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

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

[Pyro7480]

SSPX
Question from Anne on 07-10-2003:

Dear Fr. Levis,

Thanks so much for the work you do on this forum. I love reading Catholic Q&A, and you are my favorite expert.

I’ve read quite a few postings on the SSPX lately, some of them regarding the possibility of their joining full communion with the Church. Some people have seemed interested in joining because they're fed up with abuses some priests and bishops do in the Novus Ordo. I belonged to an independent church, then the SSPX for 19 years, and through the grace of God am back in communion with Rome. The SSPX does not believe the Novus Ordo mass is valid. My brother still belongs to the SSPX and was ordered by his priest to decline the invitation to be a groomsman in our wedding because of the “invalidity” of the mass. They are a cult, with the Archbishop Fellay holding the same power as the Pope in the eyes of their followers, though they will adamantly deny both of these facts. In many ways the SSPX holds a “Cafeteria Catholic” view, in that they pick and choose which teachings of the Pope fit their agenda. They claim they are only keeping tradition alive, and will merge back with the Church once the Pope “comes to his senses”, nullifies the Novus Ordo and reinstitutes the Latin Mass. This is simply not true even if this were ever to happen, because the bishops do not want to lose the power they hold over their flock, and although they claim they are only keeping the Latin Mass alive, they have made many new laws of their own. An example: My brother was not allowed to propose to his fiancé until he had his engagement blessed because his priest told him to break off an engagement is a mortal sin. Many priests in the SSPX also teach that Natural Family Planning is sinful because they claim it leads to contraception. 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 SSPX can be very appealing to those who love the Tridentine Mass, but they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Many dioceses offer Indult Masses (which the SSPX claim is “a step down” because the priest saying the mass “compromises”). So if you love the Tridentine Mass, find an indult mass, but stay FAR FAR away from the SSPX!

Thanks and God Bless

Anne

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 07-11-2003:

Dear Anne, A wonderful story of your journey to a healthy Catholic life in a hectic time! Yes, what you say of the SSPX is true. Unfortunately as it grows older, more and more heresies will find their way in and the poor people will be led astray. Yes, keep them all in your good prayers. God bless you. Fr Bob Levis

[Pyro7480]

That's the impression I got from the writer's account, whether true or false. I was recently reading something about St. Therese of Lisieux's struggle against the Jansenist influences within her Carmel, and I remembered it when I first saw this post.

[Pyro7480]

Thanks sandyeggo. I must have missed that post. What thread is it from?

[Polycarp]

Fits so perfectly with all of the talking points the priest might want.

I don't like your insinuation here. Fr. Levis is beyond reproach. He is an ardent supporter of the Tridentine Latin Mass and was the bulwark of the Indult Latin Mass community of Erie for many years. He has been persecuted mercilessly by the bishops of Erie for his robust and unapologetic orthodoxy.

[ultima ratio]

"I’ve read quite a few postings on the SSPX lately, some of them regarding the possibility of their joining full communion with the Church. Some people have seemed interested in joining because they're fed up with abuses some priests and bishops do in the Novus Ordo."

Two things are going on here. First, on "full communion with the Church"--the wording is ignorant. We are in full communion with the Church--but not with Roman authority, which is not the same thing. From the SSPX point of view there can be little hurry to get back under Rome's control because by leaving the Society alone, the Vatican enables the Society to flourish as fully Catholic--one of the few remnants left within the Church still able to do so. It has been Rome itself which has spread an anti-Catholic virus throughout the Church, and it is therefore Rome itself which needs to return to health before SSPX will seek to change its current anomalous status.

Second, this entire Q&A seems designed to keep more defections from happening. Now that Rome has admitted that SSPX Masses may be attended without sin or penalty, there is a natural attraction by many to attend a Mass which is suffused with dignity and a sense of the sacred. Who wouldn't prefer that their children be exposed to something so spiritually enriching rather than the vapid pseudo-Protestantism that passes for Catholic worship in most Novus Ordo parishes? So the name of the game is for Novus Ordo supporters like EWTN to slam the Society every chance it gets--to keep defections down and the collection plates full.

