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?

Before providing a true dilemma, why don't you start with defining the term "cult"?

Your first note of a cult makes reference to lack of jurisdiction.  Otherwise, if they had ordinary jurisdiction, they wouldn't be "authoritarian pretenders"?  Is that correct?  

Not necessarily.  It depends on the object.  But Liberals love to ignore the object, don't you?

I'm not sure what you mean by "standing in where the One True Religion should stand."  I thought you believed that traditional priests maintain this one true religion.  

Well, one would have to be cognizant of the difference, now, wouldn't one?

Would you consider the Pope a "dictator" when he forbade Catholics to read certain books or engage in certain activities?

Last time I checked, popes have universal jurisdiction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "exploited".  That deserves further definition.

You could start with the dictionary.  Or try this.

The remaining mere description, not definition, involves teaching members to trust their leaders, refusing to allow others to think for themselves (what does this mean?), public shaming (like prescribing penance for instance?), forcing members to stay in the group, like telling its members that there is no salvation outside of this particular organization?

What do you call it, fun, when the priest insults a prominent parishioner from the pulpit?

The rest are meaningless adjectives that could be used by anyone with an axe to grind.  

Make that "ax."

The term cult has a beautiful meaning within the Catholic religion, but according to your definition, the Church itself should be considered a cult.    

Perhaps you haven't noticed but there have been a number of very dangerous cults in recent history that have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine.  You see, the implication is, that by departing from doctrine, this danger is introduced.  Now, if you don't know what we mean by "departing...", perhaps you have a lot of reading to do.  

We're now on Recusant Issue 18, and each one is over 30 pages long.  That comes to about 550 pages for you to "catch up on."  Better get crackin', Bub.  

I mean, Caminus.  (Sorry..................  NOT!)

.

So all Resistance priests are ex-cult members then?

That's a little worrying. :scared2:

So all Resistance priests are ex-cult members then?

That's a little worrying. :scared2:

Matthew's comment is correct.

But even if your statement above was valid, which would you rather have for your priest?  An active cult member or an ex-cult member?

Personally, I don't subscribe to the thesis that the SSPX has become a cult...yet.  Some of the reports I read seem to suggest that it is moving in that direction and other reports I read seem to indicate that this is not the case.  Frankly, I am confused about the SSPX and the Resistance.  In any event, I don't actively support either side though I would not condemn either side as being outside the Church...yet.

What I have noticed is that some of the resistance priests are even more anti-sedevacantist that Bishop Fellay and the SSPX priests, though I have also read on this forum that this is not universal.  

As I said, I don't know what to think about the SSPX and I am glad that I have other options for the Mass and the sacraments.

I do not know about the Society as a whole or an organization.  I can only speak of the events that transpired at the chapel I attended for 2-3 years and the general attitude of the parishioners who have been attending there for much, much longer.

First came several sermons about not attending Mass at independent chapels.  Since I didn't know of such a thing at the time, I just listened and shelved the information.  I got a "red flag at half-mast" thought.  But generally no big deal.

Then came the several sermons about not attending Masses offered by the Friars and/or indult Masses.  But that was accompanied by the warning that these Masses might be questionable due to compromise with New Church.  Again, no big deal.

The red flag was raised in full wind during the TWO sermons about how disobedient, hot-headed, ignorant, and child-like a certain holy priest was along with the flat out refusal to honestly or openly admit where such priest had gone and why.

Then followed several sermons regarding obedience.

Then followed the priest, himself, scouring this forum and printing out posts I had written and QUOTING THEM in sermons.

Then followed the inquisitions at the door after Mass in search of the anonymous "trouble-maker."

Not to mention the attitudes of a LARGE number of parishioners at that particular chapel who refuse to associate with those who have left  primarily due to the above behavior of the priests of that chapel.

And not to mention the very recent conversation (last week) with a long time chapel goer who REGULARLY ATTENDS A NOVUS ORDO MASS as well telling me and my husband point blank that Bishop Williamson bears SOLE responsibility for causing a SCHISM in the SSPX.  And this person suggesting that Bishop Williamson has been causing problems in the society for 20 years (as someone who knows him well as he served under him).

