Since we started the websites www.sspx-schism.com in June 1998, and www.sspx-cult.com in August 1998, we've received many e-mail "letters" from visitors. Many people ask us questions about the SSPX and the Catholic Faith in general. We hope that by publishing the questions and their answers, we will help others.
In the questions that follow, we've removed the names of persons and
places, in order to preserve privacy and anonymity, and also to prevent
anyone from receiving threats and from being harassed by supporters of
the SSPX like we have been.
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 16:40:23 EST
To: comments@sspx-schism.com
Subject: Schism website
Do you know if it is valid to attend an SSPX Mass?
I found your website interesting.
In Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary,
[name withheld]
Our Response
To answer your question:
Yes, the Masses said by SSPX priests are valid. When I say valid, I mean that the bread really becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine really becomes the Blood of Christ. Unfortunately, most Masses said by priests in parishes are not valid.
I would never attend Sunday Mass where the New Mass is said, even if I knew that such a Mass was valid. The New Mass, even when it is valid, is a terrible offense to God. (A full explanation of this is quite long, so I'll spare you this). Basically, the New Mass is bad because it lacks the reverence and respect due to God that should be found in a true Mass.
Despite the fact that the Masses said by SSPX priests are valid, I do not advise people to attend them, however. This is because of the danger that the SSPX is in schism and is a cult.
What I advise people to do is to go to an independent priest, or a priest of the Ukrainian Catholic rite. Depending on where people live, this may not be possible. If it was not possible to attend a true Mass, Archbishop Lefebvre used to advise people to stay at home on Sunday and read their missal.
I guess we are all in the same boat in this modern day crisis in the Church. I can't really tell you or anyone what to do.
The best thing we can all do is to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary for guidance so that we will know the right thing to do. For this intention, Our Lady of Good Counsel is particularly powerful (in addition to a daily rosary).
I hope this answers your question.
On the eve of the Immaculate Conception,
John Thomson
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999
To: comments@sspx-schism.com
Subject: Schism website
I find your website very interesting and informative. However, I do have some questions.
Was the lottery prize intended to be "a trip to a topless beach"? Or just a vacation to Cancun, which happens to have topless beaches? This would make a difference in my mind. (Eg: first prize-a gift certificate to a shopping mall which happens to have an adult bookstore)
Regarding marriage annullments: I understand that this is not a part of the SSPX jurisdiction, therefore should not be done. But why are the members of the society asking the bishops to do so? My theory being that maybe they are discouraged to do so in another parish. Only because they ARE members of the SSPX, which is seen as "schismatic". Where would an SSPX member go to get a marriage annullment? If they went to their local parish, they may not be welcomed (so to speak) because they are a member of the SSPX. This doesn't make it right, but it IS a problem.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to your response.
[name withheld]
Our Response
Thank you for your e-mail.
First question:
On the choice of the lottery prize destination. It is true that the
prize chosen was to be a trip to Cancun Mexico, which happens to have topless
beaches. I am willing to concede that when Fr. Castel chose Cancun as the
new prize destination, he did not know that it had topless beaches.
However, topless or not, any public beach today is an occasion of mortal sin, and hence it is a mortal sin to send someone to any public beach.
Your analogy of the shopping mall is not quite exact. A better analogy is that of a gambling casino, which just happens to have strip tease shows. You might argue that someone could go to the gambling casino totally unaware that the strip shows exist there, however, going to the gambling casino itself is an occasion of sin, whether it has strip tease shows or not.
As for the question of marriage annulments. It is true that because certain laypeople attend Mass at SSPX Mass centers, the local bishop or parish priest would not look kindly at helping them get an annulment. However, in past years, it was the practice of priests in the SSPX to refer any marriage annulment cases to the Roman Rota, the marriage tribunal in Rome. (When I was a seminarian in the SSPX seminary in Winona, they told us that a certain priest at St. Marys, KS successfully referred marriage annulment cases to Rome more than once, just as an example). Any Catholic has the right to appeal to the Roman Rota. And, as I've said, SSPX priests have successfully sent cases to Rome and got them heard.
My point is that there was a time when the SSPX did not grant marriage annulments themselves, and they managed to get the job done in another way. I still maintain that they grant marriage annulments without necessity, and hence the Church does not give them the jurisdiction to grant these annulments.
I hope this clarifies things for you.
In Christo Jesu,
John Thomson
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999
To: comments@sspx-schism.com
Subject: Re: Schism website
Dear Mr. Thomson
I appreciate your quick reply, and taking the time to answer my questions. I agree that your analogy of the casino was probably a better one.
