See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Michael Voris in the Twin Cities - Tonight: The War For the Soul of Catholicism


Minneapolis/St. Paul welcomes Michael Voris.

Where:
St. Augustine's Catholic Church
In the basement of St. Augustine's Catholic Church.
408 3rd St N.
South St Paul, MN 55075


When:
Tonight 1/10/2012

What:
The War For the Soul of Catholicism

After a month off, the AOTM welcomes back Michael Voris on January 10 to kick off the New Year.


In all ages the faith is a battle and ours is no different. What makes these days particularly difficult is the confusion and disorientation so often present in those very places from which clarity and order should come. Even those who strive to be faithful Catholics can sincerely wonder whose example to follow. During particular troubled times in the history of the Church, it has been said that "Peter is sleeping" - a brief examination of Church history will reveal that our age is not the first to experience a lack of leadership. Amidst scandals and dereliction of authority, these same sentiments ring true today. As the influence of the Church weakens, culture has turned rapidly anti-Christian and grows increasingly so year by year. So what can we do about it?

Join us on January 10th as Michael Voris provides his insights on how to battle for the soul of Catholicism. In addition to his standard presentation, Mr. Voris will be asked probing, practical questions that go to the heart of the dilemma we face. How are our energies best spent in a culture so hostile to the Catholic faith? Where do we draw the line between taking a stand and unjustified disobedience, both in terms of the obedience we owe to civil and religious authority? To whom do we look for direction? What is the place for Catholic action in culture at large and must we accept that we're fighting a losing battle? There are no simple answers, but that doesn't mean we can pretend these aren't important questions. On January 10, 2012 The Argument of the Month will ask them. What will Mr. Voris answer?
Michael Voris

What's on the Menu
Appetizer
Brat Bites & Rye Toast with Dip
Dinner
Apple Glazed Roasted Pork
This Pork is covered a rich apple glazed and slow roasted until it is so tender it falls off the bone.
Served with garlic mashed potatoes (eat them with or with out the gravy) and baby carrots steamed and covered in a sweet glaze.
Dessert
Cinnamon Crumble with Ice Cream


AOTM General Event Information
6:00pm Social Hour and Appetizers
7:00pm Dinner
7:30pm Main Presentation
8:30pm Dessert
8:45pm Q&A
$12 at the door (The total cost for the night) You will get great appetizers and beverages, hear one of the best inspirational stories you have ever heard about manhood and faith. Do all this while you listen and enjoy a fabulous "Manly Meal”. Men of all creeds and ages are welcome to join in the good humor, food, and fellowship. Priests and seminarians get in free but will not be shown partiality in debate. Fathers are encouraged to bring their minor sons.



NO WOMEN ALLOWED.

41 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You have to be kidding me....

    ReplyDelete
  3. No girls allowed!

    lmfao

    ReplyDelete
  4. So you are going Terry?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "NO WOMEN ALLOWED"? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah cuz when I think "manly," I think Cinnamon Crumble.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (LMFAO @ DB)

    Thinnamon crumble! Thinnamon crumble!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thinnamon cwumbly wumbly! I'm cwying coz I'm a rejected girlie wurly.......

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good for the men! I think the Argument of the Month club is a good idea.

    I like Michael Voris, too.

    Scratching my head about the "manly dessert" concept....hmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Looks like a great talk, and I'm sure it'll engender very lively discussion, considering what's been going on of late...

    I'm all for men-only associations, just as I'm all for women-only groups, and I wish people who want to complain about discrimination would take it somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'd really like to go but I really can't - health reasons. Seriously. It promises to be an interesting evening. From what I hear, Voris is an engaging and personable speaker. It will be an excellent way to meet the man behind the anchor man image on his videos.

    I know several guys who do attend these things. The 'manly man' meals deal is all in fun - I think it relates to portion size - like there is plenty of food, more than anything else. Although they are proud of being manly men. And yep - it's a night out without the wives. In a good way.

    Nothing wrong with that. They are good Catholic family men. Their sons and single men attend as well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. All kidding aside, I'm a little uncomfortable calling something an "argument club" and holding it at a church.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That too is a neutral term - more an academic term, hearkening back to philosophical arguments/debates. Many of these fellows are Thomists and consider themselves intellectuals.

    It's only on Abbey Roads that the bar fights break out. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  14. A "fabulous 'Manly Meal'" That too sounds like a bit of a contradiction! But then Voris himself is a bit of a contradiction from what I've heard. Love the hair, though.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No quiche on the menu.

