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

[ultima ratio]

When has EWTN ever called a spade a spade? It was late even in picking up on the public disgust over the "pedophile" scandals and was evidently reluctant to do so. And it has never even so much as hinted at the multiple abuses attendant on papal outdoor Masses. It not only accepted Assisi I and II but it manufactured excuses for them. Granted it does its best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear in Latin and pious solemnity. But it is thoroughly Novus Ordo nevertheless--that is to say, it places the Pontiff even before the deposit of faith. If Rome demands assent to novelty, assent is given, no questions asked. That is the very essence of Neo-Catholicism.

[ultima ratio]

He was never demoted. There was a general shakeup. Williamson went to Argentina. More propaganda from SSPX haters.

[Polycarp]

It is the Novus Ordo Catholic who is usually steeped in ignorance and absence of logic--which is why you

Hardly. I'm not a "Novus Ordo Catholic." I'm an unusually well-informed, reality-based Traditionalist with no Indult available, and therefore stuck in a Novus Ordo parish.

[ultima ratio]

"I don't like your insinuation here. Fr. Levis is beyond reproach."

He just published this smear. How is that beyond reproach? He is responsible for demonizing fellow Catholics and promulgating slanders which already abound, without a shred of evidence beyond this woman's say-so. Nor did he draw a distinction between SSPX and SSPV, though presumably he knew better. Wouldn't it have been fair for him to clue her in instead of confirming her prejudices? He is not beyond reproach except to fellow bigots.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Jansenism is a heresy. The Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus is what is proposed to us by the Church.

Moral rigorism is not the liberty of Christ.

[Pyro7480]

It was a bit of a joke. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. ;-)

[Pyro7480]

I didn't use the phrase "the camp." American colleen did. The only "lumping" in that I do is that all three groups that I name - SSPX, SSPV, and the sedevacantists - are three groups that I am wary of. I have separate issues with each, some of which are similiar. They are not "all the same," in my view. They obviously have their own distinctive viewpoint from the others.

[drstevej]

***Jansenism is a heresy.***

***Jansenism [concise.britannica.com]
Roman Catholic reform movement inspired by the writings of Cornelius Jansen.

Influenced by the works of St. Augustine and especially by Augustine's attacks on Pelagianism and the doctrine of free will, Jansen adopted Augustine's doctrines of predestination and the necessity of God's grace, a stance considered uncomfortably close to Calvinism by Roman Catholic authorities, who banned his book the Augustinus in 1642.***

Sounds like an allright kinda guy. We may need to revisit this after we purge the poofsters.

[ultima ratio]

If you wish me to consider you well-informed, why not render me and other traditionalists the same courtesy? Why call us "gullible" or "weakened"--which is nonsense. In fact, I have reason to believe what I said is true, that most traditionalists are better informed than Novus Ordo Catholics who couldn't care less about the liturgy. To them it's all the same--a priest, some prayers, Communion. I've attended both communities and have reason to believe this is not a mischaracterization.

[ultima ratio]

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

Let me ask you this: can you ever imagine a pope giving a command which would harm the Catholic Church? If so, would you obey the pope anyway--knowing your obedience would harm the Church?

If you said yes, then you would be wrong, according to the greatest doctors of the Church. If you said no, you would be right. It is never right to obey a command which would harm to the Church.

Disobedience to a pope is contingent on what kind of command he gives and is not in itself intrinsically evil, but could be a good. It all depends on the pope's command and whether it were harmful. If it were harmful to the Church, it must be disobeyed.

[Bigg Red]

I don't like your insinuation here.

**

I'm sorry if I offended you. I know nothing whatsoever about this priest. It's just that Anne sends a supposed question that turns out to be a homily, and it seems phony.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

This letter is a fraud on so many counts. First, the "many Indult Tridentine Masses are available" comment is so far from the truth it screams 'hidden agenda'. It was an all out belly laugh in an otherwise offensive screed full of lies. Most Indult Tridentine priests are compassionate and understanding towards the SSPX situation. Anyone who studies the situation knows 9/10ths of the accusations here are false. Yet, EWTN published it (and probably wrote it too). I am shocked Mother Angelica would allow such propaganda and deceit. I had a higher opinion of her.

EWTN needs to remember, God gives success and God can take it away. I strongly doubt God is proud of deceit.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Jansenism was heavily ingrained in France, helping to kill the faith there, and it spread thence to Ireland (her priests were being trained in French seminaries), and then to America from both places, since many of our Priests and Bishops were originally imported from those two countries. Jansenistic clergy were the origina of the Gallican anti-papalists as well.

Jansenism has found a happy home in America with its Puritanical mentality and public morality, and has slithered its way inside the traditionalist movement via ignorant Feeneyites, SSPXers and Sedevacantists.

Its main moral emphasis was on the lack of grace of those who are not the elect, and our unworthiness to receive the Blessed Sacrament because of our sins (thus the 89th condemned proposition in the Bull "Unigenitus", scrupulosness, and an overly rigorisitc approach to sexuality within marriage, leading to the view of Original Sin as being a sexual sin that contaminates all marital intimacy, and a general attitude of filthiness towards the body and sensual pleasures, including drinking.

The greatest weapon against it is frequent reception of Holy Communion, which is why St. Pius X was at great pains to promote that.

When one gets to tempted by the position of the SSPX, its well to recall the condemned propositions below:

91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.

92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.

93. Jesus sometimes heals the wounds which the precipitous haste of the first pastors inflicted without His command. Jesus restored what they, with inconsidered zeal, cut off.

94. Nothing engenders a worse opinion of the Church among her enemies than to see exercised there an absolute rule over the faith of the faithful, and to see divisions fostered because of matters which do not violate faith or morals.

