CATHOLI-SCHIZO

+

JMJ

My friend Idiotadoctus has written his own rebuttal to Pope Michael Voris and has consented to my publishing it here on the pages of Tradicat.

I suspect that Mr. Voris is going to shortly be confronted by the inconsistencies of his position.

So here's another perspective on Voris' et al by someone who's been involved with the SSPX even longer than me!

Enjoy!!!

P^3

CATHOLI-SCHIZO

A Response To Michael Voris' F.B.I. Episode Catholi-Schism

In spite of the seriousness of the content, and accusations on both sides, the following is offered in a spirit of friendly debate, under the assumption that the parties are both of good will, and thus willing to accept the truth, no matter where it comes from. The author gives permission to anyone to use this article, or parts of it, provided no changes are made to the text.

Dear Mr. Voris and CMTV,

I have been following Church Militant TV since 2010. I would like to express my gratitude for your apostolate, and acknowledge the huge amount of good you have done, especially in making so many of what I will call Modern Mainstream Catholics aware of the crisis in the Church, and doing so much to help educate them in the truths of the Faith, this being so necessary on account of the general dereliction of duty on this point by the pastors of the Church, especially since Vatican II.

Unfortunately, I think it necessary to write what follows in regard to certain errors you have made, rather than giving you much-deserved praise for so much else you have done.

You and your organization have come onto the Traditionalist scene very late in the scheme of things. It is to be expected that, especially in the more theologically and canonically complex issues, you would need more time to come up to speed. The question of the SSPX is most certainly difficult. Your treatment of it proves that you are operating out of your depth, as I will show. One would think that people such as yourselves, with your primary background among the Modern Mainstreamers, which yourselves admit are swimming in error, would be extra-careful in approaching an issue like the status of the SSPX; would show a little more humility, not to say common sense, by using more caution. After all, you all grew up in modernity. Common sense tells you that lifelong habits of thought aren't changed overnight, and you would better serve yourselves and others by operating with a healthy respect for the fact that at least some modernist or liberal notions still taint your thinking. In fact, even those of us with decades of study, prayer and formation in Tradition ought to use an appropriate relative caution in this matter. We are all, in some manner or extent, children of our time, and always will be. For you, caution is much more necessary, not just because of your comparative inexperience, but much more so because you have taken upon yourselves the task of being “a teacher in Israel.” I don't at all fault you for doing this – somebody has to do it, so why not you? – but I wonder if you consider that God will hold you responsible? He did not appoint you to this job; He permitted you to take it upon yourselves. Since it was you, not Him, that deemed yourselves competent to the job, He has a right to demand a most strict account. All the good you have done will weigh relatively less against any evil you do through your own negligence or incompetence.

Does my patronizing tone sting, or annoy, or cause umbrage? If it does, beware. That would be an absolutely certain sign that you ought to heed my warning.

As for me, I am nobody. The only thing perhaps relevant to relate about myself is that I have hung around SSPX circles since 1974. I spent ten years as a seminarian and/or brother of the SSPX. In all, I lived fourteen years, 24/7, 365 days a year, under the same roof with SSPX priests and brothers of various nationalities. During all that time, I, like the SSPX itself, have been studying, pondering and arguing questions of Faith, such as the authority of Vatican II, whether the SSPX or others are schismatic, sedevacantism, the crisis in the Church, etc. I have never considered myself an SSPX loyalist, however. The only real loyalty I have is to Truth. I give loyalty to persons and organizations only so long as they serve Truth. I don't agree with all the positions, statements or actions of the SSPX.

I will present some ideas concerning your F.B.I. episode entitled Catholi-schism. They are not my ideas. They are just ideas; but important notions you ought to consider if you are interested in truth and justice. Be forewarned that they are presented in the form of a polemic. If I use unflattering terms at times, I intend this to highlight the seriousness of things, and because you genuinely deserve a wake up call.

In the first seven minutes of listening, I found seven errors, half-truths or distortions. The batting average improved a bit after that, but not by much. In all, I found around thirty. I will mainly refrain from the temptation to debunk all the falsehoods and slanders against the SSPX in particular, of which Catholi-schism is chock, chock full. (Those interested in an excellent rebuttal based on this approach can see http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/traditional-catholic-answers/item/2043-is-the-sspx-in-schism-a-point-by-point-rebuttal-to-cmtv-s-catholi-schism-video.) Though there are so many errors in Catholi-schism, I find that the most important are coming from a few very grave errors concerning principles of the Faith, and that is certainly more important than some stupid personal slanders. Therefore I have decided that it will be briefer and at the same time more effective to focus on these. As it is, CMTV is WAY too busy. The least I can do for you, or anyone else reading this rebuttal, is make things as short and clear as possible.

Your erroneous principles are these:

A) At least in practice, you illegitimately extend papal infallibility to acts it does not cover. (Consequently you also practice a false obedience; you disobey the unified voice of all the popes, embodied in Tradition, and disobey Christ, in order to obey the current pope.)

B) You have a false notion as to what constitutes schism.

C) You have a false notion of the indefectibility of the Church.

D) You are influenced by the error of legal positivism.

Re/ A & D:

I will treat these items together, since in practice they are so often connected.

Proof of these contentions:

Here is the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility, pronounced by Vatican I:

“We teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma: The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when performing his office of doctor and shepherd of all Christians and on behalf of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of Faith or morals having to be held by the entire Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, he is competent in defining doctrine of Faith or morals, by that infallibility by which the Redeemer divinely willed His Church be instructed. And therefore the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff, by themselves and not by the consent of the Church, are irreformable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid, let him be anathema.”

