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

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

[ultima ratio]

I don't buy this. Most SSPX clergymen are hard-working, pious priests who travel many weary miles over several states to get to as many chapels as possible every Sunday. They hear confessions for hours at a time, live in genuine poverty, and must contend with vicious slanders of the sort that EWTN publishes without so much as a feint toward fairness. Persecution is a reality for them--just as Christ promised. What is offensive is that it comes from bigoted fellow-Catholics such as this Fr. Lewis.

[Pyro7480]

I am shocked Mother Angelica would allow such propaganda and deceit. I had a higher opinion of her.

Mother Angelica is recovering from a stroke if I remember correctly. I don't think she is entirely aware of everything that goes on at EWTN. Also, it was Fr. Levis who moderates this forum on EWTN's website, who according to Polycarp, 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."

I'm not really sure how to view this posting. That's why I posted it in the first place (other than "breaking the first barstool" to get a discussion started). ;-) There seems to be a lot of opinion floating around here concerning the broad issue of traditionalism, and what I'm aiming at is the truth of the matter, or at least my sense of it.

[ultima ratio]

Again, you answer with an attack, rather than with an argument. How am I beneath contempt for saying this priest is not beyond reproach--when he publishes slander? It is because you accept his premise--that SSPX is worthy of being demeaned and ostracized that you sympathize with his point of view--which goes unsupported by any evidence. But his view is bigoted--there is no justification for lumping the SSPX in with the sedevacantists. He knows it. So do you. Even Rome knows it. But you say so anyway and then knock me for good measure because I protest. I call that hypocrisy.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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

You looking to end up out on your keister?

There is a much better discussion of Bishop Jansen's book here. He was not an Augustinian, but rather, he manipulated St. Augustine's works to his ends.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I'm surprised at you. Anyone here is free to investigate the SSPX, their beliefs and the situation on their own. Both sides of the argument have been presented here on this forum ad nauseum. If by this time you can't see the bald faced lies and outright propaganda in this so called letter than perhaps you are the one being brainwashed.

This attack on the SSPX is vile. It shows a growing desperation on the part of the post VII contingent. If this is all they've got it is pathetic.

[ultima ratio]

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

What baloney. Popes can sin. They can make mistakes--like Paul VI and JnPII--and plenty of them. They are sworn to uphold Sacred Tradition for this reason. They are not identical with the faith. If you were truly as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you would know this. So now let me ask you--is Rome correct when it now says, in contradistinction to past popes, that the Jews need not be converted, that their Covenant is sufficient for their salvation and that they do not need redemption by Christ like other men? Is Rome correct when it now defines the Mass as a "supper" and denies its propitiatory sacrificial dimension, in violation of Trent? If your answer is no--and you surely know it is no--then Rome does not uphold the Faith. Thank God it is being sustained by other means outside the Vatican.

[Loyalist]

Its main moral emphasis was on the lack of grace of those who are not the elect

This is indeed not Catholic, and is virtually indistinguishable from Calvinism.

And our unworthiness to receive the Blessed Sacrament because of our sins

Look at the modern Church, where almost all communicate, but almost none confess. How can the sacramental graces of Communion be efficacious if virtually all the people receiving have unconfessed mortal sins on their souls?

[Pyro7480]

Look at the modern Church, where almost all communicate, but almost none confess. How can the sacramental graces of Communion be efficacious if virtually all the people receiving have unconfessed mortal sins on their souls?

Exactly. This is the exact issue St. Therese had concerning the Jansenist tendencies at her Carmel. It took her death and St. Pius X to finally resolve this issue. At the same time however, I think she would probably be no proponent of this abuse of Communion. In my own personal case, I think it's very beneficial that the parish that I attend has Confession before its Indult Mass (St. Mary's in DC).

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Many people today are deluded about their sanctity because of modern preaching. But the answer is not Jansenistic morality, but a return to monthly or more frequent confessions, or at least the custom of confessing at Christmas and Easter.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Most SSPX clergymen are hard-working, pious priests who travel many weary miles over several states to get to as many chapels as possible every Sunday. They hear confessions for hours at a time, live in genuine poverty, and must contend with vicious slanders of the sort that EWTN publishes without so much as a feint toward fairness. Persecution is a reality for them--just as Christ promised.