[Pyro7480]

Oh! I was not aware of that. Thanks for the information. I think this gives him more credibility. See my post #12 and #18.

[B Knotts]

usual heavy dose of Jansenistic morality

Thanks for mentioning that. I had never before heard the term, so I had to look it up. And now I've learned something new today.

[Loyalist]

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

In an era which has lost its sense of sin, I think that this sort of moral rigorism is something to admire, not admonish.

[Pyro7480]

You think that going from one extreme to the other is a good thing? Jansenism is a heresy if memory serves...

[american colleen]

you make no distinctions and don't trouble yourselves to know the differences.

I don't know what I'd do if a post that you wrote to me didn't have a personal slur and/or an assumption that you know what goes through my head! Without those things, I would doubt the writer was you!

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.

Uh, I never said and do not believe SSPXers are sedevacantists. And ya, I do know the difference. And I myself happen to be an adamant traditionalist if that means fidelity and orthodoxy and a love and yearning for God and a love for the Catholic Church.

Suck up? That is so beneath you.

[Loyalist]

You think that going from one extreme to the other is a good thing? Jansenism is a heresy if memory serves...

Jansenism's view of grace of and predestination is heretical, and practically indistinguishable from Calvinism.

What is often called "Jansenism" today has nothing to do with Jansenism, but with the stricter moral practices of the pre-Conciliar Church.

That sort of moral rigorism may have led a few people to scrupulosity, but when you consider the spiritual health of the Church then to that of the post-Conciliar Church, that so-called scrupulosity looks much healthier than what we have now.

[ultima ratio]

How is it a personal slur if you yourself admitted you agreed with the writer who herself lumped SSPX, SSPV and other sedevacantists together? If you disagreed with her as you now indicate, why state you agreed with her? If you don't want to be criticized, try posting more carefully worded statements.

[Thorondir]

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

I'll see your bump, ping, and DUCK!!! and raise you a bada, a bing and a boom!!!

[ultima ratio]

Why, then, do you use a phrase like being "in your camp"? The woman has lumped SSPX in with sedevacantists. Who must be careful--me, or you who use language so loosely?

[american colleen]

...that so-called scrupulosity looks much healthier than what we have now.

That so-called scrupulosity so bedeviled Martin Luther that he left the Church.

Scrupulosity and Indifferentism seem to me to be opposite sides of the same coin - both lose sight that Jesus Christ is the center and He is merciful and forgiving if we are truly repentent.

[american colleen]

Although the SSPX is not sedevacantist, I am wary of both groups as they are not obedient to Rome. That is what they have in common.

Not exactly the same, but the underpinnings are the same.

I don't mean to offend you.

[saradippity]

There hasn't been a new feisty thread in a bit,so I thought I should "break the first barstool" to get it started.

Why?

[ultima ratio]

"to attempt to recruit impressionable, gullible, weakly catechized, emotionally vulnerable and/or otherwise weakened Catholics."

I have posted reams of principled reasons why I attend SSPX and have gotten in return condescending nonsense such as the above from Black Elk and yourself. The truth is that Traditionalists are not "emotionally vulnerable" or "weakened" or "gullible" Catholics. Quite the opposite. They are unusually well-informed. It is the Novus Ordo Catholic who is usually steeped in ignorance and absence of logic--which is why you are reduced to name-calling and demonization.

[ultima ratio]

"But, from what I've heard, a large contingent in Europe is [sedevacantist], and they're driving force behind blocking reconciliation: for they said if it took place on the wrong terms, they would leave."

Apples and oranges. The fact that reconciliation is not desired, does NOT mean these men are sedevacantists. This is a very dangerous time for SSPX. It needs to keep its unity and it needs to weigh its options carefully. Reconcile too soon--before Rome has returned to Catholic Tradition--and the movement could be set back for centuries; reconcile too late--and it risks losing a golden opportunity to help deflect the Church from its modernist course. But none of this has anything to do with the legitimacy of the Pope's claim to the Chair of Peter.