SSPX Update - Redux

[Julia_Mae]

We have been warned not to call the SSPX a cult …

I didn’t. I said the description of the experience of the poster and how it was described sounded the same to me and it does.

 

[Moore11]

I didn’t. I said the description of the experience of the poster and how it was described sounded the same to me and it does.

And I showed that you could say that for anything. I saw an excellent commentary on this once, it may have been on these forums I dont know. But it was about how the term “cult” is a loaded dishonest term meant only to discount something or some religion someone does not like. “Cult” has no real definition and is just used to describe a group one wants to put down or discount. I come up against this a lot in evangelizing Mormons. (hey, they knocked on MY door it is literally opportunity knocking to evangelize!!!)
While “deprogramming” has been described for people who leave the SSPX Brother JR once pointed out that many religious orders have some sort of program to help people transition out.
My issue is not that there are alleged problems and pressures and a way of thinking with the SSPX but rather with using this term :“Cult” in a derogatory way towards fellow Catholics. It lacks charity and does absolutely nothing to promote unity or understanding. It is in itself loaded language and what good does that do?
Perhaps you could provide your definition of Cultlike, perhaps you could explain or clarify, perhaps you could move on or perhaps you could humbly change your terminology.
It is so tempting to defend and so hard to just say, “hey, you are right, that might have crossed the line.” For me, it is hard to say, oops, sorry. But it is so Christian to do so.
perhaps we could just realize that I dont understand how complex the SSPX mindset is and you may very well have a legitimate concern and you could see how we should refrain from throwing terms like “cult” around. Then we could discuss the issue at hand.

 

[Julia_Mae]

And I showed that you could say that for anything.

No, you didn’t. You think you did. I disagree. I also don’t want to get into some back and forth about it. I didn’t call any organization anything, I stand by both my posts, and I’m done now. If you want to start a separate thread about this issue, please leave a link for that discussion.

 

[poche]

I think we need to pray for the reconciliation between the SSPX and the See of Rome.

 

[Tomdstone]

For that matter, how do you even know that Franciscans don’t know what the SSPX knows about traditional customs such as modest dress?

I believe that SSPX has a very strict dress code in place for attending their chapels. I am sorry to report that this is not the case at the local Catholic Church here. Even the women altar servers and readers dress quite poorly at Mass.

 

[PaulinVA]

I believe that SSPX has a very strict dress code in place for attending their chapels. I am sorry to report that this is not the case at the local Catholic Church here. Even the women altar servers and readers dress quite poorly at Mass.

Tom, who pushes this dress code? Is it the priests?

 

[GloriaMaria]

Tom, who pushes this dress code? Is it the priests?

Sorry, not Tom, but I can answer. Yes. It is the priest. Sometimes the laity attending the chapel will take it on themselves also.

Also, this dress code is pushed outside of the chapel via social pressure. Here’s another out of the mouths of babes, “My Mom and Dad don’t even want me to look at a girl wearing pants!” From one girl in a skirt to another wearing pants as the reason why she needed to change clothes before they played. Age 6.

It is considered the priest’s responsibility to address the subject occasionally from the pulpit, and directly to attendees who don’t comply.

 

[PaulinVA]

Sorry, not Tom, but I can answer. Yes. It is the priest. Sometimes the laity attending the chapel will take it on themselves also.

Also, this dress code is pushed outside of the chapel via social pressure. Here’s another out of the mouths of babes, “My Mom and Dad don’t even want me to look at a girl wearing pants!” From one girl in a skirt to another wearing pants as the reason why she needed to change clothes before they played. Age 6.

It is considered the priest’s responsibility to address the subject occasionally from the pulpit, and directly to attendees who don’t comply.

Why? It seems interesting that people are so concerned about how they dress when they are attending an illicit Mass celebrated by a suspended priest with no ministry in the Church.

I think that there is a little bit of the reenactor mentality there - if someone would not wear it in 1962, it’s not appropriate for the latin Mass.

