Church Militant The Vortex Feed

Today's Vortex aired Nov. 28, 2016. It exposes a religious war underlying the American political system.

Today's Vortex aired on Nov. 9, 2008, following the election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. It outlines the consequences of the U.S. bishops' culture of compromise.

TRANSCRIPT

About that FBI report that got leaked showing the FBI targeting Catholics, and the bureau's weird yet revealing response to it — it was leaked from the Richmond field office and posted on the site UncoverDC by former special agent and whistleblower, Kyle Seraphin, himself a Catholic. In addition to a list of various groups, Church Militant was singled out on Page 4 of the eight-page dossier as aligning with "anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT and white supremacy ideology," which — in the FBI's incorrect estimation — also overlaps with an embrace of the Traditional Latin Mass.

You talk about horrible research. But there's more here to see than meets the eye. Most importantly, this is part of a much larger tapestry; that if you are conservative in your politics and religion — not an uncommon mixture at all — you are immediately suspect by Biden's Department of Justice. This dossier is only the latest in a series of steps by the FBI to harass and intimidate conservatives — especially Christians and, in particular, Catholics.

Think of the report that was released early on in Biden's administration, claiming the greatest threat to America's security is homegrown terrorism — domestic terrorists and extremists — which is shorthand for White Christian nationalists, which is a dog whistle to label anyone with conservative political views (which often includes Christians) as enemies of the State. Well, certainly in view of the increasing reality that the "State" under Biden is anti-God, anti-religion and so forth, conservatives in a sense are enemies of the State — that State.

Remember the school board meetings where conservative parents were labeled as domestic terrorists, and Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland had to warn the nation and the stream of arrests and threats of pro-lifers praying outside child-killing centers? And now, this report is trying unsuccessfully to draw a line, a connection, between "white supremacy" (whatever that is) and faithful Catholics. The source used for all this insanity is the discredited SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is nothing more than a fundraising group for liberal hate.

It's so bad that, internally, the FBI has instructed that it is not be used as a source. Yet there it is, right there in the leaked dossier, as a primary source. In a remarkable move within a day or so of the document being leaked and published, the national FBI office quickly disavowed it, saying, in part, "While our standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products, this particular field office product — disseminated only within the FBI — regarding racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism does not meet the exacting standards of the FBI."

You think? But what's curious is, how did this happen? Some person or persons sat in that Richmond field office and felt sufficiently secure in their work to employ disallowed sources (which included leftist press reports), spend a good deal of time drawing together wild hypotheses to arrive at even wilder hypotheses and did all of this presumably under the supervision of their boss.

It must have gotten enough approval and green lights to have been circulated or, as the national office statement admits, disseminated "only within the FBI." That's troubling. This document essentially labeling faithful Catholics as what amounts to potential terror threats didn't stay within the confines of the Richmond office but got injected into the lifeblood of the FBI across the nation.

This report sat on the FBI servers for use by FBI agents as a resource when viewing faithful Catholics. It was only when it was leaked and published that, all of a sudden, it drew scrutiny as it was determined it didn't meet the bureau's "exacting standards." Only then was the document begun to be removed from those FBI systems — which, of course, begs the question, had it not been leaked, would it still be sitting on the servers as a resource?

The national office went on to say, almost with a smirk, considering their actions under Biden aimed at conservatives, "The FBI is committed to sound analytic tradecraft and to investigating and preventing acts of violence and other crimes while upholding the constitutional rights of all Americans and will never conduct investigative activities or open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity."

Frankly, as the leaked dossier reveals, that's just not true. Publicly reversing course because you got caught, coupled with two years of SWAT teams, arrests and speeches by Biden demonizing anyone who disagrees with him does not provide a lot of comfort that this is any more than damage control after getting caught.

What person or persons produced that report? Who assigned them the duty? What analysis and review was conducted after it was produced? Who gave the permission for it to be released and circulated throughout the agency? Once it was out in the system, how come no one else raised a red flag and said, "Hey, what is this?"

The national office is painting this whole thing as some sort of breakdown and eschewing of proper protocols and procedures. But is that really believable? Joe Biden stood on a stage in front of Independence Hall lit like the fires of Hell or a Nuremberg rally and verbally attacked half of Americans because they hold conservative views.

His FBI sends SWAT teams to private homes raiding families because of their pro-life work, and we are supposed to believe this report is just a mistake of someone not following proper policy? That's just the point: This all looks like it is the policy, and any reasonable person would conclude nothing other than this. Don't expect any of this to go away. It's pretty clear by now what's going on.

TRANSCRIPT

The hurt and anger and suffering faithful Catholics (laity and clergy) feel today is unprecedented in the Church's history. And every last bit of it can be laid directly and squarely at the feet of the bishops. For more than 60 years, these men have allowed heresy to flourish almost unchecked.

As a result — a direct response to those heresies — schisms are now exploding across the globe. What in the name of heaven would anyone expect? Outrage doesn't excuse schism, but it does explain it. Schism is a reaction to heresy. It stands second in line, but it is in line nonetheless. But we should be very clear here: The fact that there is a line at all is directly attributable to a lack of effective leadership on the part of the hierarchy.

While Vatican II suggested a blueprint, for example, of modifications to the liturgy, when that dog and pony show pulled into town, most parishes went absolutely bananas with felt banners and crappy guitar music and gay priests flitting around the sanctuary.

