May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?

Saint Athanasius

It is VERY clear that modernism/modernist= heresy/heretic..... So modernist churchmen would be an oxymoron.

How about "Non traditional Churchmen" ?  

Incredulous,

Could you point out where in the video, or at what minute mark, Fr. Hesse addresses the issue of our Holy Church being held captive by the modernist churchmen? The video is two hours long, and I don't have time to view it all.

This would seem to mirror the idea held by Archbishop Lefebvre, that the Church is occupied by a modernist sect.

 

How can something eclipse itself? If one thing is to be eclipsed, its light has to be covered by something else passing between itself and the observer. The Catholic Church is the light and the V2 "church" is what is passing in between us and the Church. We can plainly see that the body doing the eclipsing is not what is being eclipsed. The V2 'church' is similar to the Catholic Church in appearance, but in Truth is something altogether different. Its ‘sacraments’ are a distorted version, its teachings are a distorted version, its hierarchy is a distorted version. The two are completely different entities. Our Lady’s warnings at La Salette only make sense if the two are separate.

 

As to ‘non-traditional’ churchmen, this is an oxymoron. It’s not possible. The Catholic Church IS traditional. It’s teachings are the same always; the churchmen either adhere to those teachings and are Catholic, or do not and are not Catholic. I know you see things from the R&R/SSPX point of view so it may be hard to understand. People who do not profess the Catholic Faith are by that very fact, not men of the Church. They do not retain a partial Catholicity or reside in some sort of non-Catholic area of the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

How could it be schismatic?

Because it recognizes Bergoglio as pope, but refuses to submit to him.

Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees. He also stated “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”.

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he canerr even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted inViollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908.*
(* According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, this work was published in 1512 from the notes of his student and without his supervision, but as it saw “many editions” it would appear that the pope did not repudiate the passage as not his own, in a work attributed to him.)


Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878 recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and “teach contrary to the Catholic Faith”, and he instructed, “do not follow him.”

“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
Pope Adrian II († 872) admitted that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings.”

“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.

However, I must disagree with Pope Adrian when he said that heresy was the only offense that justified resistance: the Saints and Doctors have informed us otherwise, as we shall see.

 
Further, Pope Honorius I († 638 ) was not merely “accused of heresy” or “anathematized by the Eastern Churches”: he was anathematized as a heretic by the ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople, whose Acts were confirmed by:

 Pope Leo II († 683). “We foresaw that, together with them, also Honorius, before Pope of Old Rome, is cast out of the Holy Catholic Church of God and anathematized, for we have found by his writings sent to [the heretic] Sergius, that he followed the thinking of the latter in everything, and continued his impious principles. […] To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

NOTE: So we see that popes have told us that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith; that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees; that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”; that a pope may be a heretic and “teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith”, in which case we are to follow the instruction “do not follow him”; and that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings.”

So then what is Francis the "supposed" pope of?