Troubling article about SSPX and antisemitism

A former member Jeannette Pryer writes at PJMedia :

Growing up in the heart of Silicon Valley, California, where ethnic diversity was the norm and personal Jewish friends were numerous, under the influence of members of the SSPX, at age 13 I accepted the conspiracy theory that the world is financially, politically, and culturally controlled by “the Jews.” Along with spiritual goals of religion, a key preoccupation of many Traditionalists is the re-establishment of Catholic political structures. The historical explanation given to me of how Catholic Europe was “corrupted with modern democracy” was that Freemasons, particularly the Jewish Masons, undermined the Christian States.

As a young woman in the SSPX, seeing “the Jews” as the hidden cause of “modern society” was as much a part of what it meant to be a Traditionalist as refusing to wear pants or believe in the Trinity. Having accepted the spiritual orientation of the SSPX mentors who appeared to be otherwise animated by the desire to love God, I didn’t stop to question their geopolitics.

My experience with antisemitism in the organization was not subjective; concrete examples of this orientation abound. Particularly in France I never heard distinctions made between “Jewish leaders,” as the U.S. superior suggests, and the Jewish people taken as a whole. The conviction resulting from my formation was not that “the enemy” was a handful of anti-Christian leaders who happened to be Jewish, but rather that the Jews were a monolithic entity, communally preoccupied with subjecting the world to anti-Christian domination.

The irrefutable indication of the Society’s true orientation towards antisemitism is notorious Holocaust denier Bishop Richard Williamson. The prelate was expelled three months ago, but only because of disagreements with the SSPX concerning its relationship with Rome. For nearly forty years, superiors of the SSPX ignored Williamson’s vilification of the Jewish people. It is true the SSPX “silenced” the bishop following his public denial of the Holocaust, but prior to this exposure, nothing was ever done to remove him from posts of influence. Williamson’s over-arching obsession with the Jews was never publicly refuted or considered an obstacle to his directing the formation of young priests and faithful.

The antisemitism of the SSPX is at times explicit, but more often part of the accepted intellectual framework in which the group “fights the modern world,” of which the Jews are considered the primary architects.

Read the whole thing.       H/t FFoF  Also note that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued this statement and I applaud them for it:

Questions and concerns have been raised following recent media reports about a statement that had been made in Canada by the Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X that “the Jews” are the “enemies of the Church”. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops notes that such remarks are not in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. As the spokesperson for the Holy See, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., has said when commenting on the statement, “It is absolutely unacceptable, impossible, to define the Jews as enemies of the Church.”

The Second Vatican Council taught in Nostra Aetate, its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (no. 4): “God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; he does not repent of the gifts he makes or of the calls he issues – such is the witness of the Apostle [Paul]…. [T]he Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.” This teaching has been reiterated time and time again by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops denounces all forms of anti-Semitism, and rejects assertions such as those reported to have been made by the Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, which is a schismatic group not in communion with the Catholic Church.

January 17, 2013

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Troubling article about SSPX and antisemitism

  1. François-Robert Laliberté Fournier says:

    I hope that Fellay and all the SSpx will never enter in perfect communion whith The Roman Catholic Church. Papon who was the Chief of French Geatapo in France and hide by them for many years before his arrestation, died and the only Catholic church run by them accept tomake a public funeral. This Papon sent hundreds of French Jews to extermination camps. We don’t need that kind of people in our church( Roman Catholic)

    • Mary says:

      I pray, ‘Oh, God, Who wills not the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live…’ I wonder if Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty prayed that for Col. Herbert Kappler. We need every sinner to convert to Catholicism and save their soul, may God have mercy on us all.

  2. Ioannes says:

    Well, I am a Traditionalist and I have nothing to do with the disobedient SSPX. I’d like for them to be a part of the Catholic Church, but they should get rid of the conspiracy theorists and the anti-semites…. They are a hindrance to one of the goals of our movement.

    It is true that one of our aims is to re-establish a Catholic hegemony, a Catholic state, a Catholic nation, as a home to a Catholic people. Or to preserve or purify pre-existing Catholic states by rejecting pollutants such as liberalism, ergo democracy and egalitarianism- (To say that the ultimate goal of humanity is absolute equality is godless and evil.)

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

    Those outsiders who insist their ways are truer and better than our ways must be expelled or they must convert to the One True Faith. (A faith which is more generous than many people think.)

    I am not an anti-semite. I don’t hate ethnic Jews or Arabs. I know of Catholic Jews and Catholic Arabs. But just as I don’t believe Judaism and Islam are true religions, so do I think all other religions other than Catholicism are false; I am an equal-opportunity bigot in that sense.

    If I did not think Catholicism is the One True Faith, I should shut up and stop trying to advocate for it, and I should stop going to church and receiving communion. I would be a hypocrite to say “Everyone is right” and call myself a “Christian” much less a “Catholic” who believes Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; those Catholics who think it is right to say “Everyone is right” because of Vatican 2 never read the Apostolic Constitution Lumen Gentium # 14 and do grave insult to those who are faithful or converted into the Faith and so do grave insult to God.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Ioannes,

      You wrote: It is true that one of our aims is to re-establish a Catholic hegemony, a Catholic state, a Catholic nation, as a home to a Catholic people.

