Real Catholic Tv's Statement

[dominicansoul]

now if you ask me, the dissenting groups mentioned before are most guilty of "blind obedience"---that is, blind obedience to their whims, to their ideologies, to their own perceptions of "truth." they stubbornly adhere to the "truth" they themselves have created, making up all sorts of justifications for their disobedience to the authority of the Church...


...one group demands we "move with the times" the other demands we dismiss the hierarchy entirely as a bunch of modernist henchmen of satan...


May God preserve Holy Mother Church!

[Laudate_Dominum]

EDIT: you're right, maybe a bit too facetious and cruel.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[MIKolbe]

you're so cute.....

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1326755957' post='2370162']
you're so cute.....
[/quote]
just for you, brony.

[Jaime]

[quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1326745092' post='2370081']
But they wanted RCTV to change their name, not St. Michael's Media.
[/quote]

I don't get your point. Voris isn't just a mouthpiece. The guy has a degree in Theology and reports himself to be an orthodox Catholic. He can't in good conscience claim he's just a bystander on this.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1326761867' post='2370220']
I don't get your point. Voris isn't just a mouthpiece. The guy has a degree in Theology and reports himself to be an orthodox Catholic. He can't in good conscience claim he's just a bystander on this.
[/quote]
That RCTV doesn't have to be obedient to this because this guy isn't even their bishop! Voris made a statement because he was the one under the attack. Voris is not the owner of RCTV.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Roamin_Catholic' timestamp='1326484270' post='2368435']
But it is still a law, and not following it is illegal.
[/quote]


Isn't it ironic that you use "Catholic" in your s/n but likely did not first acquire permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority to do so?

Did any one here who also uses the name Catholic first acquire permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority?

Did Phatmass first acquire permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority before using the term "Hardcore Catholic"?

What if none of them did so? Are they all disobedient like Voris?

What if only one person that uses "Catholic" in their S/N was publicly called out and was asked to strip Catholic from their name but not the others?

What if Phatmass was the only internet forum being publicly called out to strip "Catholic" from the site, but not others?

Does anyone start seeing why equal application of the law is important? Or are we going to continue in a vain attempt to explain that away?

For laws to be enforced justly they must be applied "without prejudice" which means equally and fairly. I am disturbed by others who have argued against this legitimate concern. I know people want to believe that the AoD has fairly enforced this part of Canon Law, perhaps that is so but that aside there is actual evidence the AoD has for the last 20 years not asked any other group to remove and cease its use of the word "Catholic". I have search extensively for proof that the AoD has in the past asked others to comply with Can. 216 but I have found no evidence. Which is in itself further reason to believe Director of Communications Ned McGrat when he stated "I’ve been here 20 years I can’t say that we’ve never done that in the history of the Archdiocese”.

If we're still going with maybe's though. Maybe Archbishop Burke approved of RCTV using the name Catholic when he endorsed the DVD mini series by SMM, RCTV, Voris on "Where did the Bible come from?" Maybe the AoD Archbishop doesn't even know about this, as far as I know he himself has stated nothing officially. All we have is press releases from lay members of the AoD.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm still going to wait on the ecclesiastical courts and canon lawyers to settle out the confusion over authority and other elements in this case before I am going to judge Voris and company.

Edited January 17, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Slappo]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1326430738' post='2368213']
An Archbishop is not going to tell a Jesuit University to stop using the name 'Catholic.' The Jesuits are a legitimate religious order within the Church and if anyone is going to call them to task, it's going to be the pope, not the local bishop. The structure and history of the Jesuits grants them a great deal of autonomy within the Church.
[/quote]

It is [b]the solemn duty of a bishop to fight heresy[/b]. They should be using whatever authority has been given them to do so. If it means using Canon Law on a university calling itself Catholic, then so be it. Bishop's have thrown or kept legitimate religious orders within the Church from entering their diocese (see FSSP & Legionaries of Christ, regardless of the scandal with LC they are still a legitimate order).

I'm not going to "take a side" on the Voris issue because it's sad enough that it's an issue at all. I dunno the inside circumstances as to the beef between Detroit and Voris, the proper interpretation of Canon Law and which bishop should be granting permission etc etc. Many times lay people have been extremely wrong in their judgments of apparently holy Catholics. Fr. Maciel, and Fr. Corapi for two HUGE examples. Now it is possibly Voris, and possibly Fr. Rodriguez in El Paso... I really don't know the details on Voris or Rodriguez so I'll keep silent.

As for a bishop's duty though, I think it is quite plain that when it comes to heresy[b] the buck should stop at his pectoral cross and episcopal ring[/b]. It shouldn't have to go "up the chain" to Rome before it's called out.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Slappo

[dUSt]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1326763268' post='2370243']
Isn't it ironic that you use "Catholic" in your s/n but likely did not first acquire permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority to do so?
Did any one here who also uses the name Catholic first acquire permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority?
Did Phatmass first acquire permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority before using the term "Hardcore Catholic"?
What if none of them did so? Are they all disobedient like Voris?
What if only one person that uses "Catholic" in their S/N was publicly called out and was asked to strip Catholic from their name but not the others?
What if Phatmass was the only internet forum being publicly called out to strip "Catholic" from the site, but not others?
Does anyone start seeing why equal application of the law is important? Or are we going to continue in a vain attempt to explain that away?
[/quote]

I think you are confusing calling oneself Catholic, and calling an organization a Catholic organization. It would be ridiculous if the church did not allow anyone to say "I'm Catholic", or "We are a website made up of Catholics". I don't think phatmass even begins to pretend to be a website that is ran by or officially represents the church. If you thought this when you first came here, I apologize. There is a big difference between, "TV By Catholics" and "Real Catholic TV". You must see this?

