The SSPX (is a Cult?) (From EWTN Q&A)

EWTN Catholic Q&A ^ | 7/11/2003 | "Anne"

[Pyro7480]

I found this account to be interesting. While I am very sympathetic to the pro-Tridentine Rite arguments, I am also wary of the SSPX, SSPV, and the sedevacantists.

[Pyro7480]

Pinging the "Schismatic Orcs." ;-)

[Pyro7480]

Ping!

[Support Free Republic]

SHOW YOUR PRIDE! SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[NYer]

Uh oh ... hope you are wearing one of these ...

[Pyro7480]

LOL! I wasn't the one who wrote this. There hasn't been a new fiesty thread in a bit, so I thought I should "break the first barstool" to get it started. ;-)

[american colleen]

While I am very sympathetic to the pro-Tridentine Rite arguments, I am also wary of the SSPX, SSPV, and the sedevacantists.

I'm in your "camp." May I suggest a fantastic book? "The Desolate City - Revolution in the Catholic Church" by Anne Roche Muggeridge. Boy am I learning a lot! I believe the book is out of print, but I got a used copy over the internet (amazon site) for about $5.00 + shipping. Well, well worth the price.

[Polycarp]

uh oh....

a bump, a ping, and a DUCK!!!

[Bigg Red]

Don't you find "Anne's" letter just a bit too tidy for a Q&A board? Fits so perfectly with all of the talking points the priest might want.

[malakhi]

They keep a tight grasp on their people, and as is typical of many cults, attempt to control almost every aspect of their lives. So many people suffer from scruples due to the over-pious fanaticism taught.

The same has been said about Opus Dei.

Someone with an agenda could call almost any religious organization a "cult".

[ultima ratio]

The writer is a phony. The SSPX has never claimed the Novus Ordo was invalid--only that it is deficient and therefore dangerous to the faith. It is true that it argues many Novus Ordo Masses are made invalid because of notorious abuses, but this is a separate issue. Countless publications by SSPX would testify to what I say, and so does the fact that in its negotiations with Rome the issue of validity never comes up. What this writer claims is simply not true.

The notion that traditionalists hold Bishop Fellay in the same regard as the Pope is ridiculous. What evidence is there of this? Does she think we suppose what he says is infallible in some way? He is but one of several bishops, that is all. I personally hold him in very high regard because of his prudence and learning. But nobody confuses him with the pope and traditionalists as a group are certainly smart enough to tell the difference. In fact, the bishop writes newsletters to the faithful and answers their correspondence--something impossible for the Pope to do. He is very much a hands-on bishop and is well-liked. But there is no confusion.

This is another attempt to slander Catholics who attend the Society's Masses, offered gratuitously without any proof whatsoever beyond this woman's say-so. Notice the readiness of EWTN to use this as a means of putting-down the SSPX one more time. Not a word about the principled objections traditionalists raise against Roman heterodoxy nor Novus Ordo insults to the Catholic faith. The use of the loaded word "cult" in particular is an attempt to demonize the fraternity. In fact, I doubt if this writer actually even exists--she seems like a set-up for the prejudiced response. This is one more reason I have long ago lost all respect for EWTN.

[Pyro7480]

It may be. We can never be sure. I think the fact that the letter is formatted (a very long central "paragraph") points to someone who isn't entirely online-savy. I think the priest, since he answers so many questions on that particular part of the forum (almost daily), in addition to his priestly duties, points to a genuine account. Who knows...

[ultima ratio]

Of course you are in their camp--you make no distinctions and don't trouble yourselves to know the differences. SSPX is not and never has been sedevacantist. Not that this matters with people like yourself. You smear with a broad brush--as does EWTN--which, by the way, is the first to suck up to a famous celebrity like Mel Gibson, despite his adamant traditionalism.

[Pyro7480]

This is one more reason I have long ago lost all respect for EWTN.

The title "The SSPX (is a Cult?)" is mine. I added the part in the parantheses, since the writer called the SSPX a cult. Since I don't know that much about it, I put a question mark there. Why have you last respect for EWTN?

[Polycarp]

Seems the SSPX debate continues.

But this is the other side of the story. This thread is definitely NOT a "post and repost and repost of truncated versions of Monsignor Perle's letter to draw attention to the schism and to attempt to recruit impressionable, gullible, weakly catechized, emotionally vulnerable and/or otherwise weakened Catholics."

[Pyro7480]

Easy there ultima. I think both colleen and I know that the SSPX is not sedevacantist. I don't think we have "smeared with a broad brush."

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It sounds like the usual heavy dose of Jansenistic morality one expects in an organization dominated by French and Irishmen.

[Pyro7480]

Thanks for your suggestion. I saw another book along those lines that was recently printed by Ignatius Press. It's titled Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate by Fr. Thomas Kocik. I flipped through it recently at a Catholic bookstore. I think one serious advantage of the book is that it has the text of both the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass. Here's the blurb about the book from Ignatius' webpage:

Disturbed by the direction in which the post Vatican II liturgical reforms have moved, two fictitious representatives of mutually antagonistic movements debate the remedy for “correct” liturgical reform.

This unique work presents a debate between a “traditionalist” who argues for a return to the pre-Vatican II liturgy, and a “reformist” (no liberal himself) who advocates a new liturgical reform more in keeping with what the Council fathers had in mind. They bring to the debate the insights of renowned authorities on the liturgy, including Cardinal Ratzinger, Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Michael Davies, Fr. Brian Harrison and Fr. Aidan Nichols.

This book is written for anyone interested in the Church’s liturgy, and the controversies surrounding the liturgical renewal. It is both a primer for those who lack the theological and liturgical expertise to articulate their dissatisfaction with the state of the liturgy, and an excellent resource for those specialists who would appreciate having a single volume for consulting salient points from numerous authorities.

“Fr. Kocik presents an enlightening and fair debate between traditionalists and reformers on how to resolve the current liturgical crisis in the Catholic Church.”

—Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., Editor, Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Fr. Thomas Kocik, the author of a book on Apostolic Succession, is a member of the Priestly Society of Cardinal Newman.

[Polycarp]

Why have you lost respect for EWTN?

Because they call a spade a spade?