      Does the magisterium of the Catholic Church advocate this, or does the magisterium rather teach that we should respect the consciences and legitimate beliefs of others?

      You wrote: Or to preserve or purify pre-existing Catholic states by rejecting pollutants such as liberalism, ergo democracy and egalitarianism…

      It is a fallacy to equate democracy and egalitarianism with liberalism. In fact, the concept that we all are equal, even if differently gifted and called to different ministries, is an essential element of Christian theology.

      Having said that, I do think that our bishops need to impose suitable canonical sanctions, including excommunication in many cases, on members of the church who (1) publicly advocate action contrary to the church’s moral doctrine or (2) willfully act in a manner contrary to the church’s moral doctrine while serving in public office. Political leaders certainly have a right to advocate policies that are contrary to the church’s moral teaching, but not while claiming to be members of the church in good standing.

      In this regard, however, the distinction between moral doctrine and theological doctrine is crucial. The magiserium of the Catholic Church has always been careful to teach moral doctrine based solely on religiously neutral principles of philosophy known as Natural Law first developed by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Thus, this is NOT an imposition of our religious beliefs and practices on others.

      Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        Let’s see the Church enforce its teachings on people like Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, and a whole galaxy of “Catholic” public figures.

        Someone once asked Cardinal Arinze what to do with disobedient Catholics- he said it would have been best to send the Swiss guards and arrest them all. It was humorous at the time.

        But then, I realize that we are in a middle of a Culture War. There is no taking of prisoners nor should there be expectations of mercy from godless swine who have, by abandoning the policy of armed resistance and instead advocating civil incrementalism, and winning the hearts and minds of the populace, poisoned society.

        I, for one, am willing to do what it takes to put forward the Catholic Church both in its loftier goal of salvation of mankind and in executing the means to that end whether through the apparatus of politics, culture, warfare, or whatever else. Pacifism is not a central tenet of Christianity, and so we must be prepared to fight a Just War. Considering the sort of underhanded tactics the enemies of the Church use to undermine her authority and to warp her teachings, truly, real saints are made in rising above rather than doing nothing. To do nothing is to give aid to the enemy. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

        A sharp twist, rather than a slow, steady squeezing pressure that the Church seems to be ineffectually implementing in its relations to a wider world.

        Missionaries topple idols and lay waste to pagan sanctuaries and temples- for had the Conquistadors tried to reason and acted like the lamb towards the Aztecs, the Cross would have been thrown into a bonfire as kindling, and Christian men would have become sacrifices to pagan gods. And those enslaved neighbors of the Aztecs, who would have once looked at Christians as beacons of hope would have continued their miserable existence as thralls to god-emperors of Tenochtitlan.

        In our bid to reclaim or re-establish Christendom, we must make way for Christ, though we dare not hesitate to strike down those who obstruct the way and actively oppose the agents of Christ.

        This is a time of conflict, of struggle, not of peace and complacency. Wake up and fight the good fight.

        + Deus vult +

      • Ioannes says:

        Dr. Tighe:

        The most ineffectual and laughable way of punishment in the “First World” is the “Timeout.”

        “You go to your room for a timeout, Andy Cuomo. You will have no iPad privileges for today!”

        No, no. It’s time we resurrect the Inquisition and put certain clergy and Nuns on a Bus on their way to ecclesiastical prisons, or have them all excommunicated as heretics and traitors to the Church. Because that’s what they are. (Though I think they don’t care what any bishop or Pope says- they’ll maintain they are “Catholics”)

        Especially bishops. Judas was a bishop, whose example is being followed by many Catholics. But see, laymen cannot judge clergy as heretics- but who will judge them? Not to say that the SSPX is in any position either- they’re as bad as the non-excommunicating, apathetic, complacent bishops around. Which bishops can you trust? I for one trust the Pope. I trust the consistent teachings of the successors of St. Peter, who is Prince of the Apostles.

      • Ioannes says:

        In response to Norm:

        1. The Magisterium does not advocate many things, yet people do them. The Magisterium teaches many things, yet people do things contrary to them. What are you going to do? From my part, I’d rather something be done about it. But from what seems to be a “Live and let live” attitude, it’s fine that the Magisterium both teach things and don’t teach things, and that people who call themselves Catholics do what they want, using the Magisterium when it is convenient to their purposes and agendas. Pope says X, liberal Catholics interpret Y, -conveniently forgetting the context Z of statement X.

        2. No, no. Tell me a communist, leftist state that does not call itself “People’s Democratic Republic of ______” and instead call themselves “The Autocratic Totalitarian State of _____”- Liberals always name themselves as such, like the “Committee for Public Safety” (guillotining Frenchmen, many having been priests, religious, or members of the aristocracy before turning on itself); or “Planned Parenthood” (murdering untold millions of unborn children for freedom’s sake); or “American Civil Liberties Union”. (In the U.S., legal battles concerning the separation of church and state originated in laws dating to 1938 which required religious instruction in school, or provided state funding for religious schools. The Catholic church was a leading proponent of such laws; and the primary opponents were the ACLU.)