Infallibility is therefore limited to

i) Matters of Faith and morals

ii) Uttered by the pope when he clearly intends to speak officially, and by his supreme authority as doctor and shepherd, bind

iii) ALL Christians; that is, the entire Church, to this teaching

Before going on, please notice the “let him be anathema”. This is an absolutely clear note that a doctrine is being taught infallibly; that it is de fide (cf. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, 1954, p. 286f). And so denial of this dogma, which includes its stated limitations, is objectively a heresy. Anyone who, being made aware of those limitations (as you have been just now), still continues to extend papal infallibility beyond these limits, is a formal heretic, and is automatically excommunicated (cf. New Code of Canon Law, 1364; 194,2)

It is clear that you do not accept in practice these dogmatically defined limits, for

1) You say “Authority does not lie in a code of laws, but in a man, the pope, and to whom he delegates authority.”

Your statement is true to an extent, but the context shows that you forget that the pope is not the highest authority; he is subject to his predecessors, and the Church herself, so far as concerns laws or commands logically consequent on things defined by the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. Further, he is also subject to Jesus Christ, whose vicar he is. There are many provisions of law that the pope cannot even validly contravene. For example, he cannot make a provision for permitting the divorced and re-”married” to receive Holy Communion without their repenting and abstaining from carnal relations, because this would be against the will of Christ as clearly stated in the Gospel, and also against the infallible teaching and perennial discipline of the Church. If he tried to make such a ruling, it would have no force. And the pope cannot licitly (legally) prescribe anything that is unjust. In this latter case, we ought to humble ourselves and obey anyway, in just respect of the legitimate authority, except we must not obey in cases where the pope might command sin. Given the concrete circumstances, Arb. Lefebvre, for instance, would have sinned by submitting to the pope's suppression.

2) You quote St. Augustine: Roma locuta, causa finita est (Rome having spoken, the case is finished), and it does not apply to Lefebvre's case. Augustine was referring to a dogmatic definition of doctrine (against Pelagianism). In that case, the pope's infallibility was engaged, and that's why the argument was over. The pope is not infallible in issuing disciplinary judgments, but you speak as if he is.

Here, your Universal Papal Infallibilism leads naturally to legal positivism; the notion that something is a legal and good law just because the pope says so, regardless of obvious facts to the contrary.

Now I must explain why I said that Lefebvre would have sinned by submitting to the pope's suppression. Consider:

3) Your highly tendentious attempt to make Liberius out to be a saint rather than a heretic, and Athanasius into the pope's most obedient son, rather than a rebel against him for the sake of obedience to God, is questionable at best. I won't go into the age-old debate concerning the historical facts on this, I will only say that your contention is just a rehash, though an extreme one, of an old ultramontanist position, and one against which Michael Davies has given the last word in his thoroughly researched booklet St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith, specifically in his Appendix II. Your strained attempt to justify Liberius is also indicative of the fact that you still need to grow out of the Universal Papal Infallibilism our past few generations grew up with (henceforth called UPI by me, some less accurately call it Papalatry). Read that Appendix II of Davies. He has some interesting things to say about the disservice we do to the Church by pretending, against the facts, that popes are infallible in everything they say and do.

In the end, this as well as your other historical examples of how the saints practiced obedience don't matter anyway, for the simple reason that Arb. Lefebvre's story is, in important ways, unique. Let's stick to the facts of his case, which are not debatable, because they are very recent and well-documented history.

Fact: He was faced with a pope (Paul VI) who was favoring not merely a heresy, but Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, and on top of that, he was promoting a liturgical revolution. These things were, and in the event continue to, corrupt, secularize, desacralize and minimize the intellectual and prayer life of most Catholics in the entire world.

Fact: Paul VI was not under duress, but was firmly convinced of, and in favor of Modernism. If we want to be charitable and claim that he did not recognize he was favoring heresy, that just made it worse, because he was all the less likely he would come back to a Catholic sense of things.

Fact: In the end, he did not come to his Catholic senses, but this pope remained consistent till death in favoring heresy.

Fact: In all this, the pope was supported (or egged on) by nearly all the rest of the hierarchy. At the time, there was only one other bishop in the world who was standing fast for Tradition: bishop de Castro-Mayer.

The cases of Padre Pio and Mother McKillop, that you also bring up, were petty local events, having little effect on the Church as a whole. The case of the Jesuits was certainly bigger, and serious harm was done to the Church. Still, there were plenty of other orthodox religious orders around, and the pope and the hierarchy were orthodox too. There was no question of the Church as a whole suffering any long term damage. In the case of Lefebvre, his work was effectively the last holdout against the war being waged by the hierarchy itself against orthodoxy. Sure, de Castro-Mayer was still around, but he had no worldwide presence, and showed no interest in gaining one. The SSPX was in fact the galvanizing point for Traditionalists all over the world. Try to remember that the FSSP, ICK, and most if not all other Traditional congregations would, so far as historical hindsight can tell us, not even exist today if it were not for the SSPX's “experiment in Tradition”. They were almost all launched either in imitation of the SSPX, or in reaction against its supposedly schismatic nature. In fact, the SSPX no doubt laid the ultimate foundation for the work of CMTV!

It is all very well to cry up a pious hope in God; to say “God always provides”. Indeed He does. But among the things He provides us are intellect, common sense, and will. He expects us to use them. The common sense of Arb. Lefebvre allowed him to see that a pious hope would actually have been criminal presumption in the concrete circumstances that he was faced with. At the time, he was effectively alone, and there was no reasonable hope anyone could take his place or the place of the SSPX. Moreover, if anyone did, they would have been faced with the same problem he was faced with: a pope and hierarchy that were determined to snuff out Tradition. So the only solution would have been a miraculous conversion of the pope, at least. Miracles do happen, of course, but it is not hope, but presumption, to demand them of God. Bottom line, in commanding the suppression of the SSPX, the pope was – and I mean this in all strictness – commanding that Arb. Lefebvre commit the very grave mortal sin of dereliction of duty; abandoning his lambs to the modernist wolves in sheeps' clothing, the pope himself being the chief wolf. This does not mean that Lefebvre thought himself to be a “profitable servant”, as you rashly judge. Any familiarity with his life reveals that he merely did what he thought was the duty forced upon him by divine providence.

