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?

Agreed.  Lots of Traditional organizations are a mix of the two.  Probably depends from priest to priest and chapel to chapel.  There never really has been a single monolithic SSPX.

Dare I ask, is the Resistance part of the Church or a cult? If it's part of the Church, it would be passive and disinterested about where people attend Mass, etc...

I rather think that it's not quite as simple as the two options on offer!

You can ask *anything you want*, Clare.

Sauce for the goose is good for the gander. If the shoe fits, wear it. And so forth.


By the way, I didn't say a group (say, the SSPX or the Resistance) shouldn't be concerned about the welfare of their parishioners. For example, the SSPX should loudly point out that the Indult often involves compromise, etc.

But in the end, the decision must be left to the individual consciences. God gives each man freedom, and priests must respect that. Each priest must do his duty before God in order to be saved, and each man will be judged on how he used his free will. That's how it works.

The Resistance hasn't been known to deny anyone the sacraments, as far as I know. So I don't know what you're talking about, Clare.

BTW, I don't agree with any Resistance directives to "avoid the SSPX in all places and cases -- It's a universal Red Light!". I know Fr. Pfeiffer (maybe Fr. Hewko?) has said this in the past, but I disagree with it.
+W at least never said that, and he best represents my position.

But in the end, the decision must be left to the individual consciences. God gives each man freedom, and priests must respect that.

In my experience, SSPX priests are like that. Maybe it's different in America.

The Resistance hasn't been known to deny anyone the sacraments, as far as I know. So I don't know what you're talking about, Clare.

I was talking about not being too bothered about where people go to Mass, not about denying anyone sacraments.

BTW, I don't agree with any Resistance directives to "avoid the SSPX in all places and cases -- It's a universal Red Light!". I know Fr. Pfeiffer (maybe Fr. Hewko?) has said this in the past, but I disagree with it.

See, you did know what I was talking about after all!

+W at least never said that, and he best represents my position.

Yes, I think that's a fair position.

I've never had any problem with the local SSPX, under any priests that we have had. The only time I have had a problem is when I've dealt with upper management, so to speak, and that was only one time.

I've been to whatever chapel is best for myself and my family over the years with zero problems or issues with the clergy. If anything, the clergy and most laymen could not have cared less about what we were doing-- and that was fine by me. I didn't have anyone else under the microscope either.

For me, A has pretty much been true.

Now, as for particular laity, the kind that want me to wear my SSPX badge on my shirt and in my heart, those people are very few as well.  I would probably say that the SSPX in terms of certain pockets of laity can be a cult, at times. This is not a problem isolated to SSPX.

However, after reading the essay by the ex-seminarian, I have to wonder that within the ranks of the clergy this mentality does exist among themselves but perhaps it manifests in a different way than it might in a chapel.

Dare I ask, is the Resistance part of the Church or a cult? If it's part of the Church, it would be passive and disinterested about where people attend Mass, etc...

I rather think that it's not quite as simple as the two options on offer!

The point that you make is valid. Insofar as the resistance, so called, attempts to recreate the SSPX, as it was, then they recreate the same cultic structure of that entity.

It has not been shown that they intend to form a new congregation which is only in the service of the Church, and which is apart from the long standing SSPX structure.
Returning to what was, can only, given enough time, reproduce what is now.

The cultic dimension of the Society was present long before its doctrinal defection.

I believe that Matthew is really onto something here, and objectively the question answers itself.

If the Resistance was passive and disinterested about where people attend Mass then the Resistance wouldn't care about souls. The priests advise, as a general rule, that one should not attend the SSPX any longer because of the compromise made to the doctrine. By sticking around, one is in grave danger of slipping away from the Faith.

While this may be true, it seems to me we ought to be able to make a fast summary of all the defection from Church doctrine that the leadership of the SSPX has introduced over the past 18 years while +Fellay has been putative leader of it.

The Menzingen-denizens fear any cogent summary of their errors.  It scares them to death.

.

This say if you are a very knowledgeable person and now living in the year
1950 you would judge the Catholic Church at that time because of the
ceremonies, vestments, chants, way the sacraments and the Mass was
said and provided.  Unless you are sincerely looking for the truth and
what God want's you to do that is to become a member of the Catholic
Church, if you ignore the grace sent from God, you would judge the
Catholic Church as a cult, much like the eastern religions, the
Buddhist etc.  
The Church today, and most of our lifetimes is in a state of crises.
we do not who, or whom is really telling us the truth.  Lots of errors
are coming from the so called Vicar of Christ, the current Pope and
his recent predecessors. Things and new teachings that we cannot
subscribe in if we treasure our eternal salvation. Because. at lease
here on CI, most of us knows what is Catholic Truths, and Teachings.
Very rare among the total Catholic population.
The SSPX that has been backed up by various Catholic Cardinals,
living and deceased has said the SSPX is part of the Church. Is it
a cult. I would say yes that if you are not searching for the truth
through the graces God has provided.
Should I feel guilty attending a Mass of the SSPX or a sede Mass.
No.  Because, it is just like the last moments of the RMS Titanic
about to plunge into the depths. of the Atlantic Ocean.
It is every man for himself.  There is one truth, and the rest
falsehoods.