They ripped out the communion rails, tore down the statues and on and on. Vatican II called for none of that — not a single thing. Girl altar boys, folk groups, Holy Communion in the hand — the list of modernist garbage allowed to go in parishes by the bishops knew no end.

Of course, what was happening in the parishes was only a visible sign of the train wreck going on below the surface in Catholic education, religious orders and so forth. Again, all of it brought to you by your local cowardly, likely homosexual bishop, who demonstrated no love, zero care for the faithful. All they were to him was an ATM that he could slip on his vestments and then squeeze money out of. Of course, this could not go on forever, and it hasn't.

Eventually, when the "product" you sell is crap, most will stop buying it. And as a result of a generation or two ago of bishops, most Catholics have. They don't go to Mass anymore — why would they even want to? They don't believe the Church's teachings because they've never had them told to them.

They've been betrayed into the hands of modernist clerics who don't believe the Faith themselves, and, in exchange, the hierarchy has cashed in and is living comfortably off the fumes of billions of dollars given to the Church by well-meaning but largely naive Catholics.

But on the other side (the reaction side to the heresy), schism is breaking out everywhere. And while certainly not excusing it, it does at least appear on the scene as understandable. Again, confusion reigns supreme, and that confusion is being fed by the hierarchy, by their lack of clarity.

In fact, the hierarchy seems to be content to allow anything to go on except actual solid orthodoxy. Schism — well, that's okay. Heresy — give it a pass. But solid, nonschismatic orthodoxy — just straight up Catholicism with no adjectives in front of it — well, that's monstrous and divisive and simply cannot be allowed to persist — with warnings and letters and statements issued.

Ask yourselves why heretics and schismatics each get a pass, but normal, everyday orthodox Catholics don't. It's like a case of "anything goes." Well, almost anything — and that's exactly the point.

Want to run a little homeschool contingent in the parish gym a couple of hours a week where children learn the authentic Faith on diocesan property? Please, you are the most dangerous of all creatures. Want to teach the Faith in a Catholic school religion class and use the Baltimore Catechism as the teaching tool? How dare you?

But if you want to go into schism — if you want to go off the reservation with clown Masses or James Martin — then you get a gold star. There is something mentally ill, emotionally unstable, with too many bishops who are unwilling to offend schismatics or heretics — wouldn't dream of it — but won't think twice about lashing out at just plain old, normal Catholics.

It doesn't matter if you're a gay parish celebrating Pride Month for all the "all-are-welcome" LGBTQIA Catholics or some Vatican II-, pope-rejecting, "mad, rad, trad" Catholic, you can rest assured you will be left in peace by your local bishop, even if you reject his authority over you.

But just try and be a "nonadjective" Catholic — a normal guy, family or parish that wants a reverent Novus Ordo with (no girl) altar boys, Latin, ad orientem, Holy Communion on the tongue — and you'd think you are on the FBI's Most Wanted list.

When the extremes on both ends are being given preferential, hands-off treatment, but the Catholics in the middle are getting slammed, you know something is off — way off. They'll shut you down and completely look the other way with schismatics and heretics.

TRANSCRIPT

A few days ago, an internal FBI report was leaked, drawing an association between what it calls "Radical, Traditional Catholics" (RTC, for short) and what the bureau says is "racist, bigoted, white nationalist political views." The name of the eight-page dossier is "Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists (RMVE) and their interests in 'Radical-Traditionalist Catholics' or 'RTCs.'"

Church Militant is named directly on Page 4 of that FBI report and, on scanning through it, is the only media group mentioned by name. The eight-page dossier strains to make any coherent argument that believing, practicing Catholics hate Jews, Blacks, gays and immigrants — a subject treated almost as a throwaway assumption, like it's just a given.

The FBI dossier then moves from its incorrect connection between these "attitudes" — which, again, do not exist — and the threat of actual violence against pro-abortion people. Without the slightest justification, much less actual proof, the unidentified writer of the dossier swings wildly between theological issues and political issues, making connections that just don’t exist.

Since Church Militant is mentioned by name and singly, we are going to take this moment to respond officially to this reckless pack of lies, misinformation and obvious political targeting by an increasingly woke and leftist-leaning FBI. First, let's talk about the theological idiocy the FBI report contains.

The entire argument hinges on the fact that Church Militant is what the report implies is a "Radical Traditional Catholic" operation, or RTC for short. RTC is new in the FBI lexicon when it comes to identifying potential violent groups or domestic terror threats — but here we are.

The FBI writer explains that RTCs reject Vatican II and, to one degree or another, reject Pope Francis’ legitimacy as well as other popes going back to 1958 — in other words, they are schismatics — groups like the SSPX and the sedevcantists.

It is especially hilarious, not to mention completely off base, that CM could even come close to being lumped in with the schismatic crowd, especially since we just spent two straight weeks warning Catholics to avoid those groups like the plague. The FBI writer/investigator clearly has zero understanding of the internecine wars within the Church — completely zero.

That said, while there are certain elements within a small, limited number of tiny groups in that schismatic world who do display some anti-woman, anti-Jew sentiments, they are extremely rare and certainly do not in any way, shape or form pose some threat of violence (or even potential violence) to pro-aborts or anyone else for that matter. And yes, you just heard Church Militant coming to the defense of schismatics, not for their errant theology but for their politics.

