Is Church Militant Schismatic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1Tim4-12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fauken said:
40.png
Maximus1:
That Bishop was right on point. CATHOLOCISM is at its worst when it perceives it’s message as militant. The symbol of our faith is a forgiving victim. Unlike other “gods” in other religions that seek sacrifice to appease their hunger, ours is actually good that we eat. The Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world does not jibe with Militant
Click to expand...
The phrase “The Church Militant” is in fact used by the Church: you’re a part of it. It is the Church on earth, and is one of three parts of the Church: “The Church Suffering”, which is made of those in purgatory, and “The Church Triumphant”, which is made of those in heaven.

It is Catholic.
Click to expand...
This is true. However, these terms aren’t used in the most recent catechism. Furthermore, the term “militant” doesn’t simply mean aggressive when used by the Church. Really it should refer to all of us on Earth laboring on behalf of Christ’s Church. Additionally, when Christianity began, the notion of a Church Militant would have seemed extremely bizarre, as the symbols used by early Christians all reflected peace. The medieval period changed much of this as Mary and Christ were brought into battles.
 
gracepoole said:
This is true. However, these terms aren’t used in the most recent catechism. Furthermore, the term “militant” doesn’t simply mean aggressive when used by the Church.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the phrase itself, not aggression, but yes, it’s not to refer to being aggressive. And the absence of that term in the Catechism does not change what it was and what it means, and it is that meaning that The Church Militant is referring to in its name.
 
Michael Voris is obnoxious. I don’t care if what CM says is true or not, his style is beyond grating. I hope he, and his fans, spend as much time on developing their own prayer life and doing charity as they do stewing in vitriol. My big problem with expose type Catholic news is that it places more importance on obsessing over Church politics than actually doing anything to help the Church. It’s all talk and pointing fingers but little constructive action. There is very little effective call to action, just ooh look at what those baddies are doing antics that does lead to divisive behavior and attitudes that don’t help anything.

A podcast I Iisten to did a Q&A. A man wrote in about the fact that all his men’s group did was talk about scandal in the Church, bad mouthing Pope Francis and calling out sinners. No faith formation, works of charity, prayer. The hosts said to leave the group because men like that are too scared to get real about their spiritual lives and just focus on negativity as a distraction to make themselves feel holy. I couldn’t agree more.
 
You mean like the folks at the National Catholic Reporter were ordered to do? Stop using “Catholic”? And they sure haven’t done so.

I look at it this way. I will go in and check things out, I’ll try maybe a dozen or so times, giving a few days or a week between each, and explore thoroughly. Then I’ll ‘test things according to the truth’. If a site is fairly consistently Catholic in its teaching, but its people are less than stellar in their approach, I might use the site sparingly in areas where there are less likely to be problems. I know people riff on Fisheaters, for example, over supposed ‘rigidity’ on the forums, but the "Being Catholic’ section has lots of incredibly good and totally faithful things, especially art, devotions, etc.

The National Catholic (sic) Reporter is not a site I would recommend for analysis, but it can be helpful to skim for the ‘other side’s perspective’ and at that, only skimming and some writers I would avoid like the plague.

Church Militant might fail on analysis for many in the same way (if not from the same side) but it can also be useful in the same way for many, if they can train themselves (as above) not to do a pavlovian jump reflex at ‘offensive’ or ‘clickbait’ words and just summarize the POSITION in an article (trying to SUMMARIZE by using neutral words instead of loaded ones is a great exercise in objectivity).
 
I was saying that while Plato appealed to authority, if you are like CM (in contrast to Plato) and deny the authority of the bishops then you are espousing many aspects of Protestanism.
 
Uh huh. The Unabomber was full of love for a simpler lifestyle.

If nothing else, it is his arrogant, hate-filled, condescending, know-it-all style of delivery.

Who appointed him “Shepherd of shepherds”?
 
Last edited:
catholiclala said:
My big problem with expose type Catholic news is that it places more importance on obsessing over Church politics than actually doing anything to help the Church.
Click to expand...
I general, I agree with you.

However, I would argue that Church Militant does help the Church (in the long run) by exposing corruption.

The problem with Church Militant is that Voris and his team are very jaded. From what I understand from others, they didn’t start out that way.

I’ve also heard many say that there is a ton more dirt that Church Militant isn’t sharing with the public because they don’t have evidence, only accusations from clergy, seminarians, employees, etc.

