Author Topic: Is the SSPX part of the Church, or a cult? (Read 16143 times)

True Faith · « **Reply #45 on:** August 22, 2014, 08:12:53 AM »

Try that analogy in a different light. The living tree is Catholic tradition. It's roots come from Christ and the Apostles. It was fed on the blood of the martyrs. It was nurtured by the saints. The conciliar church is the branch that has broken off and is dying. As Archbishop Lefebvre said basically, "We can have nothing to do with Rome until they come back to tradition." That's where the SSPX is erring now; they're making an agreement with Rome before She has come back to tradition. That spells.... --COMPROMISE--

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2014, 12:01:05 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

Quote

1) His pride. His sense of self-importance threatens to overshadow all his perception.

I know Bishop Fellay reasonably well and he does not strike me as particular proud, as Trad Bishops go.

Oh. Okay, so you've had lunch with Bishop Fellay. So have I. You know, ggreg, when it comes to laymen knowing a bishop, it can only go so far. You will never know +F as well as any of his many SSPX priests know him because you have not been subject to obedience under his superiorship and cannot therefore fathom how his style, personality and leadership affect YOU as a priest, mostly because you're not a priest, but also, well, I don't want to repeat myself.

Quote

Quote

2) The adulation of the Faithful. There is no shortage of loyal Fellayites in the world.

So, let me understand what you are trying to say. Too much support and loyalty will be his undoing????

I don't have any problem with a good bishop having the support and loyalty of a holy following, in all truth and justice. It's when error and travesty creep in that there's a problem. This goes to the same point of normalization with modernist Rome. The SSPX should not be negotiating any compromise on doctrine. I hope I don't have to explain that to you as well.

Quote

Quote

4) The unquestioning gullibility of the rank-and-file parishioners who don't seem to mind castigating anyone who dares to raise thinking questions, as if they enjoy being punitive.

Of course "The Resistance" NEVER do this do they? :roll-laugh1:

Hint: Take a peak at a.b.l-fo`rums

Actually, I wouldn't call A-B-L f*rums part of the Resistance, unfortunately. They're cave dwellers over there.

Quote

In fact The Resistance, from what I know of it, might have a much more serious problem. It has gathered together a bunch of oft combative, assertive, know-it-all, hair-splitting, opinionated types many of whom don't have proper jobs and can spend all day arguing on the interweb and intriguing and finding people's LinkedIn Profiles and stalking them.

If you hate Linkedin so much then why do you use it? :roll-laugh1: :rolleyes:

The Resistance isn't a club, ggreg. It's open to anyone who really loves his Catholic Faith and is willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING to keep it. Like Martyrs do, for example. Would you like to become a martyr? You know, all of the great saints wanted to become martyrs. Is that okay with you, or do you have another bone to pick with that principle like you do with the principle of the Resistance?

BTW, since you "know Bishop Fellay" so well, you must have noticed that it is he and his minions who are NOTORIOUS for 'stalking' people, and for digging for profiles so as to know whom they might deny the sacraments based on their Internet activities.

OTOH maybe you've chosen to IGNORE that whole topic, for convenience' sake.

OTOH maybe you're one of the stalkers for +F and his henchmen so to you, this strikes too close to home; and that's why you're complaining about it. "Chaff" in military parlance.

Quote

They are forever raising questions. You already have "Our Ladies Resistance" who are not happy with Bishop Williamson.

I see.

Ergo: HOW DARE ANYONE RAISE QUESTIONS!

We should all know that +Fellay and his henchmen are oligarchs above question, no?

Quote

So I would very seriously question whether the resistance does not have FAR too many chiefs and nothing like enough Indians.

It seems to me you're much more comfortable with the domineering oligarch Superior General and his Menzingen-denizens than you are with any "loose association of independent" holy, diligent, militant, battle-hardened tenacious priests all over the world, i.e., the salt of the earth.

Funny though, that it was the SALT OF THE EARTH that Our Lord valued much more than ggreg seems to. What's up with that ____ ???????

I'm not looking for an argument with you ggreg. There are simply volumes that you're missing. It's hard to know where to start. Maybe you should start by listening to a good sermon, for a change:

I just heard a great sermon by Fr. Hewko, whom I believe is a front-runner for +W to consecrate Bishop, the last one posted on the ITSYSC website (I can't spell it out because Matthew hates the site owner and has blocked its address on CI), and is accessible by this Mediafire link:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/tippqyacqpf1gi9/Fr_D_Hewko_July_27_2014_Philadelphia_PA.amr

You might have to download the file and open a new window to get it to run. I tried several ways and struck out but eventually got it to go. It's an .amr file, whatever that is. 43min. duration. Near the end, Fr. Hewko, AN SSPX PRIEST who knows Bishop Fellay a LOT better than you or any other layman EVER will, compares +F's writings and sermons to the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II.