Again, regarding the marriage annullments, is the SSPX still doing so? And if so, why? I am so afraid that our Catholic Churches are in such distress. May I ask where you attend Mass now? It is a hard decision when I see so many strange things going on in the churches.
Again, thank you
[name withheld]
Our Response
Dear JC:
As far as I am aware, the SSPX still grants marriage annulments. For one thing, we have the letter of Bishop Williamson of March 1998, in which he states that the SSPX has been granting marriage annulments over the past few years. Bishop Williamson gives no indications in this letter that the SSPX has any intention of stopping this practice.
As well, I heard from one of the District Superiors of the SSPX (who wishes to not have his name mentioned) that last summer (1998) he was visiting the SSPX headquarters in Switzerland and that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais assured him that marriage annulments in the SSPX "is a growing problem". Such a comment coming from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais would seem to indicate that the SSPX has no intention of stopping their policy of granting marriage annulments.
I agree that the Catholic Church is in great distress today. This distress leaves us with choices to make. I certainly don't suggest for a moment that these choices are easy.
I have the good fortune of having a choice of where I can go to Mass. I happen to live in an area where there are Catholic churches of different rites. There are different rites in the Church. Most of us know the Roman rite. This is the rite (or branch) of the Church that had the liturgy in Latin until 1969, and now has imposed a new liturgy which many Catholics reject as being liberal, modernist, etc.
However, other rites have liturgical traditions which are very ancient, going back to one of the twelve Apostles. The Roman rite goes back to St. Peter. The Ukrainian rite, which is the rite of the church which I attend, traces the origins of its liturgy back to the Apostle St. James of Jerusalem.
Anyway, the Ukrainians have not changed their liturgy since Vatican II. I attend the most conservative Ukrainian church in my area. Most people live in places where they don't have the choice of churches that I do. They have tough choices.
Certainly, since I have come to the conclusion that the SSPX is in schism, I cannot recommend that anyone go to Mass at their Mass centers. As another choice, some people have the possibility of attending the Latin Tridentine Mass offered according to the Indult of 1984. But, in most cases, the bishop that allows such an Indult Mass requires the people to sign a statement that they consider the New Mass of Vatican II to be equally acceptable as the old Tridentine Mass. I cannot recommend that anyone go to Mass under these conditions.
After you eliminate these two possible places where people can find the Latin Tridentine Mass, most people don't have any Latin Mass they can attend. Archbishop Lefebvre said that if the only Mass that you can attend is the New Mass of Vatican II, then it is better for you to stay home from church on Sunday morning and read your missal.
Unfortunately, unless people can find a Latin Tridentine Mass said by an independent priest, this is the best I can recommend for them.
I hope this helps you.
In Jesus & Mary,
John Thomson
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999
To: comments@sspx-cult.com
Subject: Cult website
Gentlemen:
I have read with interest and admiration your web site dealing with SSPX and its clerics.
I think your argument that they are in schism by virtue of their granting annulments for which they have no jurisdiction is a good one.
Your arguments and definitions of schism raised in my mind several questions. The various definitions of schism that you use seem to say that a failure to be in communion with other members of the Church especially to "raise up an altar against the altar of the bishop" is also classified as schism. Does this mean that the very act of establishing a public chapel is schismatic? If not, why not?
[name withheld]
Our Response:
Let us then consider the question of whether the act of establishing a public chapel is an act of schism. There are two possible scenarios in which the setting up of a chapel independent of the local bishop would be justified:
a) the local bishop is in schism: if the local bishop is in schism,
then clearly to set up a public chapel "against him" is NOT an act of schism.
b) the local bishop is a heretic: if the local bishop is a heretic,
then one would be justified in setting up an independent chapel, if otherwise,
souls would be in danger of contracting the heresy of the bishop, especially
if he was enacting "reforms" that tended to support his heresy. Besides
which, if he is a heretic, then he is automatically excommunicated, and
as in case a) above, it is not schismatic to set up a public chapel "against
him".
[Rather than repeat the arguments proving that today's bishops are in schism and heresy, we will merely refer the reader to the document Is Your Bishop a Schismatic or a Heretic? ]
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999
To: comments@sspx-schism.com
Subject: Schism website
Hi
I wanted to know what are your personal views of the Society of Saint Pius X.
In Christ
[name withheld]
Our Response
My personal views are fairly well summarized in our two websites, sspx-schism.com and sspx-cult.com.
In brief, I am convinced that Archbishop Lefebvre, who founded the SSPX,
was a holy man, and that indeed, the events of the past few years show
that if it were not for him, the Pope would not have acted to spread the
True Mass like he has. It is safe to conclude that since restoring the
True Mass
was a work pleasing to God, Archbishop Lefebvre was actually chosen
by God to do this work. (There are no "accidents" in the history of the
Church, where a "bad guy" did something significant in restoring something
good in the Church. If you can find one such case, I'd honestly be
interested in knowing about it).