No one doubts the piety and good intentions of most of the clergy. But their life and mode of work is at odds with the law of the Church.

What you write above is exactly what the Church condemned in Wycliffe, Hus, and Quesnel.

"... must contend with vicious slanders ... Persecution is a reality for them--just as Christ promised."

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)

[Alex Murphy]

What baloney. Popes can sin. They can make mistakes--like Paul VI and JnPII--and plenty of them. They are sworn to uphold Sacred Tradition for this reason. They are not identical with the faith. If you were truly as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you would know this.

I've often put the dichotomy to Catholics about which is more important - the RCC's authority, or the RCC's teaching. I have almost universally been told it was the Church's unbroken chain of authority that is more important. One Catholic here on FR told me about something called Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, and was told it as a defense that the Pope axiomatically cannot err on matters of faith or morals. He used it as a defense, to say there is no dichotomy for the faithful within the RCC.

Assuming I'm understanding you right, you're the first person inside Catholicism I've ever heard to say that the Pope is fallible, that he can make mistakes - or even commit sin - in the course and content of his duties.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Is it not true that you must know you are committing a mortal sin for it to be a mortal sin?

For the laws of the Church, yes. For the laws of God, no. The natural law is engraved on all men's hearts. No man can claim ignorance of the sinfulness of stealing or fornicating or lying except the mentally retarded and young children.

[ultima ratio]

"It is said that a large contingent, etc."

I note the passive voice. I note also Rome has been negotiating with SSPX's EUROPEAN leaders. Why would it do so, if it believed it to be sedevacantist? Sounds like more gossip. Anybody can say anything. It is not the official position of SSPX nor does it appear in any official document or publication. Why else had SSPV split off from SSPX in the first place?

Besides, you place a heavy emphasis on the business of reconciliation--as if it were sedevacantism alone that prevents this. But the issue is delicate and fraught with danger for the Society--and most members are right to be wary and to proceed cautiously. Rome still is inhabited by many modernists in power who seek to destroy Catholic tradition. Members need not be sedevacantists to urge caution.

[Pyro7480]

Admittedly, my knowledge of the SSPX is limited, and I haven't spent too much time reading the extremely-long threads on the subject. I haven't had too much time to spare to go too in-depth with them. Out of the groups named so far on this thread (SSPX, SSPV, and the sedevacantists), I am the most sympathetic to the SSPX. My main concerns are the grave issues of Vatican 2 and the current Pope. I was born after Vatican 2. Therefore, I have no memory of what the Church was like before the Council. But as a conservative, both politically and culturally, I think there are institutions that are worth fighting for to preserve. One of the most important of these is the Church. It was built up over 2,000 years. I view the revolution in the Church that was launched in the 1960s as very suspect, particularly when great men such as Tolkien mourned over the liturgical upheaval.

At the same time, the divinely-instituted office of the pope is something that shouldn't be set aside lightly, particularly when I read about Church history. As a Catholic, I recognize the importance of this office, and we must give the pope the proper honor. Also, Pope John Paul II is a man that I greatly admire, due to his leadership at the end of the Cold War.

[Longshanks]

I like the Latin Mass but our bishop will not allow it so I attend Novus Ordo instead of the local SSPX chapel because of concerns over unity. It's true the SSPX does have problems, but this article is bunk.

The aggrieved former attendee makes claims about SSPX beliefs that directly contradict its official positions. Is the SSPX a cult? Opus Dei, Legionaries of Christ, Fraternity of St. Peter, and others have been accused of the same thing. You almost have to be a cult these days because most mainstream parishes are now in full-blown heresy and de facto schism.

Bishop Fellay is one of the very few Roman rite bishops (validly ordained according to Rome) that does not speak in mealy-mouth language. SSPX'ers I know have deep respect for the bishop but are free to criticize and don't insist on idolatrous worship of him like many neo-Catholics do of JPII.

Bishop Fellay is a canny negotiator who wants a reunion with Rome that does not compromise the ancient faith. SSPX is confident, uncompromised, and growing rapidly while Rome is beleaguered and retreating on all fronts. Loyal Catholics should pray that Rome gives in to Fellay and grants his conditions for reunion.

We need the militant SSPX legitimized and unquestionably within our church. That would help kick-start the Catholic Restoration.