4) You recommend a blind trust in the pope, rhetorically asking: “How do you know a pope is good [and therefore can be safely obeyed]?”

The rhetorical answer would be: “Uh, well, I guess I don't. I mean, modern philosophy tells us that the only thing we really know is that we don't really know anything, so I need an authority to tell me even what 2 + 2 is...(answer: 5). But those adhering to the Church's philosophy aren't thus mentally neutered. A man who grew up in a more sensible age would find your question incomprehensible. Once he understood you were seriously asking, he would say: “Why, the answer is very, very simple. Compare what he says and does with what his sainted predecessors (before “St.” John XXIII!) have said and done. If the current pope follows the example of the good popes of the past, he's a good pope. If he doesn't, he's not.” This is not a matter of private judgment, but simply of accurate and informed research.

CMTV clearly thinks a pope is a good pope just by virtue of being pope; thus shows itself subject to UPI again.

5) You make the blatantly heretical statement: “It's the signature of the vicar of Christ alone that makes (liturgical) law binding, and nothing else.”

But against this: Acts 5:29 “We have to obey God rather than men.”

And Pope Leo XIII authoritatively interprets this in Libertas Praestantissimum (#13), saying: “...where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal [natural] law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God”.

And again in Diuturnum Illud (#15): “The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: 'We ought to obey God rather than men.' And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.”

Please note he makes no exception for commands of a pope that are contrary to an ordinance of God, or the natural law, or even simple reason. And indeed he can't, for Vatican I already dogmatically defined that a pope is not infallible when issuing disciplinary commands.

Now, if you want to deny this teaching of Acts, as interpreted by Pope Leo XIII (and other theologians I could name), and expressed by Vatican I, you are faced with the same old problem that Modern Mainstreamers and Anti-SSPX Neo-Trads have always had. If the pope is infallible in everything he says and does, here is a pope, Leo XIII, directly contradicting that very notion. You don't have the option that True Trads have of distinguishing infallible from fallible statements, so you are absolutely jammed between the horns of the dilemma: If Leo XIII is right (and he must be if all popes are infallible in everything), and he is saying that popes are not infallible in everything...what do you do now? The truth is that Leo is right; what he is saying is perfectly consonant with the limits of papal infallibility as dogmatically defined by Vatican I. But then that means you are wrong when you claim that the pope's mere signature automatically makes a law binding.

6) You say: “The SSPX claims to simply believe what the Church has always believed. According to the pope – according to the pope! – this is simply not the case.”

So the pope says it's not the case. So what? He was wrong. I know this from some forty years of acquaintance with the SSPX, fourteen of them spent as an “insider” of sorts. I know all their positions on the issues. I've studied all the issues. I've checked things against Denzinger and other most reliable sources. The pope was just making his own personal, fallible judgment; he wasn't acting under the requisite conditions for infallibility defined by Vatican I.

Lose the UPI. It will help you avoid saying such foolish, and objectively heretical, things.

7) You say that the New Missal (form of the Western Rite) in itself is good, and the SSPX should not then say that one should never assist at it.

Let me ask you a question: Taking them in their officially approved forms, which Mass is better, the New or the Old? Judging from what I've seen of CMTV, I'm pretty sure you'll have to say the latter. In that case how do you figure that the New Mass is, relative to the Old, good? How do you figure we are justified, or even a pope is justified, in offering anything but the best available to the Perfect God? We already had the Old Mass when the ad hoc, cobbled invention called the New Mass was invented. We didn't have to use a new one, unless it would have been objectively better. The New Mass, even abstracting from abuses of it, is at the least inferior, and is therefore objectively an insult to God; it is the sacrifice of Cain. To assist at it is to participate in the sacrifice of Cain, and thus is objectively sinful. I suggest you read Genesis 4:1, and especially note that when God rejected Cain's sacrifice, Cain did not receive the correction (i.e. did not forsake his “New Mass”, and adopt Abel's “Old Mass”), but was angry, and then even murdered his brother, for daring to do his duty (and make him look bad in comparison).

You think that just because Paul VI promulgated it (which, BTW, some people would debate, but I grant here for the sake of argument), it has to be good. He did not have a right to institute this inferior Mass, just because he was pope. Disciplinary decrees, again, are not protected by papal infallibility, and in any case no one could possibly have a right to insult God.

Notice here I haven't even begun to talk about the well-researched books and studies that point out the New Mass' many defects, and prove that it was purely a human endeavor intended to placate Protestants. You apparently aren't well acquainted with certain fundamental works that any Traditionalist ought to know about. Try reading Cranmer's Godly Order, or Pope Paul's New Mass, or The Roman Rite Destroyed, by Michael Davies, or The Ottaviani Intervention, or The Problems With The Prayers Of The Modern Mass, by Fr. Anthony Cekada. (The latter is written by a sedevacantist, but it is done in an objective way. In any case, it doesn't matter who wrote it, as the facts speak for themselves.)

8) You piously excuse your refusal to see the errors of the modern popes by quoting the scriptural story of how Ham needlessly spread word of Noah's nakedness.

Once again a very inapt comparison; apples to oranges. Apparently that UPI induced blind spot has side effects. Ham's puerile sniggering about Noah's nakedness, was indeed needless. You got that part right. It was a sin of disrespect. Do you really think, though, that it is unnecessary to spread word of the hugely damaging errors of the modern popes? Let's put it this way. What if Noah, besides just being naked, had gone dancing around, parading his nakedness, proclaiming a new, enlightened age, where nudity was no longer shameful, because original sin did not exist? What if Ham, horrified at this scandal, had gone around warning people that Noah had gone mad?

Now that's more like comparing apples to apples.