        The Monarchy requires intelligence from its leaders. A Democracy requires popularity from its leaders. Which one will most likely have the better government?

        Democracy must be eradicated or at least limited to small communities. It is dishonest and makes emperors of people who do not care about governance, much less know anything about it. They will just as likely vote themselves into a society like Sodom and Gomorrah. (Just look at the Roman Empire, and the West- increasingly morally bankrupt societies) Even if one gives the people a lessons in civics, there will always be a movement towards what people like- forgetting that not everything you like is needed, and just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you don’t need it. Just look at how quickly a tax revolt occurred during George Washington’s presidency. The fallenness of humanity is forgotten by the absolute power of consensus and force of arms to back it.

        Be the lone voice who says “This is wrong” and “The People” will send you to the concentration camps or mock you mercilessly in the mass media, in their watering holes, in their literature, in their jokes, in their lecture halls…

        In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it. I reject this equality. God is the supreme Monarch, the Lord Over All. Absolute equality puts the creature on the same level as the Creator- what blasphemy!

        3. The bishops, at least in the U.S. are a bunch of women liberals have had their way with and are now, at best, useful idiots to the liberals, and at worst, their willing collaborating lackeys. What sort of punishment can you expect from these “fathers”? Why have they not meted out justice? Compassion? Mercy? Charity? Those virtues are shamed at how they are used to justify inaction. Granted, before this last election, there was so much defiance and something that barely resembles heroism coming from the clergy- but that was probably only because the issue of taxation (they call it fine) involved- the clergy had been doing nothing since before I was even born! And couple that with perverts in the clergy who abused their flock’s trust! How can I not be angry?

        I am a sinner. My sin is always before me. And I thank God that I am allowed to breathe every moment, and to live another day despite offending Him. But is it truly compassionate, merciful, and charitable to be complacent and apathetic about the slothfulness and non-action of bishops- and giving the Body and Blood of Christ to those who publicly SUPPORT immorality? What of priests who teach them falsely to begin with? For reasons such as keeping the collection plate full? To save face?

        Call me whatever you want, “intolerant” “uncharitable” “imbalanced” and so forth, but I will be restless knowing that the state of the Church where I live. And if any of you fear God, you would be restless too- I suspect there will be no true rest until death!

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: 2. No, no. Tell me a communist, leftist state that does not call itself “People’s Democratic Republic of ______” and instead call themselves “The Autocratic Totalitarian State of _____”- Liberals always name themselves as such, like the “Committee for Public Safety” (guillotining Frenchmen, many having been priests, religious, or members of the aristocracy before turning on itself); or “Planned Parenthood” (murdering untold millions of unborn children for freedom’s sake); or “American Civil Liberties Union”. (In the U.S., legal battles concerning the separation of church and state originated in laws dating to 1938 which required religious instruction in school, or provided state funding for religious schools. The Catholic church was a leading proponent of such laws; and the primary opponents were the ACLU.)

        Indeed. Stated more simply and comprehensively, Satan is the Father of Lies.

        But if you would read the scriptures prayerfully with the same vigor with which you hurl venom at our bishops, who for better or worse constitute the magisterium of the Catholic Church, you would have known this.

        You wrote: The Monarchy requires intelligence from its leaders. A Democracy requires popularity from its leaders.

        Rather, a democracy requires intelligence from its citizens.

        Which is precisely why the elimination of real education from our public schools was a major objective of those who seek to impose totalitarian socialism on our country.

        You wrote: 3. The bishops, at least in the U.S. are a bunch of women liberals have had their way with and are now, at best, useful idiots to the liberals, and at worst, their willing collaborating lackeys.

        I think that this has changed substantially in the past couple decades.

        But that said, I agree that we do need some bishops with real backbone who are willing to impose canonical sanctions on those who act contrary to moral doctrine in the public sphere.

        Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        Norm, you wrote:

        Stated more simply and comprehensively, Satan is the Father of Lies.

        But if you would read the scriptures prayerfully with the same vigor with which you hurl venom at our bishops, who for better or worse constitute the magisterium of the Catholic Church, you would have known this.

        1. Yes, and I do not at all presume that any bishop is safe without the protection of the Holy Spirit, even the Pope, from whatever Satan plans and whatever God Wills- That is why we ask “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”…. We are all but human, so weak and so easy to corrupt and damage, and our Enemy is an angelic being, wiser and more powerful than any of us. That is why we have to be vigilant over ourselves and our leaders and at least care when they make mistakes and when they are leading us to the wrong path- just look at the amount of bishops and priests who have done so in the history of our Church! It is not as if I despair in the protection of the Holy Spirit, or do not believe that God will protect His Church, it’s just that we must be vigilant and firm- because there will be bishops who are nothing more than mercenaries who will flee when the wolves come especially in times like this. Conversely, we must encourage those bishops who show that they -do- care and are trying very hard to do right by God and His Church. Where are those bishops? I believe they exist, but I do not see them or hear them. At least where I live.

        Rather, a democracy requires intelligence from its citizens.

