or any Protestant, or former protestant out there, but the qualification is there.] . . . " No, for the "black-and-white" Voris, this is "typical Protestant" behavior. It's classic prejudice and bigotry. [How many calumnies are we up to Dave, how many more times will you make assumsions before asking for clarification from the speaker himself who in his regular talks gives all the qualifications and further context to his words, but in a Vortex which being a short attention grabber doesn’t carry with it the intention of delving into great detail on every aspect.  Perhaps you should get a subscription before pretending to know what his views are.]

4:43 . . . and this is why, forty plus years later, abortion is still going strong: the Protestant poison of birth control, that huge numbers of Catholics have unfortunately consumed as well . . . 

More ultra-simplistic stereotyping. [Dave it’s a Vortex.  Again its not a talk, but a short quick assessment that is developed in his other talks that you have never seen.  You condemn him without asking for the context that he willingly gives when you go deeper.] Voris himself notes how Protestantism uniformly rejected contraception until the Anglicans first allowed it in 1930. Both Martin Lutherand John Calvin strongly spoke out against it as murder, as I have documented [And we are glad they maintained the Catholic truth as long as they did on the matter.]. It obviously originated from outside of any strain of Christianity [Considering that Christianity is the Catholic Faith and they as protestants are Christians in that they maintain certain Catholic truths it is fair to say that those within the Chrisitan distrinction had a had to play in the matter. If you were familiar with his work you would realize that he is speaking about authority and rejection of it that leads to error, which is the same thing that Tim Staples presents in his new video yet gets no blow back from Dave Armstrong for.]. The contraceptive anti-child mentality came from ancient pagan Greek and Roman culture (hence, the Church fathers spoke out against it). Later, it was seen in occultic and heretical circles; then at long last in the 18th-century so-called "Enlightenment" leading directly to the modernist / liberal rejection of orthodox theology and outright skepticism and atheism. [Hense, again if you were familiar with Voris you would realize he is giving a time period, namely the protestant revolt and what followed (IE: the rejection of authority) as a way for people in the protestant community to see that continutity of their faith is incoherent. If you were to ask him that these other examples are not applicable he would be on your side, but again it’s a vortex, not an hour long oration with detailed outlines.  Dave instead of critiquing the vortex why not ask Voris himself who answers phones at his apostolate for further context?]

These modernist strains continuing into the early 20th century clearly influenced the Anglicans (who were already markedly liberal in theology). Then the final blow came in the 1960s with the sexual revolution (again, not inherent in classical Protestantism, but coming from outside of it, hearkening back to pagan sexual license)[Yet the pagans weren’t around parading it, and actively promoting it to the protestants.  They, protestant pastors and leaders made decsions that their followers accepted regardless.  Better yet ask the people who accepted it if they did so based on Pagan reasoning, or their own personal decisions]. How is all that to be construed as "Protestant"? [In a final approach in that it was a decision by those who represent the protestant position, and who adhere to protestant beliefs, regardless of that pagans or occultasts believed, that actively decided to make it ok on their own authority, rejecting rightful authority again, thereby rejecting more Catholic truth leading them farther and farther away from the Church and Christianity which is Catholic.]

My friend Michael Forrest, commenting on this, wrote:

John Rock, a Catholic, invented the birth control pill. (Ironically, his intention was reportedly to comply with Church teaching, but he was still wrong.) He campaigned for Catholic approval of the pill. He published a book, The Time Has Come: A Catholic Doctor's Proposals to End the Battle over Birth Control, and was featured by Time and Newsweek. He also gave numerous interviews with the networks. Catholic priests, theologians [and bishops] effectively defected from the faith over this issue and treated Humanae Vitae [in 1968] as DOA. [see more on that] [I am glad Dave brings this up because Voris again and again makes the same statement that “All evil in the world is due to bad Catholics” which is a quote from Pius V.  Notice that Dave?  Does he say that all evil is derived from Protestants?  No there is greater context there, but you want to generalize his whole work into a vortex and take it out of the whole of his work just like a protestant takes a single line from scripture and declares it the final position, without regards the the greater context.]