Your other reference to David refusing to raise his hand against Saul, even though Saul tried to kill him, is equally irrelevant. David was free to risk his own (merely physical) life, for the sake of showing respect to the anointed king. Moreover, he was not obligated to accept that personal risk he took; he could justly have defended himself. We not only can justly defend ourselves, we must; we are not free to remain silent, while the spiritual life of others (and ourselves) is being put at grave risk by the Holy Father.

Re/ B: Your false notion as to what constitutes schism

1) You say “John Paul II merely upheld the validity of the excommunication that Arb. Lefebvre conferred on himself...Consecration of a bishop without papal mandate is a crime so heinous that the person doing it excommunicates himself.”

But you yourself also mention that automatic excommunication for consecration without papal mandate was not even legislated until 1958. What you do not say is why this law was promulgated. It was necessary because the state-run Communist counterfeit “Catholic” church in China was, on a regular basis, causing its own operatives to be made bishops, in opposition to the true Catholic bishops. Therefore, auto-excommunication was instituted as a merely practical measure in response to particular historical circumstances. By nature and in principle, of course, the papal mandate for episcopal consecration is required for licitness, since the Bishop of Rome is, after all, the chief of all the bishops. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (c. 953) also legislates the mandate. However, the penalty was suspension, not excommunication (c. 2370). No doubt that penalty of (mere) suspension goes back a long way. And one should add that, in the first few centuries of the Church, given the dispersal of the Apostles and their immediate successors over a wide geographical area, the difficulty of communications, and the rapid spread of the Church, there was no mandate even required, except perhaps ex post facto, and even then not always: “Until the sixth century the clergy and the people elected the bishop on condition that the election should be approved by the neighboring bishops. Undoubtedly, the Christian Roman emperors sometimes intervened in these elections.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm).

Conclusion: Your characterization of episcopal consecration without papal mandate as a crime “so heinous”, and your implication that it by nature leads to automatic excommunication (as if it were, per se, schism) is not only false, but borders on the hysterical.

2) You say that some in the SSPX claim that schism is a denial of a pope's authority in principle. This is true. You say that some High Anglicans also claim to be in full communion [because they don't deny papal authority in principle or theory; they simply aren't actually practicing obedience at the moment.] You say that if these Anglicans were in fact in communion, the SSPX would be too.

The comparison is inapt. For one thing, the fathers of these Anglicans did in the past deny papal authority in principle as well as practice. If any of their sons want to actually be considered Catholic, they have to actually join the Church, since they were never members to begin with; their mere saying they are Catholic doesn't make them so; an official acceptation is needed. The SSPX never left the Church in the first place.

But you say they have, because they are in schism, because to be in schism it is enough to

a) Simply disobey the pope in practice, even if you admit in principle that he still has authority.

b) Refuse to be in communion with other Catholics.

Let's discuss the notion of schism a bit. It could be interesting.

Both the Old and New Codes of canon law give essentially the same definition of schism. I'll use the New Code (c. 751): Schisma [est] subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut communionis cum Ecclesiae membris eidem subditis detrectatio.

Schism is the refusal of subjection to the Highest [Roman] Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to the same [Pontiff].

It should be noted that this definition is that of St. Thomas Aquinas (IIa IIae, Q.39, a1, resp.), and its reliability is thus highly reinforced, since St. Thomas is the theologian of the Church, being stated as such by numerous popes, notably Pius X (motu proprio Doctoris Angelici), and Pius XI (encyclical Studiorum Ducem).

Now, you say that the canon does not mention formally rejecting the pope. By “formally rejecting the pope” I assume you mean rejecting his authority in principle, as the Eastern schismatics have done. And this is why you can say that simply disobeying the pope in practice can constitute schism. This is your personal interpretation of the code.

But on the contrary: the code does not say “refusal of obedience”; it says “refusal of subjection”.

It is obvious that one can disobey a superior, even repeatedly, without refusing to accept that one is still, in principle, subject to him. Children repeatedly disobey parents, but not many of them do so because they deny their authority. That is why the 1910-14 Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

This notion is supported by the article of St. Thomas cited immediately above:

“Properly, those are called schismatics who by their own will and intention separate themselves from the Church, which is the principle of unity.”

I find it interesting that he says the Church (not the pope) is the principle of unity. And he doesn't say “separate themselves from obedience”. He explains further:

“But the unity of the Church is attendant on two things: namely, in the connection of the members of the Church to each other, or communication; and again in the order of all the members of the Church to one head...This head, however, is Christ Himself, whose role in the Church the Supreme Pontiff carries on.”

Again, the “order of members to one head” is not broken by individual acts of disobedience, but by refusal of subjection in principle. Therefore I say that c. 751 precisely does speak of formal rejection of a pope's authority as the constitutive element of schism. I could cite other authorities to back this up.

What this evidently means is that, given a case where a pope would consistently act against Christ (i.e. fail in his duty as Vicar of Christ), the faithful would have to disobey the pope. In so doing they would not be schismatic, for they would be obeying the real head of the Church: Christ. But how would one know the pope was thus failing in his duty? One would refer to the words of Christ in Scripture, of course, but especially to the expositions thereof by all the past Vicars of Christ who are in line with each other through Tradition. In other words, one would refer to Tradition. Unfortunately, we are forced to make this discernment today.

Commonsensically, since actions speak louder than words, one would normally assume that if disobedience goes on long enough, the authority has been in fact denied, even if no assertion to that effect is made by the rebel subject. Also commonsensically, at least if it comes to the point of contemplating a punishment of his behavior, one would take note if an offender, especially repeatedly, asserted that he was not rejecting the authority in principle, but actually obeying a higher authority (e.g. Christ, through Tradition).