I do agree that the concept of wearing one’s “Sunday Best” to Mass is long gone, and is bad. People do need to dress respectfully when attending Mass.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by JReducation
For that matter, how do you even know that Franciscans don’t know what the SSPX knows about traditional customs such as modest dress?

I’m not understanding what the your local Parish and how people dress has to do with Br JR’s question about what you do or do not know about Franciscans?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Sorry, not Tom, but I can answer. Yes. It is the priest. Sometimes the laity attending the chapel will take it on themselves also.

Also, this dress code is pushed outside of the chapel via social pressure. Here’s another out of the mouths of babes, “My Mom and Dad don’t even want me to look at a girl wearing pants!” From one girl in a skirt to another wearing pants as the reason why she needed to change clothes before they played. Age 6.

It is considered the priest’s responsibility to address the subject occasionally from the pulpit, and directly to attendees who don’t comply.

Interesting. When I look at pictures of my older sisters from circa 1960, they are wearing double-knit shorts to play. Sometimes under a skirt, sometimes just by themselves. I would think that shorts, plants, or at least bloomers would be the most modest gear for young girls wanted to play and run around.

Anyway, the whole “girls/women must wear dresses to be modest” issue I think can get hugely out of proportion and doesn’t necessarily correlate to that girl/woman’s faith life or depth of piety.

I am absolutely of the mindset that the whole tights=leggings=something suitable to wear in public getups that girls/teens/young women wear these days is horrible. But that doesn’t mean they should all be wearing denim jumpers.

BUT we definately don’t want to turn this into a modest clothing thread! Kiss of death is that!

So, back to Archbishop DiNoia!

 

[JReducation]

For what it’s worth, if you’re dressed modestly, I don’t care if the ladies were pants and the men wear kilts. Most male religious don’t wear pants under our habits. It’s not part of the tradition. You can come to mass at our house.

By the way, I had my wrist slapped at an SSPX chapel for wearing a clerical shirt and putting my collar in my shirt pocket.

The truth is that it was about 90 degrees that day. I had to walk from the bus stop to the Church, about three blocks and I have a very bad heart. My heart does not do well in the heat. At the time, I was fighting Leukemia. Chemotherapy and the hot sun don’t go well together. I unbuttoned by shirt and put the tab in my pocket. I was going there to attend a funeral.

It was so funny. I arrived late and panting. That alone got me the evil eye from a gentleman who was in the back. I’m assuming that he was an usher. I genuflected and stepped into a pew. The mass was already up to the Epistle. Suddenly I was being signaled to come to the vestibule. I had no idea why, but it was the man with the evil eye and I did not want to get on his bad side.

When we were in the vestibule, he said, “Father, you’re not properly dressed.” I had no idea what he was talking about. He pointed to my collar. I started to laugh. He didn’t think it was funny, so I stopped laughing very quickly. I felt like a kid in school when the teacher tells you that something is wrong with your uniform.

I put the collar in place and apologized. As I was about to go through the double doors, back into the church, he said, “Father, you can’t go in now. You’ll disrupt the mass.”

Now I was angry. I turned around and said, “First of all, I’m not your Father. Secondly, this is a Catholic chapel and I’m a Catholic. I’d like to see you stop me from going in.”

I walked in. When I walked out, I saw him speaking to the priest and pointing at me. I just went over to the priest and complimented his homily. It was actually very good. It was not a false compliment. But that dress monitor first made me laugh, because not having a collar in place is not exactly being inappropriately dressed.

 

[Dee_S]

:hammering:sorry to raise the ‘cult’ issue again, but others like me who are X-SSPX will recognize and identify with this lady. I have seen and heard everything she says with my own eyes and ears…ten years previous to her writing and on another continent.

It is difficult to convey just how ‘cultish’ it really is within the walls of their ‘catholic’ chapels. Just a thought, but how is it possible to be considered Catholic when you refuse to be in union with the Pope and the Church. I always thought that this was one of the hallmarks of Catholicism?