It's outrageous that a government agency, especially one that has the powers of the FBI, could take its extremely poor understanding of Catholic theology and theological arguments within the Church and then transport that horrible understanding into the political realm and conclude that schismatic groups pose a physical threat of violence. Who knows, maybe we'll all end up in federal prison, and we can shout at each other through the bars about whether Vatican II was a legit council of the Church.

Underscoring again just how shaky this FBI analysis is, Church Militant is in an ideological tussle with schismatics, begging them to end their schism and return to the Church. To lump us in with the schismatic crowd as one of them — and apparently, according to the FBI, among the most dangerous since they single us out — is preposterous.

To restate, CM believes what the Church holds forth for our belief. Vatican II was a legitimate council of the Church — not heretical — and all the popes up to and including Pope Francis have been and are the legitimate popes. You talk about a clown world. But why, you may ask, is the FBI so intent on monitoring Catholics and making an imaginary link to the issue of potential violence?

Well, because as the appendix to the report indicates, the Southern Poverty Law Center says so, that's why. Toss in a couple of articles from the leftist rag, Salon, as well as The Atlantic and voila — three anti-Catholic organizations simply can't be wrong. Since they have declared we are domestic terror threats and pose a potential for violence against so-called abortion rights, then it must be so, and the full power of the federal government must be called in and applied against believing Catholics.

This is beginning to have a sniff of ancient Rome under Nero. But maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves just a bit. The report presents the horribly reasoned case that Catholic theology, at least as it exists in these schismatic circles, which again Church Militant is just lumped into by the FBI's "Department of Theological Analysis," also hates Jews, Blacks, gays, women and immigrants.

Those hatreds, which don't exist, then create some kind of natural bridge, according to the FBI, to White nationalists in the political realm. And therefore, the FBI deems it a high priority to keep an eye on Catholics. These bad assumptions and crazy connections and flat-out stupid conclusions, again based on equally retarded press accounts from the Left, show just how unhinged the government has become, and its powers weaponized against faithful Catholics.

When the Jews were being rounded up in Nazi-occupied territories, the Germans weren't much into distinctions about what type of Jew this one was compared to that one. Whether they were atheist Jews or observant Jews or even Jews married to German spouses, in the end, they all got shoved on the trains. That's what all this has a ring of.

Trumped-up charges based on faulty analysis, which clearly is politically motivated to fight the pro-life cause that is spearheaded by Catholics — that's what this is all about, and it's brought to you by the phony Catholic sitting in the Oval Office and his DOJ. Then again, Hitler was also a baptized Catholic. It's not precisely clear at the moment where all this is heading, but it is clear it's not going to go in reverse. 

The political forces in control of this nation worship at the altar of atheistic communism and it is Catholicism that is squarely in their sights — authentic Catholicism — and they make no distinction between schismatic and orthodox Catholicism because like the Nazis with the Jews, they don't care. It's all the same to them.

At the end of the day, they'll just shove us all on the trains. If you needed any further proof that these schisms need to be healed, well, here it is. We all need to die as good and faithful Catholics in complete communion with the Church.

TRANSCRIPT

Sometime, likely in the not-too-distant future, an earthquake is going to erupt in the Church, and its epicenter will be the ranch of Mel Gibson in Agoura Hills, California. Gibson is well-known for his splendid movies and acting ability. In terms of his faith, he is a sedevacantist — a word that comes from the Latin meaning "empty chair" — meaning, "The Throne of St. Peter has no occupant; it's empty."

There are different "camps" of sedevacantists, and while there are some divisions among them, there is broad agreement that Vatican II was bad and that there has not been a valid pope since the death of Pius XII in 1958. And yeah, you heard that right — not a valid pope in 65 years and counting.

And it's that "and counting" part that is becoming a problem for some sedes. It will come as no surprise that at least some sedevacantists do not accept bishops ordained in the Latin church under the completely revised rites after Vatican II. This inevitably leads to a sede priest personnel crisis — they need to replenish their ranks — and fast. This is where Mel Gibson starts to get involved.

A few years ago, a 97-year-old, retired bishop in Texas caught the attention of sedevacantists — Gibson included — after the bishop declared (with many nonsedevacantists) that Francis was not the validly elected pope. In 2020, Gibson met with this bishop, who claims that he was consecrated in the pre-Vatican II rite of ordination. Therefore, if he ordained a priest, that priest would fit the bill of not being a Vatican II priest, and thus be "validly" ordained.

In January 2021, the then-97-year-old, retired prelate was at Mel's ranch. There, the bishop provided an affidavit to Gibson, sworn to on Jan. 21, 2021, before a California notary public. Church Militant has the name and commission number of the notary. And so that those concerned understand we do have that information in our possession, we will reveal that the notary's commission number begins with 2217. The affidavit maintains that he had indeed been consecrated a bishop in the Old Rite, in 1972.

Prior to this event at Mel's ranch, various notable canceled priests had been quietly approached either by Gibson or an associate of his and asked, "Are you satisfied your ordination was valid?" — or a very similar question to it. Depending on the answer, these priests were led into a sacramental morass with the arrival of six priests in Gibson's private chapel in January 2021.