        Which is precisely why the elimination of real education from our public schools was a major objective of those who seek to impose totalitarian socialism on our country.

        2. And subjects of a monarch also require intelligence to understand the necessity of order, obedience, and cooperation within a body, the subjects being a member of the same body as the monarch. Otherwise, why are we bothering with theology in the Body of Christ? We must exist to glorify God and the attainment of Beatific Vision as the ultimate purpose of our lives. No earthly prince can give us that which only God can fully provide. Hence, the promises of a democracy ought to be suspect from the very beginning, in its anthropocentricity. I absolutely deny that The Kingdom of God is a democracy, hence the Church is not a democracy with its fundamental truths being dependent on the whims of popular caprice and sentiment.

        I think that this has changed substantially in the past couple decades.

        But that said, I agree that we do need some bishops with real backbone who are willing to impose canonical sanctions on those who act contrary to moral doctrine in the public sphere.

        I hope this is true, Norm. I really, sincerely hope this is true.

  3. Pingback: Troubling article about SSPX and antisemitism | Catholic Canada

  4. Mary says:

    I’d like to begin another subject:
    Your readers to learn about Münchausen by Internet{1}. It is a pattern of behavior in which Internet users seek attention by feigning disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention or sympathy to themselves.
    Please read the article and consider the following:
    The SSPX is not a cult, nor is it anti-Semitic. Read Marcia Rudin’s “Too Good to be True: Resisting Cults and Psychological Manipulation”. Here is an excerpt
    Groups That Aren’t Cults
    • are not deceptive; tell people what life in the group will be like; tell the real name of the group and its leadership.
    • allow people time to think over their commitments to it carefully.
    • respect the individual’s autonomy and independence.
    • respond to critics respectfully.
    • respect the family and one’s commitment to it.
    • have built-in controls to watch over their leader(s), so behavior and abuses can be monitored and corrected.
    Jeanette misleads the readership to believe that lay persons are members of the SSPX, it is a fraternity of priests, with supporting orders of sisters and monks (brothers, whatever you want to call them). Lay persons may attend mass and receive sacraments from the SSPX priests, but there are no memberships. I believe she was only a nun for 8 short years. So saying she was in this organization for 30 years is either an outright lie or accidentally misleading others. Was she allowed to think over her commitment? Frankly I never heard of anyone but her spending 8 years to decide whether or not to take their final vows as a nun. Her autonomy and independence were respected, she left the convent and chose your own life. No SSPX priest would ever interfere with someone’s family. Did they watch over their leader’s behavior? Yes, Bp. Williamson was corrected numerous times before finally being expelled. The SSPX is not a cult.
    I don’t feel the need to write more here, please read the comments on the PjMedia article.

    Try hard read this article with a discerning eye, don’t just blindly believe anything you read on the internet. God bless you all, Mary
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchausen_by_Internet
    and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchausen_syndrome

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Mary,

      You wrote: Frankly I never heard of anyone but her spending 8 years to decide whether or not to take their final vows as a nun.

      This actually is not so uncommon. For candidates for full profession in a religious order, the Codex Juris Canonici of the Catholic Church explicitly require only (1) a resident novitiate of not less than “one year and one day” without interruption and (2) a minimum of three years in temporary (or simple) vows, but these are minimums. In reality, many religious orders require (1) a resident period of postulancy, often two years in duration, (2) an additional year (for a total of two) in their novitiates before first profession, and (3) a longer minimum period of time — in some cases, as long as six years — in first vows before final profession. Additionally, there can be many reasons why a candidate might elect to renew her first vows for an additional period of time before making final profession. This is quite commonplace if, for example, the candidate is in school for the entire initial period of first profession and thus does not have an opportunity to experience work in the order’s apostolate during this period, as a candidate needs some experience in the order’s apostolate before making a permanent commitment to the order.

      Norm.

      • Mary says:

        Dear Norm, Well, I learned something today about novitiate lengths, thank you. But I don’t think it weakens the argument that Jeanette wasn’t in a cult. She chose her own path. They even graciously gave her employment as a teacher after she left the convent until she could find something she wished to do. She chose to study premed before marrying (another free choice). None of these examples show cultic control in her life. Jeanette and I were friends, she will not speak to me now and I hope she gets the help she needs to lead a happy life. I guess I could just not say anything and let people believe whatever they wish, it is nearly impossible to change someone that is prejudiced against you. But, you see, I love truth. If any of you have an opportunity, seek the truth. Visit an SSPX chapel, talk to our priests, have a doughnut and coffee with people like me. Our religious aren’t anti-semitic, sedevacantist cult-members, nor are the parishioners. We love the Holy Father and pray rosary after rosary for his intentions. May we all meet in heaven.

  5. Mary says:

    Sorry about all the typos, it was a poor rewrite from my comments on the pjmedia site. I am a busy person but should have take more time to do this. Please don’t let the poor grammar distract from the message! Regards….

    • EPMS says:

      I am sure the members of your chapel community are lovely people. That would not negate the underlying anti-semitism of SSPX, which has been noted by many commentators. As in many fringe organizations, when changing attitudes bring an unwelcome spotlight to bear on some of its practices or founding documents these are downplayed and the organization’s “mainstream” elements are repositioned front and centre. Those unable to get with the program quickly enough are sidelined or expelled.