Now, if I have to explain to you what that means, then there really isn't much point in my trying, because if you don't know what JPII's encyclicals are like then there are only two possibilities:

1) You have never tried to read JPII's encyclicals, and are therefore unqualified for the discussion, or,

2) You have read JPII's encyclicals and you think they're just fine; therefore, you're unqualified for the discussion.

Either way, you'd be unqualified for the discussion.

Your turn.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2014, 12:21:51 PM »

Quote from: In the OP, Matthew

Think about this carefully:

Is the SSPX (in all its chapels) supposed to be a disinterested outpost of the One True Church, or a private club set up for its own benefit?

This is likely to evince an emotional reaction, regardless of your position. But let's think about it logically. There are only TWO options:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) The SSPX is just a branch of the One True Church, existing only for the benefit of the Church and Her members.

If this were the case, the SSPX would be passive and disinterested about where its parishioners attended Mass, as long as they were keeping the Faith. There would be nothing to legitimately worry about, as long as each parishioner attended a chapel with the Traditional Catholic Mass. Freedom would be high, as the SSPX wouldn't have any selfishness or jealousy issues -- she would even go so far as to completely disband/liquidate herself if it could somehow mean the salvation of every soul.

It's simple. If the SSPX's one mission were "The Salvation of Souls" she would be perfectly content as long as souls were being saved.

The SSPX would yearn for the good of each soul, which would include teaching them freely about the Crisis, the Catechism and how the Faith relates to the layman's daily life in the world.

It would realize that, as strong as each priest's zeal might be, it can't impose on the free will of any person. Each person is given free will by God. The SSPX would mince no words in reminding Catholics of their obligations -- but then it would peacefully leave it up to each person to follow or reject God's will. It would strongly teach and remonstrate, but would stop short of becoming unquiet of soul and attempting to force/bully a given parishioner.

A priest is not guilty as long as he preaches the Faith and does his best. It is not his responsibility to deliver "results". He must respect the Free Will that God gave each man and woman.

Think: The year is 1940. Does your priest care where you go to Mass, as long as you stayed Catholic? Yes, you had an official Parish based on your home's location. That's where your Church records (Baptism, Marriage, etc.) would be kept. But if you consistently went to a different parish, you wouldn't be castigated, bullied, denied communion, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B) The SSPX is a club/cult/business of interest for a group of individuals, intended to benefit them and perhaps to make it look good, to offer the Traditional Mass and Sacraments, and make a good show where possible.

If this were the case, the SSPX would be jealous of each "customer" or parishioner. Given the choice between Joe Parishioner attending the SSPX chapel or an equally orthodox chapel elsewhere (say, in the Resistance), the priests of the SSPX would vehemently insist on the former, even stepping beyond the bounds of their authority. Each parishioner is looked on as primarily "theirs" and a source of numbers/prestige/revenue. Freedom would be low; suspicion, intrigue, and spying would be high. The question of "what is good for this or that parishioner" would be secondary to the good of the SSPX as a whole. The SSPX would seem to exist for its own sake.

Each priest would feel obligated to deliver "results", because when it comes to Excel spreadsheets and financial reports, there are no other results that matter! Money is only for this world. "If you don't get the parishioners, we don't get the money." Even if a parishioner is saving his soul just fine at another chapel, the money is still gone. So bullying, strong-arm tactics, intimidation, propaganda are all fair game and tempting for individual priests to use.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which of these two lines up with the reality?

This OP and thread, it seems to me, is definitive.

This is what the Resistance is all about.

This is what makes Matthew a great forum owner and CI a great forum.

I think This Thread ought to be a sticky...... HAHAHAHAHAHHA :geezer:

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2014, 12:24:26 PM »

Quote from: True Faith

Try that analogy in a different light. The living tree is Catholic tradition. It's roots come from Christ and the Apostles. It was fed on the blood of the martyrs. It was nurtured by the saints. The conciliar church is the branch that has broken off and is dying. As Archbishop Lefebvre said basically, "We can have nothing to do with Rome until they come back to tradition." That's where the SSPX is erring now; they're making an agreement with Rome before She has come back to tradition. That spells.... --COMPROMISE--

It sounds like you had just heard the Hewko sermon I linked to above.

Or else, you've been reading the same books that Fr. Hewko is reading: St. Anthony of Padua, St. Peter Canisius, and St. Robert Bellarmine.

Keep it up! :reading:

.