There, the retired bishop went through with these priests a "supplying-of-services" ceremony. It involved certain parts from the Old Rite of ordination (that had been removed after Vatican II) being said over these priests. On its face, this ceremony appears pretty innocuous. However, it is totally foreign to the Church's understanding of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Why do it if you don't question the liturgical reforms of Vatican II or doubt the reformed rite of ordination?

Given the context of Gibson's sedevacantist views, that it was done at his sedevacantist chapel, with an elderly bishop who seems to believe Francis isn't the pope, the ceremony is at least highly suspect. It gives the impression that these priests' ordinations were somehow "deficient" but have now been "corrected." 

A similar ceremony was held a second time, later in 2021, with other priests. Church Militant knows the identities of several of these priests, but we are withholding them for the moment, as we expect this story will have larger ramifications with their bishops — not to mention the retired bishop who was involved. One or more may regret their actions and wish to recant.

It's not entirely clear if each of the individual priests actually understood what they had submitted to, or whether their original ordinations were somehow "defective." Church Militant has direct knowledge of some individuals, and we have spoken with some of them who alerted the hierarchy. Rome is also aware of what happened at Gibson's ranch, as are at least two of these priests' dioceses. 

Whatever backroom and canon law issues may be at play, it is possible that the "supplying-of-services" ceremony is now at play in their cases before Rome and may be the reason some may be kicked out of the priesthood. To question or instill doubt about the validity of one's own ordination because it was done after 1958 is a grave matter.

The Church simply cannot have priests walking around doubting the validity of their own ordinations, so much so that they would participate in some kind of a ceremony manipulated by a sedevacantist celebrity. This story is not merely about the sacramental validity of individual ordinations but of questioning the Church's rite of ordination itself.

This kind of stuff is not terribly unlike what the schismatic SSPX group does in many cases when a priest comes to them and wants to join up. They conditionally ordain him into the schismatic society, "just in case" his ordination wasn't valid. Suffice it to say, this is the root of schism, its evil consequences and bad fruit: that the sacraments themselves — not just whether they are licit, but whether they are even valid —are doubted.

For almost two weeks, we have been pounding the drum about schism and the massive danger it poses to the peace and well-being of the Church. We have been doing this in buildup to this story as well as some others we will be revealing in due course. For example, we have come to learn that these canceled priests are not the only canceled priests or group of canceled priests who have been to Mel's ranch. Those who understand what is meant by that, that shout-out is for you.

What is in the process of forming right now in various places — more on that in upcoming episodes — is a type of underground church that will not be valid or legitimate but will move about as quietly as possible, undermining communion with the authentic Church. It will be the poison of a schismatic mindset that has been allowed to fester in the Church for decades by reckless, wicked, uncaring and cowardly bishops who allow any evil on the right or left to gain traction.

The world is in crisis because the Church is in crisis. Loyal sons of the Church must step forward and now become involved in this and put an end to it — all of it — by exposing it:

These dilemmas threaten the very life of the Church (as we have come to understand that) and all of this must be brought out and corrected for the good of the Church's unity and respect for the authenticity of the holy sacraments.

TRANSCRIPT

On the reality of the Society of Saint Pius X being in schism, perhaps the most vociferous protest to that by SSPX supporters is "But, but, Pope Francis gave the priests of the Society faculties to absolve and marry people, so, therefore, they can't be in schism." That wildly false conclusion is even trumpeted, unthinkingly or deceptively, by internet Catholic media types and websites. It is simply false. Being extended the faculties to absolve or marry does not regularize a priest or make the SSPX no longer in schism.

What Pope Francis did during the 2016 Jubilee Year of Mercy, in order to encourage confessions by the faithful, was grant faculties to the schismatic SSPX so that those laymen who follow them would receive valid absolution. Notice a point here not talked about very often, especially by the Catholic internet/media types who support the schism: In order for him to grant them faculties, that means prior to that, they did not possess the faculties. But the granting of faculties does not bring about the end of a schism.

The pope, whoever he may be, has supreme jurisdiction over the Church. And if he so desires, he may grant faculties to a priest — even if the priest is suspended or in schism. This is a matter of ecclesiastical law, again, of which the pope is the supreme lawgiver. As we discussed last week, it is the pope who has ultimate temporal jurisdiction over the Church — not the laity, not the bishops and so forth — the pope. If he dispenses with an ecclesiastical law for some reason, then it is dispensed with.

We aren't talking about divine law here, which no one can dispense from. Because in the case of divine law, the divinity — God — is the lawgiver. Only God can dispense from His own law. But man-made laws and disciplines in the Church the pope has supreme authority over, and if he so wishes, he can dispense or make exceptions or do whatever his little heart desires. None of that even comes close to touching on the issue of schism. Schism is a totally different matter; the two are completely unrelated.

And again, note well that what the pope did was (as an act of kindness in trying to bring the SSPX back into the Church) grant them an exception, not for the good of the Society but for the good of the faithful, so that their absolutions would be valid. Because prior to that, the absolutions the lay followers of the SSPX received were not valid. Their sins were not absolved. Such is the normal price of being in schism. But if a pope grants it, a schismatic priest — for the good of the faithful, not the priest — can absolve sins.

So to make the argument — especially among Catholic internet pro-schism media types who hold forth as experts on this, which they decidedly are not — that "the SSPX is not in schism because Pope Francis gave them some faculties" is flat-out wrong, and, we suspect (in some cases, at least) a decided lie.