      • Mary says:

        Thank you for being open-minded enough to have a conversation with me. Not only are there lovely people in our parish, our devout priest is an excellent man who loves God and leads his parish closer to Him. Before I address your valid points, could you further explain what you mean by, “Those unable to get with the program quickly enough are sidelined or expelled.” ?
        Do you agree that according to ICSA standards, the SSPX is not a cult?
        Thanks, Mary

  6. Mary says:

    I know that everyone is very busy in these happy days for your parish. EPMS, I am willing to continue the conversation if you would like to?
    Thanks, Mary

  7. EPMS says:

    No, I do not think SSPX is a “cult, ” for what that’s worth. I do think that it will inevitably face a crisis if the Pope presses on with his efforts to normalise relations. Sacrifices of belief and/or practice will have to be made and those who cannot accept them will be forced to acknowlege that their split with Rome is more or less permanent, pushing a remnant of SSPX towards the status of, say, The Order of the Magnificat of the Mother of God. As for expulsion of “dissidents” formerly tolerated by the organization, Bp Williamson is a perfect example. Certainly his views had been known for years within SSPX. Then negative media attention made him a liability and grounds were found for his expulsion.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: I do think that [the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)] will inevitably face a crisis if the Pope presses on with his efforts to normalise relations.

      The pope actually seems to be putting pressure on the SSPX from two directions.

      >> He is offering durable access to the Tridentine form of mass within the Catholic Church wherever the numbers of Catholic laity who wish it are sufficient to support it, clearly in the hope of drawing laity who have been supporting the SSPX back to the fold and thus drying up financial support for the SSPX.

      >> He also has offered an ecclesiastical structure compatible with the structure existing organization within the Catholic Church, contingent upon acceptance of the whole of Catholic doctrine articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church — including the paragraphs of Lumen gentium to which the SSPX has objected. It seems apparent that the clergy of the SSPX is split as to what to do here, and that a significant number want to accept the pope’s offer.

      You wrote: Sacrifices of belief and/or practice will have to be made and those who cannot accept them will be forced to acknowlege that their split with Rome is more or less permanent, pushing a remnant of SSPX towards the status of, say, The Order of the Magnificat of the Mother of God.

      The choice for the SSPX is clear: either accept the whole of Catholic doctrine or remain in schism. If some choose to return to full communion, the remnant will be smaller than the current organization — but the door for the remnant to return to full communion will remain open forever.

      You wrote: As for expulsion of “dissidents” formerly tolerated by the organization, Bp Williamson is a perfect example. Certainly his views had been known for years within SSPX. Then negative media attention made him a liability and grounds were found for his expulsion.

      I rather think that the grounds have long been there, and that the negative media attention might have been a factor in bringing the matter to a head.

      But having said that, there have been curious references in some of the Vatican’s public statements regarding the ongoing discussions with Bishop Fellay, ostensibly representing the whole of the SSPX, to the effect that the Vatican would “deal separately” with each of the other three bishops thereof. Given this context and Bishop Wilkinson’s record of strident objection to accepting the pope’s offer as unacceptable doctrinal compromise, one also wonders if the leadership of the SSPX might have concluded that his expulsion had become necessary for the society to accept the pope’s offer — and thus also whether there are more expulsions to come or whether the remaining bishops are more willing to yield. In other words, this could be a sign that the process is now moving forward.

      Norm.

      • Mary says:

        Norm?
        Do you also believe that the SSPX is not an anti-semitic cult? Do you think it could be wrong to re-publish this article?
        Thanks, Mary

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Mary,

        You wrote: Do you also believe that the SSPX is not an anti-semitic cult?

        I don’t believe that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is a cult.

        That said, I’m painfully aware that the SSPX has some individuals within it who have anti-semitic attitudes. I don’t know whether those individuals represent the official views of the SSPX or constitute a majority of its members.

        What I do know with absolute certainty, however, is that Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the SSPX remains in a state of schism due to unresolved doctrinal errors, and therefore that its clergy cannot minister in the Catholic Church.

        You wrote: Do you think it could be wrong to re-publish this article?

        No. One must make an article available to stimulate discussion of it, and discussion is the purpose of this forum. If the article is wrong, open discussion thereof should come to that conclusion.

        Norm.

      • Mary says:

        Norm,
        The article never mentions schism. It is about a cult, and unsubstantiated claims of a former nun that her convent was anti-semitic. She has no documentation other than no-longer-a-member Bp. Williamson, and a few words in a speech by Bp. Fellay, which I posted about previously.

        Everyone here seems to agree, SSPX is not a cult. IF the purpose of the re-publishing was to inspire discussion of anti-semitism, why not just publish the youtube of the speech in question?
        Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZrOMMfW5n0&feature=player_embedded

        At the risk of being labelled a conspiracy theorist, I see an underlying prejudice which is so much sadder. M. Fournier sums it up well, “We don’t need that kind of people in our church”. Our Jewish neighbors love us, my 12 year old’s best friend is Jewish. It took a Catholic voice to label me ‘that kind’.