Translating this to the case of the SSPX, prior to the consecration of the four bishops against the pope's permission, the SSPX had for some time been acting in disobedience to the ruling of suspension levied against him. Lefebvre had, however, made clear that he was not denying that the pope had authority; he was denying that it could be legal and just to require that the SSPX stop its work. In the sermon he gave during the consecration Mass, he reiterated this in the clearest terms, and, significantly, specified that he had to choose between obeying the popes of the past and the modernist Vatican II popes. (http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1988_episcopal_consecrations_sermon_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm). In fact, obedience to Eternal Rome was his whole motive. You will probably laugh and say “How convenient to justify what you want to do by appealing to a past authority over the present real authority!” If so you would prove how infected with modernism you still are. The past authority IS real. Not only is it real, it is more real than the present one, so far as it shares in the infallibility of Tradition. The modernist sees no contradiction if a pope simply acts as if all his predecessors did not exist, and had no authority. In this regard it is useful to recall Vatican I (Denzinger-Bannwart, #1836): “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted by the apostles and the deposit of faith...” These modernist popes are disobedient to their predecessors, and to that extent it is they who are schismatic.

As to the refusal to be in communion with other Catholics, we “Lefebvrists” are not so guilty of this as you think. One naturally tends to live the life of one's own parish, and doesn't have time for much else. Still, I could cite many examples, from my own experience, where I or others connected with the SSPX, whether priests or laymen, have associated in one way or another with “Modern Mainstreamers”. (Of course, we wouldn't go to the Novus Ordo liturgy, and communicate in that way.) The N.O. is a regrettable obstacle not of our making. It doesn't mean we don't love those in it and consider them to be Catholics like us.

3) You say that the temptation of the SSPX is to separate the Mystical Body of Christ from a corrupt hierarchy; the ideal Church from the Church of reality. (Schismatic tendency). You say that the SSPX thinks that the true Church of Christ is some “Eternal Rome”. You say this error is explicitly condemned by Pius XII. You don't say where. A commentator of an objective spirit never simply asks the audience to trust his word; he always cites sources. You put me to the trouble of searching and guessing. I guess therefore that you were referring to the encyclical Mystici Corporis, #23, where it is stated: Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness. You could have found much earlier and authoritative statements of the Church to the same effect. In any case, you are punching at a straw man. You imply that the SSPX thinks that, in theory or practice, the corrupt ones in the hierarchy are excommunicated. But the SSPX doesn't say that “Eternal Rome” is the Church. They use that term to refer not to the Catholic Church, but to her immutable doctrine, and the fact that what the popes, the bishops of Rome, have dogmatically decreed throughout history, cannot contradict itself, and cannot be denied, ignored or changed by any present or future pope. The proof of my contention is found in the Declaration of Arb. Lefebvre of 1974 (link: http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1974_declaration_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm.) The SSPX has always admitted that the Modern Mainstreamers in the Church are, in fact, in the Church, and that includes the wayward hierarchy (until they are formally and legitimately excommunicated). It is not the SSPX, but the sedevacantists...and...you Neo-Trads, who are guilty of “excommunicating” others by private judgment or wish.

4) You say that Arb. Lefebvre claimed supplied jurisdiction [thus excusing himself of schism] because he declared, on his own authority, that the Church is in a state of emergency.

In another place you say, quite correctly, that in a case like some Catholic bishops in Communist countries have faced, where communication with Rome was impossible, but necessity required that a bishop who had been killed or was dying be replaced, permission of the pope could legitimately be presumed – but one could never claim supplied jurisdiction against an express command of the pope denying it to you.

A question: Do you think the Church is not in a state of emergency, or of crisis?

It would seem not, for you say at one point (30:40 in the audio): “This whole 'state of emergency' [used to justify supplied jurisdiction] is ironically a symptom of modernism, as it is an arbitrary and subjective discarding of the Church's laws.”

(Let's leave aside the fact that modernism is not an arbitrary discarding of Church law, but rather the belief that dogmas essentially evolve. Let's ignore also that supplied jurisdiction is itself contained in Church law). Moving on, you add “Lefebvre looked around and saw abuses and corrupt clergy, and therefore decided, by himself, that there was a state of emergency.” You incredibly don't seem to realize that you completely contradict and condemn yourself here, for you have decided, by yourself, exactly the same thing. Elsewhere you repeatedly show that you agree with Lefebvre and the SSPX that there is an emergency. One proof that you do is found in Catholi-schism itself, in the very beginning: “At ChurchMilitant.com we have dedicated our lives to fighting the crisis.” (BTW, you blame the crisis on a number of things and people, but forget to include, of course, the modern popes. UPI again.) Proof can also be found in nearly any one of your Vortex clips. CMTV is constantly exposing the reality of the crisis in the Church, often naming it exactly as such. Well then, by whose “authority” did you declare the Church is in crisis? It certainly wasn't the presently reigning Pope Francis who said this. And if you want to cite statements of Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI to this effect, you're going to be hard put to justify them given that these popes have been complicit, in greater or lesser degree, in creating the crisis in the first place, and have done nothing significant to stop it. Not that it would do you any good anyway, since, according to you, the opinion of the present pope is all that matters, and he certainly doesn't see any crisis. What you don't get is that no authority is needed. The crisis in the Church is a matter of simple recourse to facts and statistics as to her precipitous decline since Vat II, which facts and stats you are very well aware of, since yourselves have published them.

Your blaming the Archbishop for declaring a crisis, when you yourself believe in one, is already hypocritical. It's doubly hypocritical when you require some authoritative statement in support of Lefebvre's affirmation of this fact, but don't require one for your own.

Another question: If the Church is indeed in crisis, as we all agree it is, is that even possible unless the pope himself is part of the cause (whether willingly or no being another matter)?

At any rate, in this crisis, he most clearly has been part of the cause, and only those laboring under UPI can fail to see this.