After the Year of Mercy ended, Pope Francis continued the clemency, again, for the welfare of the faithful, not the SSPX — and certainly not ending the schism. He did this in 2016. Just last year, he wrote and declared as pope that the SSPX is a schismatic movement. Now, some Catholics ask, how can a priest be schismatic on the one hand and have faculties on the other? Well, look East, young man — that is the exact case with the Eastern Orthodox. They have faculties to absolve and marry; so do the SSPX, at least since 2016 and for now.

But no one would make the argument that because the Orthodox can absolve and marry, they are not in schism. Likewise, to further suggest that a priest who can absolve or witness a marriage is "all good to go" is to woefully misunderstand the entire situation. Theodore McCarrick, for example, because of his priestly ordination, still has the power through that priesthood to absolve sins (in certain situations) according to ecclesiastical law.

If he is wandering down the road and comes across an automobile accident victim who is near death, he can absolve that dying man of his sins. But he himself, Theodore McCarrick, is not "restored" or anything of the sort. For the good of the soul of the dying man, the Church permits McCarrick to exercise his ministry but only in that single instance and then only for the good of the dying man (not McCarrick). Once he absolves the man, he reverts, so to speak, to his nonministerial life. He does not all of a sudden become an active priest. This is exactly the case with the SSPX clergy. When they offer Mass, each and every one of them does so in disobedience.

As Cdl. Burke admonishes, no faithful Catholic should attend those illicit sacraments because, as three popes have said, they are offered by a schismatic sect. Likewise, on the question of valid marriages, even here Pope Francis did not give the schismatics a blank check. In order for a marriage in the SSPX to be considered sacramentally valid, the Society must contact the local bishop who is in union with Rome for permission and provide a witness to it. Again, this does not make the schism not a schism anymore. It is done as a kind gesture to help heal the schism. The gestures do not end the schism — far from it, in fact.

When Pope Francis reached out his hand and granted the exceptions for absolution and marriages, it was rebuffed by the Society, who said, in essence, "Thanks but no thanks. We don't need your permission." Such is the mindset of a schism that has taken deep root.

And remember, the pope — any pope — has the authority to reverse and remove these exceptions at any time. So what if a pope, this pope or a future pope, does that? What would then be the answer from the supporters of the SSPX? When they get the exceptions, they cheer and say, "Look, we aren't in schism." But if/when a pope removes the exceptions, they will say, "Who cares?"

So which is it? Does the granting, by a pope, of special exceptions carry any weight, or does it not? No one, including the schismatics, gets to have it both ways. Three popes in a row: "The SSPX is in schism" — and whatever kindness extended for the good of the faithful does not end that schism. It only proves the schism. It's why they need to be granted the exceptions to begin with.

TRANSCRIPT

At multiple times throughout the Church's 2,000 years, schisms have erupted, and adherents to these schisms first develop and then come to embrace the idea that the Church is in error about one thing or another, and they want no part of that error. So they break away and believe themselves to be breaking away from error, and, therefore, they are the true Church.

They refer to themselves in many ways: "The Remnant," "Eternal Rome," this or that "Catholic Church" — but they are all schismatic. Most famously, even the Eastern Orthodox fall into this camp. When Church historians, in fact, reference the "Great Schism," it is the 11th-century schism with the Orthodox that is being talked about.

When it comes to heresy, most often they eventually leave the Church — although they have remained somewhat stubborn about that in recent decades. But historically, they leave, and, over the ensuing generations, Catholics no longer have any kind of relationship with them. They simply left. They no longer even claim anything Catholic, at least in substance. There might be some overlap, but the differences are pretty stark. They are a different religion, distinct from Catholicism.

But when it comes to schism, an entirely different aspect is at play. It's not that they so much leave but stick around and claim a legitimacy they do not actually possess. They keep the Catholic shingle hanging above the entrance to the door, but inside the store — not so much. This is where a type of seduction comes into play. It looks Catholic, and in some way, still is — valid sacraments, for example, but what could be called a "breakaway mentality" has set in, and that rules the day.

The approach they have and present is sometimes found in the political realm when, for example, Ronald Reagan types will say, "I didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left me." That certainly rings true in politics but in the Church — not so much. In fact, it's impossible. The world of politics does not enjoy the promise of divine protection the Church does.

It is, of course, true and more than substantiated by the current crisis that the Church can be in shambles — a veritable dumpster fire because of mistakes or wickedness or bad calls, etc., by Her individual leaders. They can be cowards or malicious or greedy or just weak men or even massively naive — and their actions can have horrible effects on the life of the Church as it is lived out, understood and even believed by the faithful.

But it is never true that the Church can cease to be the Church. Yet this is what we could call the seduction of schism. In claiming to embrace and hold all that the Church teaches and professes over and above scoundrel bishops, they end up denying the authority of these same bishops. So, in truth, they really don't believe everything the Church teaches because they don't believe that. They end up operating as their own church, in effect, which is exactly what has happened with dozens and dozens of schismatic groups just in the past century or two.

The Society of Saint Pius X certainly does not hold a copyright on schism. In fact, in a historical analysis, they're actually a little late to the game. The SSPX emerged in the carnage of the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council and were eventually declared to be in schism. They still are. Even though, like all schismatics, they still have valid sacraments, just like the Eastern Orthodox possess valid orders and sacraments.