    • Mary says:

      Well Norm,
      It sure looks like I am right about the prejudice as there is no further discussion.

      Most of the discussion here was centered on Ioannes’ interesting essay, not the article. EPMS, Norm and I all agree the SSPX is not a cult, it follows that the article is wrong. Does that mean that Deborah will reconsider the decision to re-publish this article and remove it from the site?

  8. Mary says:

    Thank you for agreeing the SSPX is not a cult.
    Yes, initially Bp. Williamson was tolerated as someone with a distorted view of history. His superiors wanted him to not speak publicly about anything but religion. He was corrected by being sent to Argentina, then ‘retired’ unwilling to England. Expulsion only came when he became even more disruptive. I think that the attempts to convert him to a normal view of history or at least a silent view of history, plus the years spent trying to do this, show the superiors of the SSPX were not reactive to media, but rather considered the possible loss of souls following a charismatic man. I join you in your fear that a remnant of the SSPX will cease to be Catholic, and this has happened before with the SSPV sedevacantists.
    Do you agree that Rabbi Di Segni’s declaration, “If peace with the Lefebvrists means renouncing the overtures of the Council [Vatican II], the Church will have to decide: them, or us!” doesn’t sound very friendly toward the SSPX? I think that everyone can agree that Bp. Fellay made a mistake by not mentioning names of people that are against the SSPX, but do you really think that the SSPX is Anti-semitic, even from its’ foundation? Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s dad was killed in a concentration camp, and he would have been beside his dad if he were in France. But during WWII, he was a Holy Ghost missionary converting people of Africa. His chief goal was to educate native priests to better catechize their own people. He loved God, and what he had been given (his faith) he passed down to a new generation of priests and seminaries.
    Will the SSPX always exist? I dunno. Perhaps not, but for a crucial time the priests of the SSPX taught the Baltimore catechism in America and offered the latin tridentine mass when it could be found no where else. I am grateful for them.
    Sorry I didn’t answer you more promptly or more elegantly, a few of the kids have the flu.
    God Bless you, Mary

  9. Mary says:

    A closing note to the site master and priests who read here:
    I don’t know a great deal about this site. I only came to see the commentary on the pjMedia article, then stayed and read for a while. I have tried to have a conversation because you all seemed fairly reasonable (some a bit passionate, but still reasonable). I now realize that EPMS is not the site’s blogmaster, so my last comment is directed to Deborah (did I get that right?) and the priests that read news here.
    If you wanted the world to know that Bp. Fellay spoke poorly, then report the news. Repeat his entire speech if you so wish. But, to regurgitate J. Pryor’s (note your spelling of her name is wrong) blogpost declaring the SSPX is an anti-semitic cultic organization, is a poor choice on your part, especially if you can acknowledge her declarations aren’t true. The SSPX is not a cult, nor are they anti-Semitic. I am not your standard litigious American, who would cry out libel. I just hope in the future you consider whom you are hurting if you choose to repeat scandal that you know isn’t true. If you acted fully understanding that you were promoting a lie, well, I think the priests will support me here, but the reality is you would be hurting your own soul. With power comes responsibility. None of us want to see you make a mistake like that. Hopefully I have found a way to communicate all of this without wounding anyone. My intent is certainly not to foster bad feelings.

    God bless every Anglican who becomes a Catholic, and may God have mercy on the Anglicans I love in southwestern England,
    Mary
    Blessed Richard Whiting, pray for all those who make bad compromises

    • Foolishness says:

      Dear Mary,

      I am not planning to take the original article down. I thought it was interesting and troubling, but I recognized it is one woman’s personal story and her opinion is her opinion. I am glad you have had your opportunity in the comments section to share your contrary view. This blog is mainly about Ordinariate-related issues and whatever else I find interesting and worth posting to see if a discussion ensues. I don’t necessarily agree with the writer of that article, or with you for that matter. There is a certain amount of interest in the SSPX here in terms of parallels some have drawn to the Traditional Anglican Communion’s former efforts to come into the Catholic Church in one piece. Yes, there are lots of areas where analogies break down and many have observed the SSPX could fracture just as the TAC did should Rome make an offer and parts of the body refuse to return to a regularized state. If you would like to write an article about your experiences in the SSPX or to do a more detailed critique of the article, I’d be happy to consider posting it here for you.

      Deborah

  10. Mary says:

    I Guess Objective Truth Is Dead.
    Deborah, how would you feel if an old friend held a personal grudge against the TAC and publically went about the blog0sphere declaring the TAC was a cult? Would you honor and respect her personal opinion? Or, would you be wounded to the heart and reach out to her on a personal level as I did and say “are you Ok? Something awful must have happened to you to make you so bitter and angry to say such horrible things that just aren’t true. “ After I reached out I got no reply, friended her on her new facebook account and got rejected; then she wrote another article about the SSPX being a cult telling how her friends shun her.