    Had to say it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Never heard of him.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What a great way for men to meet, get to know, and network with other men. And brats as a starter too! Ace

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh, and speaking of manly, this from another orbital Catholic blogger:

    "As an altar boy in my youth yours truly will always remember the English Leather and Old Spice worn by our priests who were ordained in the 1940s. Even today when I see an amice I still think of English Leather: classique et authentiquement masculine!"

    Perhaps English Leather will become in vogue again. Just saying...

    ReplyDelete
  19. When Mary visits I smell roses. When Joseph visits I smell Old Spice.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thom! LOLZZZZZZ

    ReplyDelete
  21. I took exception to the 'No women allowed' comment.
    Also, the sense that anyone other than a real 'he man' type would not be welcomed. Not all men are weight lifting bears with little chattering women at home. It's a step backwards to me, spirituality wise.
    Then again, if they're all intellectuals, they can't be that tough. Most of the intellectuals I know are very gentle people and certainly don't look on women (or homosexuals) as the outsiders.
    Think Fr Groeschel for starters.

    What makes M.Voris an intellectual expert suitable for fathers and sons anyway? He isn't married, he isn't a priest and going by his testimony has led a sinful youth.

    He should maybe sit on it and let the faithful dads speak!!

    Who does M.Voris listen to? Oh, ofcourse, God.

    How to make a business out of one's religion. It's something that doesn't rest easy with me these days.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Shadowlands,
    As a woman, I'm not so insecure or controlling that I feel I must barge in on every male-only function in order to feel "special." Perhaps other women need that, though...

    By your argument, priests shouldn't be teaching us either, since they aren't married, have no children, and a number have had sinful pasts.

    If you can point to any doctrinal error in his teaching, let us know. If you're just complaining about his style, then don't watch him. Since many souls have returned to the faith through his apostolate, his method is clearly reaching some people. You try to save souls your way; he'll try to save souls his way. Deal?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shadowlands - I understand your concern about people making money from religion - but in Voris' case I think it may be the opposite. From what I understand, he committed almost all of his resources to this enterprise - which is in effect his effort towards evangelization. He's not perfect, but he is faithful to the Church.

    Your skepticism is not a bad thing. No one is required to 'follow' him, or contribute.

    This group of Catholic men that meet are good men - they host a wide range of speakers. They are ordinary guys.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Christine said

    'Shadowlands,
    As a woman, I'm not so insecure or controlling that I feel I must barge in on every male-only function in order to feel "special." Perhaps other women need that, though...'

    You felt the need to barge in in on my comment and judge it and me as meaning the above though, Christine.
    I mentioned I didn't like the tone or words used in the meeting schedule, not the fact that women would not be present. You defend him by ridiculing me, without actually knowing anything about me, odd.


    'By your argument, priests shouldn't be teaching us either, since they aren't married, have no children, and a number have had sinful pasts.'

    Priests aren't allowed to marry Chistine. Their teaching authority comes from Jesus Christ. It takes many years to train as a priest, before he is anointed and can start preaching or teaching. There's a reason for that. I trust a priest's authority to teach absolutely. Please do not suggest otherwise now that I have confirmed that point.

    'If you can point to any doctrinal error in his teaching, let us know. If you're just complaining about his style, then don't watch him. Since many souls have returned to the faith through his apostolate, his method is clearly reaching some people. You try to save souls your way; he'll try to save souls his way. Deal?'

    It's the people his ministry may diminish that concerns me. I think I will continue to comment as I see things, or not as the case may turn out to be.
    Ofcourse, you can always make a formal complaint against me Christine, to Terry, if you don't like me publishing opinions here, that are different to your own.
    I know that can make some women insecure, (not being in control) as you yourself stated at the beginning of your own comment.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Terry

    Your comment wasn't there when I posted mine so I didn't acknowledge it first. I think we overlapped.

    I am becoming skeptical in my old age.

    It's not a sin to question, as you say (well, implied)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Shadowlands - of course you can always publish your comments here - even if you disagree with what I have said. I value your opinion.

    I'm not endorsing Voris, nor am I against him - I think he is entitled to do what he is doing and to earn a living from it - if he can. He's not pretending to be a healer of mystic or performing some liturgical function - he's just got a tv show.

    You're good my friend! I mean it. No snark, no nothing - just pals. The bar is always open here. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Shadow - hell no, it is not a sin to question - not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Cheers Terry! I don't dislike Michael or have it in for him. I just don't yet see him as the visionary other people do.

    I think the Corapi catastrophe threw me way off balance when it comes to johnny come lately prodigals, on huge missions.
    I remain wary.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Next day: anyone burping up cinnamon crumble?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Not that I know of. I don't think transcripts are made available and I haven't spoken to anyone who attended.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Shadowlands--All is well. As to censoring your comments, why would I ever ask Terry to do that?