But the First Vatican Council, a hundred years earlier, had its own breakaway schismatic group: the Old Catholic Church. They rejected Vatican I — and they are still around. So historically, there's nothing new or even exceptional about the SSPX and its approach, nor the approach of the laypeople who support it.

Schisms and heresy and so forth have a long, sad history in the Church and each one was characterized, ultimately, by the hardheaded, never-compromise, lack-of-humility attitude that the Church had abandoned her mission, and we are the loyal sons of the Church, maintaining tradition and the teachings — all, of course, except for that one about authority. Sound familiar?

The very sad part of this, aside from the obvious, is schisms maintain a veneer (at least) of Catholicism. In this way, they are seductive. Because they have not renounced the Church (in fact, just the opposite of heretics) they can draw unsuspecting souls into them, and those souls can labor under the delusion that they are in the Church.

And schismatics have a zillion and one proofs or reasons why they are the real Catholics, and Rome no longer is. Those arguments all sound reasonable to people who don't know much or (at least) enough to retort with the other side. And schismatics are experts at setting up the Church's position in a straw man manner and then destroying it. But that, of course, is not intellectually honest.

Whether a person is a schismatic or a heretic, they all have good intentions — at least at the start. They all believe what they are doing is justified and right. And that morphs into a pride and arrogance that are then transmitted through successive generations. It's why schisms, in particular, are almost never come back from. In the end, because they look Catholic, they are just as dangerous as heresy and, one could argue, even more.

A schism takes on a life of its own and develops the character of a church. The SSPX, for example, will not accept a priest who was ordained in the post–Vatican II Church. They conditionally ordain him because they do not believe (or at least entertain a very serious doubt whether) his ordination was valid. Talk about a serious problem right there. Likewise, they have their own marriage and annulment courts apart from Rome.

Schisms grow and develop and take on a life of their own. They beget an attitude of exclusivity even to fellow baptized Catholics. They develop their own hierarchy. They doubt a priest is a priest and a couple that is sacramentally married is married, for example. And yet, for the uninformed, they look Catholic. That's the seduction.

In fact, we'd wager it's far easier to convert a Protestant who clings to heretical ideas, often without knowing it, than a schismatic who rejects out of hand that the Church is the actual Church and alone possesses the authority to speak. Many Protestants typically embrace the notion that authority resides in Scripture and your own personal interpretation as befits you — "the-Holy-Spirit-told-me" kind of thinking.

If they can be shown that authority resides in the Church — Who produced the Scriptures — now you can begin to make some headway. But for the schismatic, no such argument is possible. They embrace, not personal authority, but the authority of the breakaway group and its "infallibility." That is a very different horse you're dealing with.

What really is a shame these days, given the ability for all this misinformation to spread via the internet and social media, is that Catholic media types refuse to talk about all this. And the reason is because many of them actually support the schism for a variety of reasons (ideological as well as financial). And since they support schism — carry the water for it — and will not discuss the grave danger to souls, they should not be listened to, even if some of what they are saying is correct.

When they are saying correct stuff, they certainly aren't the only ones saying it. There are plenty of resources — hundreds in social media — speaking the truth about all sorts of things in the culture and the world. Catholic internet types talking about politics or health issues and policy issues who don't really possess any expertise in those given areas are doing that to lure people in by presenting themselves as knowledgeable and reasonable, so when they switch to matters of the Church and the Faith life, they will be afforded that same level of respect, when they don't actually deserve it.

Too many Catholic media types just stay mum on their support of schism and rejection of the Second Vatican Council as a legitimate council. They refuse to answer your questions because it provides them a certain cover. Why not debate these issues openly and live? Church Militant is happy to do so. Why not allow your underpinnings to be questioned? Why not go directly on the record and lay your cards on the table?

Is Francis the pope? Do you accept the determination of the last three popes that the SSPX is in schism? Was Vatican II a legitimate council? All yes-or-no questions. Yes, there is much to discuss, falling from those questions, but the questions themselves are very straightforward. Media have an obligation to present the truth. Covering up your position and keeping it out of the public's eye is not honest.

TRANSCRIPT

While the sentiment does have some validity to it because we don't think most people actually enjoy confrontation and fighting, etc., we'd also like to propose a couple of sayings for people to ponder: "It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error."

And secondly, "It is better to speak the truth that hurts — then heals — than falsehood that comforts and then kills." This is exactly what Our Blessed Lord did. Differences in substance simply cannot be papered over, no matter how emotionally tempting that may be.

And within the Catholic world, what is surfacing right now is that there are substantial differences not just between believing Catholics and modernist Catholics but actually between believing Catholics, meaning those who say they believe the Faith. But, that said, there is more to believing the Faith than just accepting the teachings themselves. There is also accepting the authority — the authority of the Church, for example, when She says the Second Vatican Council was a legitimate council of the Church.

When it comes to the matter of schism that we have been talking about for a week or so and whether Francis is actually the pope, or if he never was or was and then stopped being pope, the real underlying driving force behind all of that is the belief that Vatican II was a heretical council — meaning it was not legitimate.

For Catholics who style themselves as "traditional" Catholics, Vatican II is the litmus test. It isn't about the Latin Mass, although that's certainly part of it. It's about the council's legitimacy — always has been. And for the record, Church Militant has never defined itself as "traditional" — certainly not in this sense of rejecting or questioning the council's legitimacy.