    With a deep sigh, I went public. Made personal pleas on the blogs, ask her to reply to straightforward questions that I know the answers to, but clearly show she never was in a cult. “Did you have money stolen from you, were you assaulted, did anyone try to limit or control the size of your family, were your children taken from you, how did you experience mind control via newsletter and less than 5 Bp. Williamson sermons a year”, etc. Eventually I even got protestants on PjMedia to state it doesn’t look like she was in a cult.

    Finally I find myself talking to (mostly, with notable exclusions) reasonable Catholics who all agree the SSPX is not a cult. Then you tell me “her opinion is her opinion” but we are Catholic! Objective truth matters! Talk to your priests, I think it is a very serious matter to republish things that aren’t true.

    I have kids, my life is busy, but somehow I’ll find the time to tell you stories of the priests of the SSPX. I repeat again, only the priests, nuns, and brothers are members of the SSPX; I am a laywoman who has had the joy to attend a latin mass and be given the sacraments and taught catechism by SSPX priests since I was a little child in 1979. I see no point in writing a more detailed critique of Jeanette’s (you still have her name spelled wrong) article, why republish lies I have already refuted?

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Mary,

      I am a laywoman who has had the joy to attend a latin mass and be given the sacraments and taught catechism by SSPX priests since I was a little child in 1979.

      Then you should be aware that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) fell into a state of schism, and thus ceased to be part of the Catholic Church, upon the illicit ordinations of four members of the SSPX as bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer. Although Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the canonical penalty of automatic ecommunication reserved to the Holy See incurred under canon 1382 of the Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law), he has also stated explicitly that the state of schism remains, that the SSPX is not part of the Catholic Church, and that the members of the SSPX cannot licitly perform any Catholic sacramental or liturgical ministry.

      Although the SSPX does not admit lay people to formal membership, your claim to be Catholic while adhering to such a body for such a protracted period of time is highly dubious at best. Alternatively, any Catholic who adheres to such an organization is very clearly in a state of grave disobedience to the pope and grave sin against the unity of the church.

      Norm.

      • Mary says:

        Norm, you seem like a nice guy. If you are interested read this, http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspx_schismatic.htm

        Here is another article you may wish to read:

        http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

        This is a quote from the article titled, “Cardinal Castrillón: SSPX not in schism”

        “Later in the March 17 interview, Cardinal Castrillón affirmed once again publicly, “The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se, but its history has included some schismatic actions…”

        I did not come here to discuss schism, but the article reprinted here by Deborah. Specifically I came here to address the false charge of cultism. Don’t you think that a statement is either false or true, and the purpose of discussion is to seek truth? I find Deborah’s logic frustrating, as well as the name-calling. Do you have a priest that you can ask, would it be wrong to reprint something you know is not true? Maybe you can help her.
        Regards, Mary

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Mary,

        You wrote: Norm, you seem like a nice guy. If you are interested read this, http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspx_schismatic.htm

        Here is another article you may wish to read:

        http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

        This is a quote from the article titled, “Cardinal Castrillón: SSPX not in schism”

        “Later in the March 17 interview, Cardinal Castrillón affirmed once again publicly, “The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se, but its history has included some schismatic actions…”

        Clearly the article published by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) represents its view, and not necessarily that of the magisterium.

        I have no idea who is behind the “Renew America” web site, so I cannot ascertain whether they have portrayed Cardinal Castrillón’s words correctly or whether the writers on that site have taken his words out of context. But in any case, the pope addressed the status of the SSPX personally in the motu proprio Ecclesiae untitatem of 02 July 2009, by which he reorganized the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to deal more effectively with the actual situation. Here are the pope’s actual words (boldface added).

        4. In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

        If the SSPX were not in a state of schism, it would have no need “to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church” because it already would be in a state of full communion. Further, since its clergy “cannot legitimately exercise any ministry” within the Church, it is clear that they can only do so outside the Catholic Church.

        Norm.

      • Mary says:

        I don’t see that our Holy Father said the word schism anywhere. There are a lot of politics involved and I don’t pretend to be a theologian. But a regular person can see there is no change in the Bishops, yet the ‘excommunication’ is lifted. Our stance has always been the first excommunication was invalid, no canon lawyers, no trial, etc. We believe our Holy Father acknowledged that.
        Are we in ‘full communion’ with our local bishops? Well, we pray for them at every mass, but the situation needs clarification and rectifying. About the sources, who better to define their situation than the guys that suffer from the consequences? The other article is reprinted from ‘The Remnant” a Catholic newspaper, but I couldn’t give it to from that site as it costs. Seriously I am not here to scrap with you.

        I think you are a good guy and respected by Deborah. I am hopeful you will help her. She seems mixed up about truth, and opinions. Do you have a priest you can ask that she would trust who could answer, would it be wrong to reprint something you know is not true?
        Best wishes, Mary

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Mary,

        You wrote: I don’t see that our Holy Father said the word schism anywhere.

        True. But, in the first sentence that I boldfaced, he says that they are not in full communion — which is precisely what “schism” means.

        You wrote: There are a lot of politics involved and I don’t pretend to be a theologian.