Arb. Lefebvre tried asking their permission to continue Tradition, but since the modern popes were fully on board the Modern Titanic of Vat II, there was obviously no way they were going to give it. In the end, could any sane person really have expected that the source of the crisis itself was going to give permission to fight the crisis? Ludicrous.

Again, all this shows that you equate schism with simple disobedience, and you also leave out of account the fact that it's possible one may have to obey a pope's predecessors in favor of a current pope who is plainly himself disobeying them.

5) You say: “The laws of the Church do not differentiate between full or partial submission; any degree of disunity is disunity; partial obedience is not somehow OK.”

Where is your rationale or authority for this claim? But rather than refute the problems with this statement, let me just ask you: If any degree of disunity is disunity, WHY do you go on, in this same talk, and elsewhere, about the SSPX, and others, needing to come to “full communion? You obviously believe in the concept of partial communion if you believe in full communion. Your problem is that this newfangled notion of the recent popes of “partial” communion, which itself is based on the heretical New Ecclesiology, is something you've imbibed. You had to, of course, because the recent popes taught it, and, as we all “know”, the popes are infallible in everything they teach. Your Catholic instinct, however, your sensus fidelium, is in conflict with this. The result is schizoid thinking. Lose the UPI, and you will avoid such contradictions.

You go on: “The distinction of full and partial obedience is an invention of the SSPX, and doesn't exist in the laws of the Church.”

Re/ the first part: I have never heard about this full vs. partial obedience thing. I'd really like to know what it is, and where you got the notion that the SSPX invented it, but again you don't provide any source on it. Perhaps you're speaking of a distinction the SSPX does hold: the distinction between disobeying commands of a pope and rejecting his authority per se. Now that we know the SSPX didn't invent, as I've shown in B, #2 above. Now that does exist in the laws of the Church. In fact, it's the highest law of the Church, and one that the pope himself cannot contravene: Salus animarum est suprema lex (The salvation of souls is the highest law: New Code c. 1752)

Re/ the second part: Again, why don't you actually quote canon law to prove your point?

6) You say the principle that one can recognize the pope's authority, but resist his commands, has been proscribed as erroneous. You cite Vatican I and Pius XII, but you (as usual) don't give the exact references. I didn't bother trying to cover your negligence by skimming through all the writings of Pius XII, but regarding Vatican I, quite possibly you're referring to DzB 1827, where it is said:

“...this power of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity...are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church...”

This is a dogmatic statement, and thus carries the highest weight. Unfortunately, it is not to the point. Please note it says we are bound to “true obedience” not false or blind obedience. Also note what it does not say: “...bound by the duty of...obedience without exception, because the Roman Pontiff's disciplinary decrees are infallibly correct.”

Are you really going to say that, even if the pope were to command you to sin, you would have to obey? But if he were to do so (and it has most certainly happened in history, and not just to Arb. Lefebvre!), and you rightly refused to obey, you would be doing precisely that thing which you claim has been proscribed: Recognize but Resist. Moreover, you do admit in theory that disciplinary rulings aren't infallible (even though your habitual UPI prevents you from practicing the theory: see A&D above, #2, 5, 6, 7). But if they aren't then one must hold that there could be times when they must be disobeyed. More schizophrenia: Your theory and your practice/instincts are in schism with each other.

By the way, if you really do subscribe to this kind of blind obedience, I'd like to know how it only applies to obeying a pope, and obviously, for you, does not apply to bishops at all – because you have little to no scruple about publicly castigating their errors and disobeying them. Just as the pope governs the whole Church by divine right, so does each bishop govern his diocese. Perhaps you haven't read DzB 1828. It's too long to quote here, but I really suggest you read it. You ought to at least accord some fraction of your blind obedience to the bishops, but you don't accord any. It seems we have another example of schizo behavior here. UPI again.

You should read Robert Siscoe's article Can We Recognize and Resist? in Catholic Family News, January 2015. If you need citations from authority (because common sense isn't good enough) he has them, and some of them are from popes.

Re/ C: You have a false notion of the indefectibility of the Church.

1) You say that the SSPX denies the indefectibility of the Church.

The Church being indefectible means that it will last till the end of time – but Christ didn't say that “the Church” means a majority of members of the Church. On the contrary, He said “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” (Lk 18:8). The SSPX has never said, not even by implication, not even by actions that would contradict their words, that the Church has defected. Without knowing what you think defection means, it is useless to say more… except that you are telling a falsehood. But I will voice at least the suspicion that your accusation is coming from some notion that the pope is indefectible, or that it is impossible that the larger part of the Church could fall away, and both contentions can be proven false if necessary.

2) You claim that “The Church has defected if she offers false sacraments”.

'False' in reference to a sacrament means invalid.

First of all, this would only be true if false sacraments were offered to the entire Church. Even if the Novus Ordo sacraments were false, they only affect the Western Rite. But anyway the SSPX has never said that the New Mass and sacraments are false/invalid, at least not when done according to the book and with the intention to do what the Church does. (Some say validity is seriously in question when certain options are taken, such as use of other than olive oil for the holy oils.) Again, you seem to be unaware that the Church remains in existence so long as even a small part of it remains.

Or are you? For at 42:25 in your audio you say “Even if the Roman Rite collapses completely, the Church would continue to live on.”

Schizophrenia again.

3) You refer to Trent, session 22, can. 7 (DzB 954): If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: anathema sit. This is a “proof” you offer to support your statement that the Church has defected if she offers false sacraments. You obviously have not noticed that, far from justifying the legitimacy of the New Mass, this canon is a strong argument against it. For the canon was speaking not of any future rite that the Church might promulgate, but only of those which had been up to that time. As you note, it came ten years before the bull Quo Primum. I might add that Quo Primum, in concord with this canon of Trent, and indeed following an express mandate of that same council, commanded that use of any of the then current rites was permitted in perpetuity provided the rite in question had been in use for 200 years or more. It forbade all others. So Quo Primum's understanding of Trent in this matter is an official implementation of Trent. It can therefore be logically argued:

a) The use of any currently used rite that has also already been approved and used for more than 200 years cannot legally be forbidden, for it is now part of the infallible Tradition (Ordinary Infallible Magisterium) of the Church.

b) Any rite that has not been in use for more than 200 years can be forbidden, for it does not partake in infallible Tradition.

c) Therefore, the promulgation of the New Mass, even if you grant it was promulgated (and licitly so), does not share in the infallibility of the Church, and, at a future time, it could even be forbidden.