97. Too often it happens that those members, who are united to the Church more holily and more strictly, are looked down upon, and treated as if they were unworthy of being in the Church, or as if they were separated from Her; but, "the just man liveth by faith" [Rom. 1:17], and not by the opinion of men.

98. The state of persecution and of punishment which anyone endures as a disgraceful and impious heretic, is generally the final trial and is especially meritorious, inasmuch as it makes a man more conformable to Jesus Christ.

(Pope Clement XI, Dogmatic Constitution UNIGENITUS, Condemnation Of The Errors Of Paschasius Quesnel, 8 September 1713)

14. It is lawful for any deacon or priest to preach the word of God without authorisation from the apostolic see or from a catholic bishop.

30. Excommunication by a pope or any prelate is not to be feared since it is a censure of antichrist.

(Council of Constance, Condemned Propositions of John Wycliffe, Session 8, 4 May 1415)

41. The people may withhold tithes, offerings and other private alms from unworthy disciples of Christ, since God's law requires this. The curse or censure imposed by antichrist's disciples is not to be feared but rather is to be received with joy.

(Council of Constance, Condemned Propositions of John Wycliffe, Session 15, 6 July 1415)

17. A priest of Christ who lives according to his law, knows scripture and has a desire to edify the people, ought to preach, notwithstanding a pretended excommunication. And further on: if the pope or any superior orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the subordinate ought not to obey.

18. Whoever enters the priesthood receives a binding duty to preach; and this mandate ought to be carried out, notwithstanding a pretended excommunication.

19. By the church's censures of excommunication, suspension and interdict the clergy subdue the laity, for the sake of their own exaltation, multiply avarice protect wickedness and prepare the way for antichrist. The clear sign of this is the fact that these censures come from antichrist. In the legal proceedings of the clergy they are called fulminations, which are the principal means whereby the clergy proceed against those who uncover antichrist's wickedness, which the clergy has for the most part usurped for itself.

(Council of Constance, Condemned Propositions of John Hus, Session 15, 6 July 1415)

And also further against the Sedevacantists:

8. If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor.

9. Nobody should be considered as pope after Urban VI. Rather, people should live like the Greeks, under their own laws.

37. The Roman church is Satan's synagogue; and the pope is not the immediate and proximate vicar of Christ and the apostles.

(Council of Constance, Condemned Propositions of John Wycliffe, Session 8, 4 May 1415)

12. Nobody holds the place of Christ or of Peter unless he follows his way of life, since there is no other discipleship that is more appropriate nor is there another way to receive delegated power from God, since there is required for this office of vicar a similar way of life as well as the authority of the one instituting.

20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it.

22. The pope or a prelate who is wicked and foreknown to damnation is a pastor only in an equivocal sense, and truly is a thief and a robber.

(Council of Constance, Condemned Propositions of John Hus, Session 15, 6 July 1415)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The SSPX is not sedevacantist, but a numebr of sededvacantists attend its chapels. However, I've also known sedevacantists to attend the indult Mass in Boston. And both are thoroughly infected with Feeneyites.

[ultima ratio]

Of course you are "wary" of SSPX. There has been this steady drip-drip-drip of negative propaganda for decades. Some anonymous person writes about sedevacantism and EWTN uses it as a pretext for still another put-down--and you use it as a pretext for another amusing dust-up while spreading the same old lies. Nevertheless I will surprise you by saying I sympathize with SSPV--because they are closer to the truth than the offensive Novus Ordo and therefore closer than modernist Rome itself. This is because Rome supports a Mass that is in flagrant violation of the Council of Trent and this has created an impossible situation where knowledgeable Catholics must choose between Rome and the faith itself. I hardly blame sedevacantists for over-reacting in such a situation.

Look at the dilemma: if Trent was mistaken--then it's all been a sham and we all might as well stay home on Sunday. Conscientious Catholics are presented with no choice but to accept Trent--or lose their faith altogether. After 2000 years the Church just can't say--oops, sorry, we got it all wrong, we're turning everything around and every anathema and dogmatic proclamation from the past is no longer operative. That's an impossible posture for an infallible Church--and Rome knows it--just as it has known for decades that the Novus Ordo is a huge mistake and violates Catholic Tradition and doctrine. Yet it will not be honest and resolve the dilemma in a straightforward way. It wants to lie its way out of its inconsistencies. So the persecutions continue.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Generally, I think the problems people have with the SSPX is not the laity attending, but some of the clergy.

[Polycarp]

He just published this smear. He is not beyond reproach except to fellow bigots.

Winning a lot of converts to your SSPX position, huh?

You are exibition numero uno why this question and response are wholly accurate. Fr. Levis is still beyond reproach. However, you are below contempt.

[Polycarp]

Anyone who studies the situation knows 9/10ths of the accusations here are false. Yet, EWTN published it (and probably wrote it too). I am shocked Mother Angelica would allow such propaganda and deceit.

Your accusations here are false, not EWTN's. They don't engage in that kind of game.

Fr. Levis honestly answered what he was lead to believe was an honest question from a Catholic.

The writer of the question herself may or may not have had an agenda, may or may not have made false accusations.

But to smear an excellent priest like Fr. Levis or EWTN as a whole indicates that some folks who should know better are indeed being brainwashed by the SSPX, in a fashion that could rightly be called cultish.

[Polycarp]

where knowledgeable Catholics must choose between Rome and the faith itself.

"Knowledgeable" Catholics know that there can never be a choice between Rome and the Faith itself. "Tu es Petros..."

[Alex Murphy]

This seat taken? I brought Milk Duds, if anyone wants to share.