We are orthodox Catholics, meaning we accept everything the Church puts forward. We oppose heresy and schism. In the end, this is the essential reason the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism. It's what Pope Benedict meant in his condemnation of them in his 2009 letter to the Church's bishops having to clarify what the impact was of him lifting the personal excommunications of the four bishops illicitly consecrated.

Here is what he said in reference to the doctrinal issues:

In his letter, he mentions the problem (of the SSPX) being doctrinal. It's not about the Latin Mass, although that's how many of the society's cheerleaders like to falsely portray it. The doctrinal issue is that the SSPX (and certainly many of its defenders) simply rejects Vatican II. Their rejection — and there are wildly varying degrees of rejection within the self-styled traditional community — must be challenged because it's not right.

We agree and have said many times — reported on, thousands of times — the abuses that are seemingly omnipresent in the Church today demand an intense look at those documents from the council — and deep clarification. The so-called spirit of Vatican II has been allowed to maul the Faith of tens if not hundreds of millions of believers, but too many self-styled traditionalists are ready to throw the baby out with the bath water and simply declare the council itself was illegitimate.

That's the complete heart of the matter, the central point of these wars within the Church. And despite whatever their best efforts were, Paul VI, John Paul and Benedict did not exercise sufficient discipline to bring the abuses to an end. The can, as the saying goes, can only be kicked so far down the road. And as a result, people are going into schism.

One very well-respected cardinal, Raymond Burke, who has publicly declared that the SSPX is in schism, has been repudiated by various Catholic internet media types — sometimes directly by name, other times by innuendo — but repudiated nonetheless. To lift a couple of quotes from just one such "trad" who has a microphone, he says of Cdl. Burke, "He has a block about the SSPX." Meaning, "He's a really good guy but he doesn't agree with me and my group, so the problem is him." He goes on to say of Burke, "He's a 'Benedict guy.' He believes in Vatican II."

See, there is the problem right there: If you accept Vatican II, like Pope Benedict did — like Cdl. Burke does — you are automatically excluded from being able to render a proper verdict on the SSPX schism. It's circular logic raised to a near authoritative pronouncement by the so-called trads.

In sum, it's this: "Vatican II was not a legitimate council. The SSPX stayed true to the Church in its aftermath and rejects the council. Believers in Vatican II (even popes) who declare the SSPX in schism are wrong because they accept the council." It's like a textbook definition of circular logic. If you accept the council, you are to be discounted, however politely or respectfully and sometimes even rudely. Church Militant is not unaware of the multitude of problems that flowed from the aftermath of the council. We have reported extensively on the hugely deleterious effects of modernist bishops, abuses in the liturgy, contorting of the gospel, and on and on.

In fact, so often and in enormous detail in investigations and specials have we reported on all this, that many so-called and self-styled trads believed we, like them, also rejected the council. They were actually kind of shocked a few years back when we started reporting on all this. We used to get invited to their gatherings and conferences; they would show up at our talks and conferences. We were on friendly terms with their media personalities. But when we refused to go along with their refusal to accept the council itself, we became their enemies, and they made no bones about it.

So is there common ground between Church Militant and those who call themselves "trad Catholics" —meaning specifically, those who will not accept Vatican II — because that is precisely what is meant when trads call themselves "trad"? Well, of course there is. Vatican II rejectors and Church Militant each agree on the plague and heresy of modernism in the Church and its horrible effects. We just do not agree that going into schism is the answer. The Church Herself — and She alone — gets to declare what is within the bounds of belief, practice and acceptable response.

It reveals a great underlying pride and hubris on the part of various Catholics, no matter how it's cloaked in terms of fidelity, to tell the Church She is wrong about a legitimate council. Problems in its aftermath? Absolutely. Clarification needed? Without a doubt. Discipline to be strictly enforced to bring the modernist heresy to an end? Please, God. But schism? Not an answer — never an answer.

And no, lay Catholics and various individual clergy and even prelates do not get to sit around and say the Church is wrong and a council called by the Church is heretical, nor do they get to rationalize their wrong position, saying it's for the good of the Church and the Faith.

Every schismatic, as well as heretic, over the past 2,000 years made the exact same argument. It always comes down to the question of authority, and too many media types in the Catholic world today have thrown their lot in on the side of schism. Most just aren't being forthright with you about it.

You need to ask them nonstop until they answer you directly and go on the record. Yes or no, the Church has declared that Vatican II was a legitimate council? Yes or no, do you agree? It's a very simple question and answer. Anything other than a direct yes or no tells you everything you need to know.

Catholic media sites and personalities have an obligation to their followers and supporters to be up-front and forthright about their editorial and philosophical point of view. Do you accept the legitimacy of the council? Do you accept the authority of the popes that the SSPX is in schism? Those are the first questions that need to be answered — and the answers are very simple and straightforward.

TRANSCRIPT

However, the question of a sacrament being licit or illicit is another case. A priest or bishop can validly perform a sacrament, but doing so without permission or jurisdiction makes it illicit, which means he didn't have the authority to do so.

When a priest is ordained (receives the sacrament of Holy Orders), he is a valid priest — period. But if the bishop who administered the sacrament validly did not have the authority to do so, then the question of the sacrament being licit comes up. This is what happened in the scandalous case of the schismatic bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X going on to ordain priests for the breakaway group.