        Yes, and the pope is not averse to using alternative terminology when use of the more common terminology causes pastoral difficulty. In discussions about the reception of Anglican Christians into ordinariates, for example, many of the assisting priests referred to “chrismation” (the Byzantine term for the sacrament of confirmation) because the term “confirmation” was causing confusion with confirmation in the Anglican tradition, which the Catholic Church holds to have no sacramental effect.

        You wrote: Our stance has always been the first excommunication was invalid, no canon lawyers, no trial, etc.

        This statement reflects serious misunderstanding of canon law. Note Canon 1314 of the Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law) provides for two types of penalties.

        >> A ferendae sententiae penalty occurs when a bishop or a tribunal imposes it.

        >> But a latae sententiae penalty is automatic, taking effect immediately upon commission of the forbidden act.

        The acts which carry latae sententiae penalties obviously are eggregious, like the following examples.

        >> Apsotacy, Heresy, and Schism — Excommunication (Canon 1364)

        >> Discarding Consecrated Species — Excommunication Reserved to the Apostolic See (Canon 1367)

        >> Use of Physical Force Against the Roman Pontiff — Excommunication Reserved to the Apostolic See (Canon 1370)

        >> Use of Physical Force Against a Bishop — Interdict (also Canon 1370)

        >> Absolution of Accomplice in Sexual Sin — Excommunication Reserved to the Apostolic See (Canon 1378)

        >> Simulation of Mass or Sacrametal Absolution — Interdict (Canon 1378)

        >> Direct Volation of the Seal of the Confessional — Excommunication Reserved to Apostolic See (Canon 1388)

        >> False Accusation of Sexual Solicitation during Confession — Interdict (Canon 1390)

        >> Cleric Attempting Marriage — Suspension (Canon 1394)

        >> Perpetually Professed Religious Attempting Marriage — Interdict (Canon 1394)

        >> Procurement of Completed Abortion — Excommunication (Canon 1398)

        And now we come to Canon 1382:

        Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

        By this canon, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, and the four bishops that they ordained on 30 June 1988 automatically incurred the canonical penalty of excommunication by performing these episcopal ordinations without the necessary papal mandate. Note that the Vatican’s statement after these ordinations did NOT impose the penalty, but rather merely declared, and thus informed the public, that the affected individuals had themselves incurred the penalty by their own actions.

        You wrote: About the sources, who better to define their situation than the guys that suffer from the consequences?

        You wrote: Are we in ‘full communion’ with our local bishops? Well, we pray for them at every mass, but the situation needs clarification and rectifying.

        No, it’s actually much simpler than that. If one is not in full communion with the pope, one is not in full communion with any Catholic bishop because one is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, either.

        When the pope says personally that an organization and its members are NOT in full communion with the Catholic Church, that’s about as definitive as it gets. There is no appeal.

        You wrote: I think you are a good guy and respected by Deborah. I am hopeful you will help her. She seems mixed up about truth, and opinions. Do you have a priest you can ask that she would trust who could answer, would it be wrong to reprint something you know is not true?

        This may surprise you, but I have never met Deborah in person. We know each other only through discussion on this blog and a couple others. I also have never been to Ottawa, and I have never met any of her sodality’s clergy.

        Having said that, I cannot say that the original article by Jeannette Pryer is wrong. Her experience, apparently in France, apparently is not the same as your experience, but in any case her report is not at all inconsistent with the comments by the Canadian superior of the Society of St. Pius X in response to which the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops deemed it necessary to issue a corrective statement.

        And again, I see nothing wrong with publishing a quotation from the article, with attribution, to stimulate discussion of the questions that it raises.

        Norm.

  11. Foolishness says:

    There are people who say the TAC was, well, not a cult, but an organization led by charlatans and vagantes. I can choose to engage them, or not and perhaps by not engaging them deprive them of the oxygen that continuing to debate them gives.

    I don’t think your opinion is any more objective truth than your former friend’s. Your continuing to post in this thread merely keeps the article you detest so much easy to access when, if you had made your case and stopped insisting that everyone see things your way, the post would have been buried long ago by new material.

    I do not think SSPX is a cult though your friend might have found the groupthink and pressure from people who insisted they had objective truth and that you must come to their way of thinking might have given rise to her impression.

  12. Mary says:

    Wow. You don’t think the SSPX is a cult, yet you published this article. Why publish it then? M. Fournier just states your shared bias in a clearer, less palatable fashion.
    I am grateful for our interaction, I have learned that a person can say ‘I agree, the SSPX is not a cult, but that is only your personal opinion and you are not capable of stating objective truth’. I believe that summed up the essence of your comment above. I would think your comment was outright prejudice, but then you group yourself with me. Why can’t my opinion, EPMS’, Norm’s, and your opinions that the SSPX is not a cult be objective truth? This is a rather basic thought, does objective truth exist? Does anyone’s opinion matter if they are not on the side of truth? Don’t you see the flawed logic here?
    What a nice touch to say that since I speak out on the side of truth that I am a pressuring group thinker. Talk to your priests, I still think you are making a mistake to publish lies.
    If I wrote about all the good priests I have encountered in the SSPX and told stories of all the good they accomplished, it wouldn’t matter. You’d just find mean things to say about them.
    You are right. I give up. I won’t try and reason anymore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s