Further supporting this argument is session 7, c. 13 of the same council of Trent (DzB 856):

If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by whatsoever pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.

The original Latin for “by any pastor of the churches” is per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem (see http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1545-1563-,_Concilium_Tridentinum,_Canones_et_Decreta,_LT.pdf). The Roman Pontiff is, obviously, a pastor, and is thus included. Naturally, since Trent itself mandated the codification of the rite of the Roman church, which was later accomplished by St. Pius V through Quo Primum, as I mentioned, and this required some non-essential, organic modifications, Trent was not intending to declare that the Roman Pontiff had no right to make any changes at all, but it's apparent that the drastic changes made to the Western Rite by Paul VI are, at the least, fully contrary to the spirit of this dogmatic canon, and almost certainly illegal even to the letter, given that the very name for the Mass and sacraments of Paul VI is Novus Ordo, which means New Order.

Your claim then that “Decrying the New Mass is anathematizing oneself” is false. In fact, the exact opposite, to say that approving the New Mass is anathematizing oneself, is closer to the truth.

If you want to claim, as you clearly do, that the New Mass was infallibly promulgated (i.e. that its goodness and validity are infallibly certain), you are wrong, not only on the above counts but according to the limits of papal infallibility defined by Vatican I. It is true that the common opinion of theologians is that universal disciplinary laws (and liturgical laws are disciplinary) are infallible, but the New Mass is not a universal law; it only applies to the Western Rite. Moreover, infallibility of universal disciplinary law is only indirect; it only concerns laws that are necessarily connected with matters of faith or morals, because Vatican I states only matters of faith and morals can be the object of infallibility. In other words, while liturgy is connected with faith and morals, infallibility of liturgical law cannot come about from the act of promulgation itself. For the clear intention to bind the entire Church is a prerequisite of infallibility, and when did Paul VI, in his act of prescribing, ever say “If anyone says that this New Mass we are promulgating is evil or invalid, anathema sit”? And if he did, it would be without force, for Vatican I says that only matters of faith or morals can come directly under extraordinary infallibility. Therefore, the only way a liturgy comes under infallibility is through the approval of Tradition.

And so your claim is false: that it is a dogma that it is impossible for a pope to institute a liturgy that by nature is evil. As an aside, you may like to know that in this false notion of the direct and immediate infallibility of liturgical laws, you have the same opinion as the sedevacantists.

4) In this connection, you say that the concept of an Old Mass vs. a New Mass, held by the SSPX, is false. There is only one Mass, and to say otherwise is heresy. You go on to explain that there are indeed different rites of Mass (i.e. different ceremonial structures, such as the Western Roman Rite vs. the Eastern Coptic Rite, etc.) but that the essence of the Mass can never change. This latter point is quite correct. What I would like to know is, WHERE did you get the notion that the SSPX disagrees with this, or is ignorant of these basic, basic notions of liturgy? The SSPX understands by 'Old Mass' ONLY the form of the Western Rite codified by the Council of Trent, and by 'New Mass' the new Western rite created by the Freemason Annibale Bugnini, et al., under Paul VI. It has never said that the Mass, in its essence, can change. MUCH to the contrary, it has always insisted that if you change the essence of the Mass, it is no longer a Mass (it becomes invalid). What is your thinking here, if any? Do you suppose that the SSPX, since 1970, has just been inventing its own concepts of all things Catholic, and not rather simply studying the old approved manuals of doctrine? It must be, because you go on to blather a true stupidity: “The SSPX is hypocritical because it itself doesn't use the Mass of All Time [of St. Pius V, that it always praises], but that of St. (sic) John XXIII.” If you had bothered to dig as deeply as you ought to have; if your “Faith Based Investigation” were also a Fact Based Investigation, you would have learned that the SSPX at least has the common sense to consider the accidental (i.e. non-essential) modifications made to the Mass of St. Pius V, up to and including the time of John XXIII, to be not a real change of the rite of St. Pius V. It considers that the New Mass, while still essentially the Mass, is so hugely changed in its accidents that it is no longer the same rite.

One last point. It is a diversion, not directly concerned with your errors on the principles, but one that may shed light on why you hold them.

You say Bp. Williamson began to adopt a strong sedevacantist streak in his Eleison Comments.

I don't know why you even bring this up, as Bp. Williamson has not even been recognized as a member of the SSPX for some time. But since I know him a bit (two years in seminary with him as rector – and that goes back to 1988), since I have followed Eleison Comments through the period I'm sure you're speaking of, and have recently heard him in person speak on this subject, I can't let this pass. Williamson's thinking on sedevacantism has always been the same: he understands how the tremendous scandal of the liberal Vat II popes can lead one to that position, and he sympathizes with those who have it, but he does NOT agree. Most probably you have never heard his most interesting comparison of Sedes to Neo-Conservatives/Neo-Trads like...er...yourself.

It goes something like this:

Sede: The pope has to be infallible in everything he says and does. This pope goes against infallible Tradition. Therefore he's not infallible, and therefore he's not a pope.

Neo-Con: The pope has to be infallible in everything he says and does. This pope goes against infallible Tradition. Therefore, when he does so, I must learn to deny the facts of Tradition.

I'm sure you see the common denominator. That's right, it's UPI. If it is annoying to find your mindset is just like that of the Sedes in regard to this key point, I sympathize, but you cannot deny it unless you love yourselves more than the truth.