The bishops didn't have the knowledge or fortitude to stand. Catholics led the way on "the pill" and when presented with "Peter's" teaching rejected it [We agree, the worst thing in the world is a Bad Catholic]. That's obviously not the fault of Protestants who do not have Peter [Yet before the pill they still rejected the teaching that they had held onto that was somewhat of a bond among all Christians.  If they are ignorant of what the church is and choose to forgo learning it and remain ignorant don’t think they are invincible, they have a free will to accept rightful authority or reject it, just as Luther and Calvin did]. If anything, I would say that Catholics are most to blame for society embracing contraception [Yet our teaching hasn’t changed, so blaming the sinner for the actions of others forgoes the fact that the others had the same ability to accept or reject the decsions made.]. We should have known better. We had the teaching. We had Peter. We had the One True Church. We didn't care. [So did Luther and Calvin, so whethers the apologia for them?]

6:56 If you listen closely to Protestantism, you won't have to listen long, before you discover that sooner or later, it pulls you away from our blessed Lord and His truth.

Wow. I merely need to appeal to the statements above from Vatican II, which are diametrically opposed and contrary to these. I grew and flourished in Protestant evangelical circles, and learned much of what I believe now [Which are protestant truths or Catholic Truths?  Begging the question Dave. If someone steals a television from a store and you catch a very informative show on that television that leads to a lucrative career do you necessarily credit the thief that brought you the TV?  Its an indirect action, not the evil of the action itself that brings life and that indirect action in your case is the Catholic Truths you were presented with and that lead you to the Church, not the protestant group that spoke the Catholic truths.]. Meanwhile, millions have languished in Catholic parishes where liberals hold sway, as Voris himself has often talked about [And rightfully]. It's impossible (and well, plain dumb and stupid) to paint such a simplistic, black-and-white scenario. [Again it’s a vortex not a talk.  You can write as much as you want on your blog without cost besides your time, it costs money to produce and edit videos then post them.  Context is had when delving deeper in his work, which is true for all things theology, read Dietric Von Hildabrand for example.  We are constantly told that Von Balthazar is not heretical in his views that greater context is needed before such declarations, can I not ask the same of you in regards to Mr. Voris?]

Make your choice. With high and tragic irony, Voris disses [subjective wording, speaking truth to error is another way to put it, but doesn’t fit his rant.] and belittles Protestants for rejecting the Catholic Church and system, yet he turns around and thumbs his nose at that same system, by rejecting Vatican II [Another lie Dave, what are we at now] where he selectively chooses what he will accept and not accept (the "pick-and-choose" mentality of the liberal / modernist / dissident, and also of the Protestant rule of faith, private judgment) [Does Bishop Schinder reject Vatican II?  How about Cardinal Ratzinger for that matter in his critisisms of the council?  When did asking for clarifications become heretical?  When did asking the Vatican to show us how to reconcile ambiguous texts with the whole tradition of the church become heresy and rejecting the council.  False distincitions Mr. Armstrong create the division in the church].

I am planning on putting his along with other takes on a Youtube video soon.  I want to be clear I hold no animosity toward Mr. Armstrong and encourage people to visit his website here for apologetics.  Yet I would ask people to seek greater context from the person themselves when going about disagreeing with quick statements.  I consider myself an orthodox Catholic, who accepts all the councils and goes about seeing them all in the light of the tradition and giving them the authority that they claim to hold.  I dont hate the Missal of Paul VI, but neither do I hold it as being theologically as acceptable as the Old rite which is essentially the same as it was in the 3rd century which is when they were able to start documenting it (not necessarily the start).  Traditinalists are not the enemy, they are indeed proders and demanding, but they are not the enemies.  Lets not turn canons on each other without knowing the others context. 

+JMJ+