The men they have ordained are validly ordained (again, a pretty low bar). But they are forbidden from offering Mass because they do not have the authority to do so because the Church has removed that authority, which She alone grants.

Ten years after the SSPX bishops were excommunicated under John Paul, a commission he set up to address the schism and find a way to reunite them (which has still not happened) wrote a letter worth revisiting because of its massive implications. In that letter, which was an answer to a letter to them from a concerned Catholic in Australia, they said the following with regard to the ongoing priestly ordinations in the SSPX:

While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265).

Pay special attention to that phrase: They (SSPX priests) are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass. That means every single time an SSPX priest or bishop offers Mass, he is doing so in disobedience. A priest may not assume to himself his own authority to dispense the sacraments or offer Mass. They do not belong to him. The sacraments belong to the Church, not to the priest.

He administers the sacraments, meaning he has been given the authority to do so by the Church. But the Church also has the right, even duty, to remove that authority when It determines it is necessary. And yes, that remains true even if the bishop or pope does so unjustly in an abuse of that authority. Ask Padre Pio about that.

The power does not suddenly go away strictly because the authority abuses that power. So an SSPX priest offers Mass in total disobedience whenever he offers Mass. He is in the same boat as Theodore McCarrick or any priest reduced to the lay state for sex abuse or whatever other reason.

If McCarrick was or is privately offering Mass in his secluded room, the Mass is valid because he remains a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. But, since he does not enjoy the authority of the Church to offer the Mass, he commits a sin in doing so. It's valid but illicit. And given the nature or seriousness of the act — offering Mass, calling Jesus down from Heaven — it's a safe bet that sin rises to the level of mortal sin, at least objectively.

When a priest stands at the altar, he is there in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), Who became obedient even to the point of death. So an SSPX priest or any other priest who is forbidden from exercising his priestly powers and does so anyway, offers the supreme sacrifice of obedience in disobedience.

That is a mockery of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, Who offered the sacrifice of Himself — which is what the Mass is — in complete obedience to the Father. And no, it does not matter that there are many heretical priests who do not believe, who are also in sin, offering Mass. Their sin does not excuse or exclude the sin of the SSPX priests. One is a sin of heresy, the other of schism. Both lead to Hell if not repented of.

When a priest spouts heresy during Mass, the authentically faithful are scandalized, angry, dispirited; and they absolutely should be. To not feel an eruption of outrage within oneself at heresy means you've got something wrong in your soul. But other Catholics, likely of goodwill, feel no such outrage when a priest offers Mass in disobedience and promotion of schism.

This evil is excused simply because the Mass is being offered in Latin. That's crazy. Martin Luther didn't offer the Novus Ordo Mass. It was valid when he offered it. We can go back even further here. When Judas was walking around along with the other Apostles — curing people, raising them from the dead, driving out demons — he was doing that through the power and authority of Christ.

At some point along the way, he stopped believing in Our Lord and that authority — he broke away in his mind and heart — but until Our Lord was to remove that power, Judas still retained it. Any power exercised by a priest must be done in and under obedience to Christ, or the priest places his soul in danger of damnation.

Does the lay Catholic, normally speaking, receive a valid sacrament? Sure. But that is, again, a very low bar. The priest, however, commits a grave sin because he is taking what Christ handed to him by the Church and using it without the necessary permission to do so. Just like heresy, schism creates its own world of spin-off sins and corrupted mindsets.

Stay on board the Barque of St. Peter. Do not fall off either side, heresy or schism. It's absolutely true that the Church is a dumpster fire right now for a huge number of reasons. But no Catholic worth his weight in salt gets to abandon Her, even if the temptation is there. The duty — moral obligation — is to stay within Her and fight, not go off and make up your own "church." That's what Protestants do.

Martin Luther looked at the horrors of the Church in his day, which were absolutely the case, and concluded correctly that this was immoral, sinful, horrible, wicked and so forth. On his diagnosis, he was spot-on. It was his "remedy" where he went wrong: He started his own church.

And today, as a result, hundreds of millions (likely billions over the centuries) follow the thoughts of an excommunicated priest who was validly ordained. While schism and heresy are two different things, there is also a lot of overlap.

Do not attend an illicit Mass and support the priest in his disobedience. Somewhere in your soul, a line is being crossed — a mentality that you know more than the Church and assume to yourself the authority to grant lawfulness to a sacrament being administered against the law. So-called traditional Catholic media who refuse to talk about this schism and allow you to endanger your souls are a disgrace.

Just like Luther and Judas, they don't get to decide something that is the sole prerogative of the Church, which, remember, exercises Her authority given by Christ — unless they hold the personal opinion that the Church is wrong and in error. And if they really do think that, wouldn't you (the viewers and readers) want to know that before listening to them and supporting them?

The very same reason faithful Catholics reject the modernism of so many in the hierarchy is at play here as well. It's the exact same principle at play.

Heretics reject the authority of the Church in Her teachings. Schismatics reject the authority of the Church in Her jurisdiction. Martin Luther led Catholics out of the Church through the Scriptures. The SSPX (supported by many Catholic media types) are leading people out of the Church by the sacraments. Stay in the Church. Fight like crazy, yes — but stay.