    You've made the claim in the past that Voris makes big bucks off his apostolate.

    He doesn't.

    I repeat--he doesn't.

    He used to be wealthy. Now he is not. That is a fact.

    And it is entirely because he threw his life savings into his apostolate.

    One can disagree with the method without trying to tarnish the man's character.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thom SFO said: "Next day: anyone burping up cinnamon crumble?"

    No but I smell sausage and beef fat.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Christine

    I've questioned his finances in the past, not made claims. However, just because someone throws their entire life savings into a venture does not prove their motives to me. It shows extreme purpose and drive certainly, but it is not a sign or fact of authenticity or wisdom for that matter. Who's to say what prompted such a risky financial step? I am not going to apologise for being cautious.

    'One can disagree with the method without trying to tarnish the man's character.'

    Once again Christine, to question someone's character is not the same as tarnishing it. I feel rather tarnished by the way you splash accusations and character assessments regarding myself. Michael Voris has a lot to say about a lot of people, most of it derogatory. I do not feel in anyway pressured to accept his negative angry viewpoint of the Catholic generation that he sprang from.
    He assumes everyone has had the same experience with their Catholic faith that he has had. He's wrong. We haven't.
    His message, to me, is that the Holy Spirit was absent or imprisoned until he returned to observing his faith and started his grand expose of lies and falsehoods. The Holy Spirit wasn't absent, nor in chains. Michael Voris was.
    If he would listen to fellow catholics who were encountering God during his wandering years, he might not have such a poor view of all post 1962 faithful. However, he rarely quotes anyone's spiritual journey from my generation in a positive way,

    His videos sometimes remind me of an ex- chain smoker who hates anyone still smoking. Even if he does turn out to be a long serving fervent and great defender of the faith, it doesn't mean we all have to pay him homage, does it? He's a repentant sinner, same as you and me. I'd like to hear more of his struggle with sanctity though, rather than him waving that ruddy wand exposing everybody elses lack of same.

    I must get to sleep now, so won't be able to respond until tomorrow if you reply back to this.

    I'm sorry if my feelings regarding the man are upsetting to you Christine. As you said, you are not that insecure that you need to control others, so maybe just accept that your very strong defence of him is not going to alter my views in the slightest. I will use the same yardstick with all other reverts that I am sure will be springing up like daisies in the next few years.

    ReplyDelete
  34. As I said above, all is well. I'm not angry or hurt or upset, I can assure you.

    "I feel rather tarnished by the way you splash accusations and character assessments regarding myself."

    Um, what? I didn't do this anywhere. You're reading things into my words that simply aren't there.

    As to the rest of your remarks, I'll say it again: if you don't like his style, don't watch him.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Christine quoted and commented:

    (Quote)"I feel rather tarnished by the way you splash accusations and character assessments regarding myself."

    (comment)Um, what? I didn't do this anywhere. You're reading things into my words that simply aren't there."

    You did it here:

    "You've made the claim in the past that Voris makes big bucks off his apostolate."

    As I said in my previous comment, I questioned his finances, I didn't state claims about them.

    And you did it here:

    "As a woman, I'm not so insecure or controlling that I feel I must barge in on every male-only function in order to feel "special." Perhaps other women need that, though..."

    That comment, addressed to me, implied that I was one of those 'other' women. I don't think I misread that meaning into your words, the first example is plain to see and the second is pretty obvious too!

    I will, as I thought I had stated clearly, continue to comment on Mr Voris as I see situations arising. A little bit like he does with fellow catholics, only I won't be making a living out of it, ofcourse.

    I am glad to hear that you are not angry or hurt or upset.

    As to the rest of your remarks, I would suggest, that If that you do not like comments that question or disagree with Michael Voris, you stop reading and commenting back on them.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Perhaps other women need that, though..."

    Note that I said "other women". I did not say "you."

    Perhaps the fact that you identified yourself in my remarks means they hit a bit too close to home?

    This is getting silly, and I feel we're boring the men here. I wish you well. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Perhaps the fact that you identified yourself in my remarks means they hit a bit too close to home?"

    Er, as opposed to the fact that you put my name at the top of them, you mean? Well, Ok then, I guess you must be right. That is to say, I can't imagine you ever admitting to being wrong, or sorry.

    "This is getting silly, and I feel we're boring the men here."

    I wish you could have seen me collapse laffin when I read that!!! And I mean that in a friendly way, by the way. It was just so funny.

    What about the women, don't their attention spans matter? ;)

    I wish you well also. God Bless.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.