My guess, if any of us were doing that job, we would most likely become very jaded too.
 
phil19034 said:
However, I would argue that Church Militant does help the Church (in the long run) by exposing corruption.
Click to expand...
I struggle with even this though. Is the Church Militant saying or exposing church corruption that other news outlets aren’t or won’t? If so how? It seems like the Church Militant is just jumping on the bandwagon of exposing corruption, and they are using this effort to “expose corruption” to push another agenda.

What does Church Militant actually do in terms of exposing church corruption that other news outlets don’t do?

Additionally, I am baffled by the Church Militant’s efforts to defend one of traditionalist pastors from its own area near Detroit on abuse charges. Every time I look at Church Militant there is an article defending this pastor

…yes sometimes I read church militant out of a morbid curiosity. How is it that Voris and I (two Catholic men of Irish descent who live in the Northern US) can have such different opinions on so many things? It is like I’m reading the opinions of an alien. :alien:
 
Last edited:
I have no disagreement with your take on history. The militant idea really has been narrowed from the middle ages.
" Put away your sword" and a forgiving victim from the cross as our image of deity seems to have gotten lost in the politics of mixing Christ with empire.
This group at it’s core defies the authority of the Pope when they differ with their political agenda. That isn’t militant, it is defiant, or worse, they place themselves in the camp with the other side.
 
Last edited:
They have no Church function as some sort of Investigator general. Their agenda is private and political. An Inquisition that is private and outside of the church
 
They are not schismatic as far as I can tell (and schism is by its nature a manifest or public sin). As far as I know, all their members receive the sacraments from clergy in communion with their bishops, etc. They even obeyed the bishop when told to remove the word “Catholic” from their org’s name. Schism is a very specific sin of separation from the Church. Disagreeing on political judgments, saying mean things, being jerks, even lying or slandering or whatever else they are accused of, even if the accusations were true, is not schism.
 
Last edited:
The Definition of Schism is “the refusal … of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (1983 CIC 751). Churhc Militant recognize Francis as a valid Pope, therefore they are not schismatic.

The term Schismatic is also thrown around too liberally by the likes of Massimo Faggioli and Austen Ivereigh as a means to smear those who criticize aspects of the current papacy. This is wrong and dangerous, as this article by Canonist Edward Peters notes:

www.catholicworldreport.com

A note on the other kind of schism

www.catholicworldreport.com www.catholicworldreport.com
 
In thinking about Voris, a distinction should be drawn between his opinion pieces and the news pieces. His ‘Vortex’ pieces are pure opinion. They are certainly filled with emotion, executed in Voris’ flamboyant style, and range into topics where Voris is clearly speculating. The value I see in Church Militant regards bringing out the stories that the “establishment” Catholic media are not willing to touch. It should be clear to all that waiting for the bishop-approved media to tell us about the real extent of abuse in the Church doesn’t work.
 
Yes, well said.

I absolutely understand the criticisms lobbied at CM. But to call them schismatic is a very serious label to attach to them, and if it’s not just a case of the prof being misinformed, I’d be curious to find out what this professor thinks of other news outlets that associate or even have the name “Catholic”

If we took the name “Catholic” from every organization, school, or publication that bears the name “Catholic” but routinely undermines the teaching authority of the Church – I wonder what would actually be left. Not a lot.

The irony here is that I personally think the bishop probably did CM a favor, as I found the term “Real Catholic TV” to be a bit juvenile if the aim was to be a serious news organization.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
They fought against pagans who were forcing them to commit mortal sins. There is no comparison. I would hope that Mr. Voris has no such delusion of grandeur.
Click to expand...
And Catholics are fighting the devil that is in the Church. They are fighting sexual abuse, liturgical abuse, and pagan idolatry ON THE VATICAN grounds.

A person from 100 years ago would not recognize the Catholic liturgy.

The comparison to the Maccabees may be a bit extreme, but it really isn’t that far off. Instead of a physical life threatening threat, the laity have a spiritual life threatening threat.

The direction the Church is headed is not good. I don’t know why people have such a hard time seeing this. Anyone that has read the scriptures knows this pattern. It will continue unitl the end times. The chosen people of God will continually enrage God and be punished and allowed to continue their sins until they hit rock bottom and are restored. Then it is only a matter of time before it happens again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top