Not to mention the shear number of people who flat out refused to come to our sons first communion because the chapel was not "approved."

So, I am inclined to believe based on my experiences alone that many priests believe the SSPX IS the Catholic Church and that those who do not attend there are OUTSIDE the Church.  I also believe very many chapel goers hold the same opinion.

I for one am RELIEVED that I don't have to hear the politics of what is happening inside the Society every time I go to Mass.  I thank God above that I am able to have a holy priest, a good confessor, outstanding sermons, and the Sacraments freely given to ALL Catholics of good will.

As for me personally, I believe that Catholics have to find a place to go where they can receive the True Sacraments and where the True Faith can be found.  I don't care how nice of a chapel you have or how many people attend there or what groups you have and how many parties you put on, without the Faith, we have nothing.

How long has it been like this?  Just for the last two years???

The red flag was raised in full wind during the TWO sermons about how disobedient, hot-headed, ignorant, and child-like a certain holy priest was along with the flat out refusal to honestly or openly admit where such priest had gone and why.

Then followed several sermons regarding obedience.

Then followed the priest, himself, scouring this forum and printing out posts I had written and QUOTING THEM in sermons.

Then followed the inquisitions at the door after Mass in search of the anonymous "trouble-maker."

Not to mention the attitudes of a LARGE number of parishioners at that particular chapel who refuse to associate with those who have left  primarily due to the above behavior of the priests of that chapel.

And not to mention the very recent conversation (last week) with a long time chapel goer who REGULARLY ATTENDS A NOVUS ORDO MASS as well telling me and my husband point blank that Bishop Williamson bears SOLE responsibility for causing a SCHISM in the SSPX.  And this person suggesting that Bishop Williamson has been causing problems in the society for 20 years (as someone who knows him well as he served under him).

Not to mention the shear number of people who flat out refused to come to our sons first communion because the chapel was not "approved."

So, I am inclined to believe based on my experiences alone that many priests believe the SSPX IS the Catholic Church and that those who do not attend there are OUTSIDE the Church.  I also believe very many chapel goers hold the same opinion.

I for one am RELIEVED that I don't have to hear the politics of what is happening inside the Society every time I go to Mass.  I thank God above that I am able to have a holy priest, a good confessor, outstanding sermons, and the Sacraments freely given to ALL Catholics of good will.

As for me personally, I believe that Catholics have to find a place to go where they can receive the True Sacraments and where the True Faith can be found.  I don't care how nice of a chapel you have or how many people attend there or what groups you have and how many parties you put on, without the Faith, we have nothing.

You have the correct Catholic attitude (as shown by the last paragraph) and you seem honest, down-to-earth, and have no reason to lie about any of this.

I have heard similar testimony from several others who I know personally and/or I have to come to trust.

This is what I'm talking about when I say "cult like". Putting the good of the SSPX over the good of the Church, or the salvation of souls. No religious order in the 1950's would have ever made such a move -- unless they were equally flawed in morals.

I think that the level of cult-like behavior varies by priest and by location -- which is why many people flatly deny that it exists at all. Most humans have a hard time grasping "world wide". Hundreds of miles around is about as big as most peoples' "world" can get. Anything beyond that is abstract to the point of useless. I don't think human beings were meant to conceive of a world spanning 9 billion people -- at least not in any practical manner.

For one thing, you can't accuse all those who are anti-cult of being inconsistent or hypocritical. Myself, for example. I would never have gone along with such BS. I was a huge supporter ("fan" really) of the SSPX when they were "the good guys". I was even willing to become a priest of their order -- that shows some commitment! But I wanted to become a *good* and holy priest or not bother at all, since anything less risks hell-fire for a priest. Priests are judged by God very strictly! And I would never have been able to throw myself in to something questionable like a classic "cult" with schismatic and bullying tendencies. My idealistic self would have forbidden it.