In the end, you make an exhortation to members or followers of the SSPX to “come back into the Church”, because the Church, more than ever, needs our expertise and holiness.

First of all, as said and explained above, we have never left the Church.

Secondly, as far as the expertise, except that concerned with parish life and liturgy, that's already available for the most part, in the form of books, studies, commentaries...of which last, dare I say that this commentary is one?

Thirdly, one has to wonder what kind of “holiness” you think a schismatic can have.

At any rate, your invitation is certainly a noble gesture. It's clear that you have a zeal for the cause of God, and want as many troops as possible to go to the battle lines. I, for one, am ALL for it. But perhaps you are unaware that this effect-change-on-the-Novus-Ordo-from-within strategy has been bruited about for many years; even before the FSSP was formed. People have tried this, and are trying it now. Yet are things getting better? You would like us to bail out of the SSPX and hook up with the FSSP, an indult center, etc. – or just stay in our local liberal N.O. parish.

Have you ever thought that all these groups like the FSSP, from the standpoint of the impact they have on the Novus Ordo status quo, are just as “outside the Church” as the SSPX?

Have you ever thought that the FSSP, and the indult, and several other groups, wouldn't for a moment have been tolerated by the N.O. establishment unless the SSPX existed as an alternate refuge of Faith that people could go to, whether the hierarchy liked it or not, if it refused to grant a few of their just demands – in particular the “Extraordinary” form of Mass?

Consider the irony: CMTV itself, in a way, is just such an isolated group; you have your followers, but if you are converting anyone, it is by far more often than not simply those in the N.O. who don't like the N.O., and have only tolerated being a Catholic in such a toxic environment because they were afraid of the boogeyman called Schism.

Here's another thought: If you remain in your N.O. parish, and agitate to steer it toward Tradition, against the authorities, aren't you being disobedient, or at least subversive? I believe you have in fact expressly encouraged subversion in a recent Vortex spot. How is that a good, honest, obedient approach?

Many of us would like nothing more than to accept your friendly challenge to effect change from within. But what we need to know from you is a concrete, practical plan for how to honestly do that – because those in authority in the N.O. parishes are liberal to the bone, for the most part, and they aren't having any of this Traditionalism stuff.

I genuinely want to hear your suggestions on this.

Once again let me say that you have done, and are doing, a great deal of good. I used to tell myself “Finally! Someone not in the SSPX has got it all right, and is breaking through the information barrier to get the message of what's wrong in the Church to the Modern Mainstreamers. Finally! Someone in the media actually loves truth more than himself, and is willing to spit in the eye of the politically correct.”

That's why I found listening to Catholi-schism one of the most infuriating experiences I've had in a long time. The rash confidence of your assertions of this and that about the SSPX was equaled only by your ignorance of what you were talking about. The hypocrisy didn't help either. You're doing exactly what you lambaste the mass media for. You have your agenda, and you think it's right simply because it's yours. You feel no need to do any serious study of the facts and issues before pontificating to the world. No doubt you suffer, as most journalists do, from lack of time. This is no excuse. In that case you need to cover fewer stories and projects, so that the ones you actually do can be done well. Truth to tell, I'm amazed at how much you do that really is done well. But at least when it comes to the very knotty issues, you need to slow down.

I wish I could leave things here, but I have to mention that, some time ago, Louie Verrechio of Harvesting the Fruit challenged you to let the SSPX speak for itself by inviting them to send a representative to a session of Mic'd Up or something. I'm sure you're aware of this. I wonder why you haven't followed his suggestion. I can think of no good reason why you wouldn't. But as the gears turn in my head, I'm afraid a number of bad reasons why you wouldn't do come up.

a) It's late in the game to be doing that. If, before ever seriously dealing with the question of the SSPX, if before you had so firmly and publicly established yourselves as anti-SSPX, you had interviewed one or two of them to ask them what they're about, it would have been easy to change your public stance on them, which would have been tentative at that stage. But no, you had to dive in and start hurling rash judgments all over the place. As it is, if it turns out that the truth about them doesn't jive with your past dogmatic assertions, you're going to end up publicly eating a great deal of crow. Maybe you don't have sufficient humility, charity, courage, or love of truth to risk that.

b) It is known that you have connections with Opus Dei. Perhaps you are even a secret member. You may know that the SSPX has been critical of Opus Dei. It could be your campaign against the SSPX is partly just some petty partisan payback.

c) Fr. Paul Nicholson was asked by Verrechio to have the SSPX on some video spot of his. He said he “doesn't want to give the SSPX a platform”. Perhaps that's your reason too. But of course, this assumes the absolute certainty that the SSPX is a harmful organization, and this supposed absolute certainty would have been reached without ever talking to them to get their explanation of themselves. But as I have shown above, your minimal “book study” of them has not given you absolute certainty; your concept of the SSPX is quite skewed. In order to get real absolute certainty, talking to them is one thing you'd have to do. Moreover, if in interviewing the SSPX you were to be confirmed in your negative opinion, wouldn't your show provide you also with a platform, and some ammo, by which to fire at its errors? This “no platform” excuse only makes sense if you really think that the SSPX is right, and you are wrong, but will be unwilling to admit you are wrong even when shown the truth.

For God's sake, and your own, don't be an arrogant fool like all the rest – or don't be a coward. Do the right thing. You pretend to be all about exposing lies and falsehoods. Prove it. Admit your own falsehoods. Have the SSPX on, or publish a correction of your errors, or at least just stop talking about a subject you know so little about.

One last point for the reader to note: When this critique was substantially finished, I sent it to two different contact addresses at ChurchMilitantTV.com, telling them I would publish it between three and five days later, but that I first wanted to give them a chance to correct me on any mistakes I may have made.

I received no reply.

To God Alone be Honor and Glory,

Idiotadoctus