The SSPX claim that they are Catholics with a dispute, is really no excuse for obstinately remaining outside full communion (even though the Holy Fathers have done all in their power to bring them back into the fold in the last 40 years)

The SSPX (is a Cult?) (From EWTN Q&A)
**EWTN Catholic Q&A ^ ** | 7/11/2003 | “Anne”
Posted on 15 July 2003 16:59:29 by 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
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/946465/posts

To add another :twocents:, I personally know an X-SSPX-er who refused to be married at a ‘New Mass’, losing the precious blessings of a Nuptial Mass, because they were convinced in conscience of the ‘evil’ of the NO. Special permission was obtained from the diocesan Bishop, in order for them to marry with a simple service to bless and validate their marriage.

 

[TimothyH]

Tom, who pushes this dress code? Is it the priests?

I know a woman who visited an SSPX chapel and was approached by an usher who offered her a veil. When she politely declined, she was told that all women wear it in their Church and that she would have to leave if she declined.

I happened to be at the woman’s parish for a weekday Mass shortly after it happened and found out about the incident when the priest mentioned it in his homily. Let’s just say that this priest is not a southern gentleman - he lets you know how he feels. He said, “They are a bunch of idiots!” right in his homily. I didn’t even know we had an SSPX chapel in the area until I heard about it in his homily at Mass.

-Tim-

 

[Dee_S]

More importantly, what if the Pope says that all men and women should share a bed regardless of whether they are married? The act itself would be a matter of prudence so not intrinsically immoral. But following it would cause someone to sin. What does one do then?

What one does then, if one has not immediately recognized that the Pope could never command what is sinful, is to educate one-self on the basics of one’s Faith, if one is not already aware of the teaching of the Church that one belongs to.

Hypothetically one can start by using Wikipedia, it is simple enough for any-one to use:
In Roman Catholic teaching, an occasion of sin is an external set of circumstances—whether of things or persons—which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.

There are both proximate and remote occasions, where a proximate occasion is one in which men of like calibre for the most part fall into mortal sin, or one in which experience points to the same result from the special weakness of a particular person. The remote occasion lacks these elements. All theologians are agreed that there is no obligation to avoid the remote occasions of sin both because this would, practically speaking, be impossible and because they do not involve serious danger of sin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasion_of_sin

 

[Faithdancer]

Sorry, not Tom, but I can answer. Yes. It is the priest. Sometimes the laity attending the chapel will take it on themselves also.

Also, this dress code is pushed outside of the chapel via social pressure. Here’s another out of the mouths of babes, “My Mom and Dad don’t even want me to look at a girl wearing pants!” From one girl in a skirt to another wearing pants as the reason why she needed to change clothes before they played. Age 6.

It is considered the priest’s responsibility to address the subject occasionally from the pulpit, and directly to attendees who don’t comply.

Here is the dress code on the sign in front of the entrance to the lone church in our diocese which offers the Tridentine Mass:

http://www.sansecondodasti.org/images/dress code.jpg

 

[Faithdancer]

Folks need to be careful here, or this thread will never even get close to 1000. To wit: cutting and pasting, then praising a long blog wherein someone else labels SSPX a cult is pretty much the same thing as directly calling SSPX a cult. Second, quoting someone else as saying SSPX as a “bunch of idiots” is pretty much the same thing as saying that directly. These tactics are unworthy, transparently prejudicial and need to be avoided.

 

[Dee_S]

I still pray for reconcilliation, but I hope that there is a program of training put into place for the SSPX priests before they are allowed to minister to the faithful in a general way.

:thumbsup:they will certainly need that, bishops included.