JPaul · « **Reply #49 on:** August 27, 2014, 01:59:50 PM »

Still a cult? :confused1:

snowball · « **Reply #50 on:** August 27, 2014, 02:49:20 PM »

SSPX is part of "the Church"
the way I understand things.

Frances · « **Reply #51 on:** August 27, 2014, 05:00:37 PM »

:dancing-banana:
The SSPX is Roman Catholic. The fact that some among the laity and hierarchy act as if it is a cult is regrettable, but irrelevant. Sadly, since the publication of the Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012 in July of that year, the argument can be legitimately made that it is part of the Conciliar cult of Vatican II. In most places, cultish behavior is limited to small groups of laity. In others, the priests are falling to the cruelty of liberalism.
My opinion? Go to Mass, but keep your eyes and ears open. If it is a question of the innocent losing the Faith by scandal, stay away!

Zeitun · « **Reply #52 on:** August 28, 2014, 01:49:22 PM »

What do you call someone who is in spiritual communion with an apostate?

What do you call someone who is in spiritual communion with someone who is in spiritual communion with an apostate?

JPaul · « **Reply #53 on:** August 28, 2014, 02:31:57 PM »

Being a part of the Church does not preclude the indicators of cultish behaviour.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #54 on:** August 31, 2014, 01:43:44 AM »

Quote from: Zeitun

What do you call someone who is in spiritual communion with an apostate?

What do you call someone who is in spiritual communion with someone who is in spiritual communion with an apostate?

That would be the first integral of such communion, the practice of integration, a.k.a., by an integrist.

.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #55 on:** October 28, 2014, 07:18:14 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Think about this carefully:

Is the SSPX (in all its chapels) supposed to be a disinterested outpost of the One True Church, or a private club set up for its own benefit?

There are only TWO options:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) The SSPX is just a branch of the One True Church, existing only for the benefit of the Church and Her members.

If this were the case, the SSPX would be passive and disinterested about where its parishioners attended Mass, as long as they were keeping the Faith. There would be nothing to legitimately worry about, as long as each parishioner attended a chapel with the Traditional Catholic Mass. Freedom would be high, as the SSPX wouldn't have any selfishness or jealousy issues -- she would even go so far as to completely disband/liquidate herself if it could somehow mean the salvation of every soul.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B) The SSPX is a club/cult/business of interest for a group of individuals, intended to benefit them and perhaps to make it look good, to offer the Traditional Mass and Sacraments, and make a good show where possible.

If this were the case, the SSPX would be jealous of each "customer" or parishioner. Given the choice between Joe Parishioner attending the SSPX chapel or an equally orthodox chapel elsewhere (say, in the Resistance), the priests of the SSPX would vehemently insist on the former, even stepping beyond the bounds of their authority. Each parishioner is looked on as primarily "theirs" and a source of numbers/prestige/revenue. Freedom would be low; suspicion, intrigue, and spying would be high. The question of "what is good for this or that parishioner" would be secondary to the good of the SSPX as a whole. The SSPX would seem to exist for its own sake.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which of these two lines up with the reality?

*****I am bringing this to this forum, not to spread gossip, but to put the information out there for people to see it and understand it and know what is happening in these chapels. In fact, I hesitated posting this. I am simply putting out the evidence to support position B above.*******

Yesterday, a friend sent me an e-mail about the sermon at the local SSPX chapel. Most of you know by know that I am located in NY. As a disclosure, we have not attended Mass at any SSPX chapel near us since Fr. Hewko left. He was publicly humiliated and criticized by a priest from the pulpit. When I started asking questions and posting information about Fr. Hewko here, that priest started trolling me here and even using my exact words posted on this forum in his sermons. He stopped families at the front door of the chapel to find out who had 7 children and he called long-time parishioners trying to figure out who I was. This went way beyond politics, as some say here. It was unacceptable behavior from a priest. We left and began attending Mass at an independent chapel where there is a holy priest. Our family is at peace with that decision.

But....

Just recently Fr. Hewko and the Resistance were in this area. We were not able to go to his Mass because we were in Ohio visiting my MIL. Otherwise, we probably would have gone. From what I understand the Mass was well attended by parishioners from several chapels in this area. The local priest was not pleased.

Also, the priests in the priory have flat out been refusing the Sacraments to people. I will not go into detail about this, but I know it is true.

On Sunday, probably in wake of the Resistance Mass, the priest gave a sermon condemning anyone from going to Masses offered by the Resistance and/or going to Mass at the independent chapel or contacting the priest because "he might be associated with sedevacantists." It was a hateful speech, and many were left confused, hurt, and scandalized.

He gave this sermon, Sunday, on the Feast of Christ the King.