[MithLuin]

Yes, I agree that a bishop should confront heresy in his diocese. It is also true that, historically, the Jesuits have enjoyed much freedom from the local bishop because of their unique relationship to the pope. My suggestion was that this particular part of canon law is not generally used as a method of confronting heresy. Heresy is a much more serious charge, and thus is dealt with more...seriously.

Now, obviously, if a bishop wished to strip a Catholic institution of the name 'Catholic' to make an example of them and get their attention, that would be an option. It's just that...this part of canon law does not imply any impropriety or unorthodoxy on the part of the group called out. So, it's a very mild reprimand. If something really [i]were[/i] wrong...you'd expect the bishop to correct it more vigorously.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1326778280' post='2370388']
I think you are confusing calling oneself Catholic, It would be ridiculous if the church did not allow anyone to say "I'm Catholic", or "We are a website made up of Catholics". I don't think phatmass even begins to pretend to be a website that is ran by or officially represents the church. If you thought this when you first came here, I apologize. There is a big difference between, "TV By Catholics" and "Real Catholic TV". You must see this?
[/quote]

No I'm not confusing calling oneself Catholic, and calling an organization a Catholic organization. Phatmass is a Catholic association or community of lay catholics which utilities many of the [i]Obligations and Rights of all the Christian Faithful[/i], and does claim the name Catholic. ie: "Phatmass Phorum - [b]Catholic [/b]Forum and Community", "Hardcore [b]Catholic[/b]", etc... Of the lay catholic members quite a few claim the name Catholic as a name, not simply stating "I am Catholic". And at even given time quite of few of those persons will write/publish on this site some form of apologetics, or defense for Mother Church. Like Voris and RCTV.

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1326778280' post='2370388']I don't think phatmass even begins to pretend to be a website that is ran by or officially represents the church. If you thought this when you first came here, I apologize. There is a big difference between, "TV By Catholics" and "Real Catholic TV". You must see this?
[/quote]

RealCatholicTV does not pretend to be a company that is ran by or officially represents the church. With that it mind
"Real Catholic TV" is not really that much different than "Hardcore Catholic" because both are used as branding. Both are used by their respected association to claim the name Catholic. Both by different means but the same end. Lastly, "Phatmass Phorum - Catholic Forum and Community", is not that much different "Ave Maria University - A Catholic College", both of which Can. 216 would seem to apply. Because both are claiming the word Catholic in a very similar way.

Edited January 17, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

x

Edited January 17, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1326772261' post='2370329']
It is [b]the solemn duty of a bishop to fight heresy[/b]. They should be using whatever authority has been given them to do so. If it means using Canon Law on a university calling itself Catholic, then so be it. Bishop's have thrown or kept legitimate religious orders within the Church from entering their diocese (see FSSP & Legionaries of Christ, regardless of the scandal with LC they are still a legitimate order).

I'm not going to "take a side" on the Voris issue because it's sad enough that it's an issue at all. I dunno the inside circumstances as to the beef between Detroit and Voris, the proper interpretation of Canon Law and which bishop should be granting permission etc etc. Many times lay people have been extremely wrong in their judgments of apparently holy Catholics. Fr. Maciel, and Fr. Corapi for two HUGE examples. Now it is possibly Voris, and possibly Fr. Rodriguez in El Paso... I really don't know the details on Voris or Rodriguez so I'll keep silent.

As for a bishop's duty though, I think it is quite plain that when it comes to heresy[b] the buck should stop at his pectoral cross and episcopal ring[/b]. It shouldn't have to go "up the chain" to Rome before it's called out.
[/quote]
Amen, brony.

[Papist]

Is that what we've come down to? One is allowed to be disobedient if he finds someone else who is doing the same thing.

Reminds of the parents of disobedient children that say, "Well, at least my kid ain't on drugs."

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1326815917' post='2370493']
Is that what we've come down to? One is allowed to be disobedient if he finds someone else who is doing the same thing.

Reminds of the parents of disobedient children that say, "Well, at least my kid ain't on drugs."
[/quote]


If your comment is directed towards me, no, and that has not been my stance. Let me repeat yet again, as for Voris and company's guilt or innocence of the sin of disobedience I leave to the [font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#282828"]ecclesiastical courts and canon lawyers to work out. Pointing out legitimate concerns, with evidence, that the law may not be fairly applied is rational and does effect the case. This does not mean I am arguing it is ok for Voris and company to be [/color][/font]disobedient (if in fact they are) because others are disobedient. That would be twisting what I have stated.

My most recent line of argument from last night is based on Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:3, and Romans 2:22-23. Because people here have seemly no problem with judging Voris and company guilty of the sin of disobedience when canon lawyers cannot agree (as well as character judgements of Voris), and when there has been no actual official statement on the matter from the AoD Archbishop himself. A strict reading of Can. 216 could apply to Phatmass, I wondered if everyone would jump on Phatmass the same way they have Voris, if it had not first received permission to claim the name Catholic which it does claim and use to identify Phatmass which is a community or association of lay Catholics. I thought it may get those that would quickly condemn Voris to think twice before continuing to condemn him. Judge not lest ye be judged.