In regard to Archbishop Mueller this article is very interesting:

"Overall, the one point Archbishop Müller has emphasized most often is the importance of embracing the fullness of the Revelation which has been entrusted for safe-keeping to the Magisterium of the Church. In the same interview in which he indicated the need to distinguish between true teaching and abuses, he put the matter succinctly: “Everyone who is Catholic must ask themselves if they are cherry-picking points from the Church’s teachings for the sake of supporting an ideology.”

"Similarly, in response to questions about the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), liberation theology and the abuses of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the United States, Archbishop Müller emphasized the need, both on the left and right, to adhere to Revelation:

“We are convinced that there is no alternative to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ…. We are fundamentally convinced that the secular and immanentistic vision is not enough. We cannot find a convincing answer on our own…. The Church is first of all a community of faith; hence the revealed faith is the most important good, which we must transmit, proclaim and protect. Jesus entrusted to Peter and to his successors the universal Magisterium…. Hence the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has the responsibility for what concerns the whole Church in profundity: the faith that leads us to salvation and to communion with God and among ourselves…” "There is only one revelation of God in Jesus Christ which was entrusted to the whole Church. This is why there are no negotiations on the Word of God and one cannot believe and not believe at the same time. One cannot pronounce the three religious vows and then not take them seriously. I cannot make reference to the tradition of the Church and then accept it only in some of its parts.** The path of the Church leads ahead and all are invited not to enclose themselves in a self-referential way of thinking, but rather to accept the full life and the full faith of the Church."
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=563&soundoff_confirm

 

[oldcatholicguy]

For what it’s worth, if you’re dressed modestly, I don’t care if the ladies were pants and the men wear kilts. Most male religious don’t wear pants under our habits. It’s not part of the tradition. You can come to mass at our house.

By the way, I had my wrist slapped at an SSPX chapel for wearing a clerical shirt and putting my collar in my shirt pocket.

The truth is that it was about 90 degrees that day. I had to walk from the bus stop to the Church, about three blocks and I have a very bad heart. My heart does not do well in the heat. At the time, I was fighting Leukemia. Chemotherapy and the hot sun don’t go well together. I unbuttoned by shirt and put the tab in my pocket. I was going there to attend a funeral.

It was so funny. I arrived late and panting. That alone got me the evil eye from a gentleman who was in the back. I’m assuming that he was an usher. I genuflected and stepped into a pew. The mass was already up to the Epistle. Suddenly I was being signaled to come to the vestibule. I had no idea why, but it was the man with the evil eye and I did not want to get on his bad side.

When we were in the vestibule, he said, “Father, you’re not properly dressed.” I had no idea what he was talking about. He pointed to my collar. I started to laugh. He didn’t think it was funny, so I stopped laughing very quickly. I felt like a kid in school when the teacher tells you that something is wrong with your uniform.

I put the collar in place and apologized. As I was about to go through the double doors, back into the church, he said, “Father, you can’t go in now. You’ll disrupt the mass.”

Now I was angry. I turned around and said, “First of all, I’m not your Father. Secondly, this is a Catholic chapel and I’m a Catholic. I’d like to see you stop me from going in.”

I walked in. When I walked out, I saw him speaking to the priest and pointing at me. I just went over to the priest and complimented his homily. It was actually very good. It was not a false compliment. But that dress monitor first made me laugh, because not having a collar in place is not exactly being inappropriately dressed.

The usher’s actions disturb me. I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to the religious, but telling a religious how to dress or barring them from going into Mass are near the top of my “things I really shouldn’t try to do” list.

 

[pnewton]

Here is the dress code on the sign in front of the entrance to the lone church in our diocese which offers the Tridentine Mass:

I like this method of handling dress code. Post it. Don’t police it. 99% of the time it will take care of itself.

Sincerly,
Still Lurking Here

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I like this method of handling dress code. Post it. Don’t police it. 99% of the time it will take care of itself.

Sincerly,
Still Lurking Here

I agree. It also makes it a lot easier to police the issue in that given time all you really have to deal with are the people who wouldn’t follow the dress code anyway.