So, in reality what is happening in upstate NY is that people are being threatened, denied the Sacraments, and permanently banned from chapels if they go to Masses anywhere else, if they question what is happening in the Society, and if they stand up to tyrants. In my observation, this is beyond politics.

I know people there who will never leave. I know people there who firmly believe this so-called "schism" is a product of Bishop Williamson. I know people who believe they must obey their priests because suffering in this manner is pleasing to God.

Now, I could be wrong and confused about this, but I don't believe this is very Godly. I think this is abusive.

I don't know what is going on in chapels around the world, but this IS happening here. It seems more like the work of the devil to me, than the work of God.

Just my opinion and just information.

As a note, I am incredibly grateful to the SSPX for opening the doors for us, helping us learn about our faith, giving us the Sacraments, educating our children, helping us to firmly transition from Novus Ordo. But something is very wrong within.

Matthew · « **Reply #56 on:** October 28, 2014, 08:23:24 AM »

Quote from: CathMomof7

*****I am bringing this to this forum, not to spread gossip, but to put the information out there for people to see it and understand it and know what is happening in these chapels. In fact, I hesitated posting this. I am simply putting out the evidence to support position B above.*******

Yesterday, a friend sent me an e-mail about the sermon at the local SSPX chapel. Most of you know by know that I am located in NY. As a disclosure, we have not attended Mass at any SSPX chapel near us since Fr. Hewko left. He was publicly humiliated and criticized by a priest from the pulpit. When I started asking questions and posting information about Fr. Hewko here, that priest started trolling me here and even using my exact words posted on this forum in his sermons. He stopped families at the front door of the chapel to find out who had 7 children and he called long-time parishioners trying to figure out who I was. This went way beyond politics, as some say here. It was unacceptable behavior from a priest. We left and began attending Mass at an independent chapel where there is a holy priest. Our family is at peace with that decision.

But....

Just recently Fr. Hewko and the Resistance were in this area. We were not able to go to his Mass because we were in Ohio visiting my MIL. Otherwise, we probably would have gone. From what I understand the Mass was well attended by parishioners from several chapels in this area. The local priest was not pleased.

Also, the priests in the priory have flat out been refusing the Sacraments to people. I will not go into detail about this, but I know it is true.

On Sunday, probably in wake of the Resistance Mass, the priest gave a sermon condemning anyone from going to Masses offered by the Resistance and/or going to Mass at the independent chapel or contacting the priest because "he might be associated with sedevacantists." It was a hateful speech, and many were left confused, hurt, and scandalized.

He gave this sermon, Sunday, on the Feast of Christ the King.

So, in reality what is happening in upstate NY is that people are being threatened, denied the Sacraments, and permanently banned from chapels if they go to Masses anywhere else, if they question what is happening in the Society, and if they stand up to tyrants. In my observation, this is beyond politics.

I know people there who will never leave. I know people there who firmly believe this so-called "schism" is a product of Bishop Williamson. I know people who believe they must obey their priests because suffering in this manner is pleasing to God.

Now, I could be wrong and confused about this, but I don't believe this is very Godly. I think this is abusive.

I don't know what is going on in chapels around the world, but this IS happening here. It seems more like the work of the devil to me, than the work of God.

Just my opinion and just information.

As a note, I am incredibly grateful to the SSPX for opening the doors for us, helping us learn about our faith, giving us the Sacraments, educating our children, helping us to firmly transition from Novus Ordo. But something is very wrong within.

Thank you SO MUCH for having the courage to share this with us.

Again, I would point out that the chapel you mention should be Red-Lighted (avoided) by all Catholics of good will. There is absolutely no good excuse for going to a chapel like that. The priest is obviously a dictator. He is giving bad example to the point of scandal. Even if you have children. Especially if you have children, you don't want them seeing such behavior in a priest.

Just for the record, I would be long gone from a chapel like you describe.

But none of us that still attend the SSPX can rest for long. This thing is still moving and developing, and as they say, "we're next".

Elizabeth · « **Reply #57 on:** October 28, 2014, 08:28:44 AM »

I am dying to know the name of the priest who was on the hunt for

CathMom.

John Grace · « **Reply #58 on:** October 28, 2014, 11:17:51 AM »

Quote

Thank you SO MUCH for having the courage to share this with us.

Again, I would point out that the chapel you mention should be Red-Lighted (avoided) by all Catholics of good will.

I still fail to see why so many of 'good will' in SSPX mocked and humiliated those with valid concerns several years ago.

John Grace · « **Reply #59 on:** October 28, 2014, 11:28:31 AM »

I would rather support the wackos and the troublemakers than the SSPX.

The future for those who still assist at the SSPX.

Quote

many were left confused, hurt, and scandalized.