Furthermore, I do not consider the consecration of bishops in 1988 to be an act of schism, since the new bishops were not given jurisdiction. (To give jurisdiction to a bishop without the permission of the Pope is an act of schism). But now, after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, these new bishops HAVE taken jurisdiction upon themselves, and because of this, they are now in schism.
Besides being in schism and not obeying the Laws of the Church, many members of the SSPX, including those at the very top, do not obey their own rules, given to them by Archbishop Lefebvre, and they do not follow other clearly expressed intentions of their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre knew Church Law, and he knew the limits of what he could and could not do within the Law. (He never granted any marriage annulments). His successors in the leadership of the SSPX don't care what the Law says: they just do what they want. And if anyone tries to tell them that the SSPX is wrong, they get kicked out by the SSPX leaders. (This is just one indication that besides being in schism, the SSPX is also a cult).
Because the SSPX is in schism, people should be discouraged from attending Mass at any of the SSPX chapels.
I hope this helps.
In the following letter, the writer asks several questions which we answered in a reply sent to him. The questions and their answers can be found below. We've also included the letter in our section: "Some Letters we've received" because the writer specifically asked us to.
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999
To: comments@sspx-cult.com
Subject: Cult website
Why don't you publish the three letters written to the SSPX hierarchy? Is it perhaps because they aren't helpful to the case?
Also, why is it that everyone who has a personal problem with the society always ends up "proving" that the society is in schism? Didn't you deal with this issue when you investigated being a seminarian? Did something change between then and now?
I constantly see people leave the Society because they have been hurt by something someone has done. What they end up doing is justifying a personal situation via canon law. It appears that's what's being done here also.
Priests are human too. Through the grace of God they do the best they can. Why not pray for them rather than idict them? Isn't that what our Lord said to do?
I'd love to see this letter on your website. It would be the only one that doesn't give you glowing reviews. And one of the few with a name and address.
JD
San Antonio, TX
Why don't you publish the three letters written to the SSPX hierarchy?
Is it perhaps because they aren't helpful to the case?
Our Response
The bulk of the letters concern events with persons in the SSPX churches
in the Toronto area. There are two reasons why we haven't put these letters
on the websites:
1. The letters were originally sent to the bishops, and contain private
matters relating to people's private lives. In the case of some matters,
if we were to write about these things, even with the names changed, the
local situation here is so close-knit, that it would be easy to guess who
we were writing about anyway, and the people involved would be affected
in a negative way. Most of the people that we wrote to the bishops about
are victims. They told us their stories, in some detail, knowing that we
were going to tell these stories directly to the bishops. We prefer to
publicly write about the perpetrators of these crimes and not to make public
their victims.
2. We would have to do some serious editing of the letters, to remove
everyone's names, or at least to "change the names to protect the innocent".
By the time that this was done, there wouldn't be much left of the letters.
(Especially if we did whatever we could to protect their privacy). Besides
this, one thing that becomes evident is that the same names occur again
and again in several letters. This aspect would be lost if we did major
editing.
We think it is significant that the SSPX bishops reacted to our letters with threats of expulsion. If our letters had contained something ridiculous like: "Bishop Fellay has a big nose" then most probably the bishops would have dismissed us a some kind of crackpots. We receive letters of complaints like this all the time, with people accusing Michael and I of ridiculous things like "packing each other's fudge" (whatever this might mean). For the most part we ignore these letters. (We certainly don't want to put them on our websites) [unless the writers of these letters insist on it].
In our case, the bishops thought that what we wrote to them, with the names and telephone numbers of people who gave us evidence, was serious enough that they had to do something to stop us. As someone commented: their reaction was not that of innocent men. After writing our first two letters with many accusations against Fr. Castel, who had been stationed in Toronto, Bishop Fellay called Fr. Castel to SSPX headquarters in Switzerland and after questioning him, transferred Fr. Castel to Mexico. Perhaps this was a coincidence, or perhaps it had something to do with the letters we wrote. Bishop Fellay never told us.
Why is it that everyone who has a personal problem with the Society always ends up "proving" that the Society is in schism? Didn't you deal with this issue when you investigated being a seminarian? Did something change between then and now?
Our Response
Yes. I [John Thomson] stopped being a seminarian in 1991. The current
Superior General, Bishop Fellay was elected in 1994, and it seems that
the problems we now see began after his election. It wasn't until we ran
into personal problems with the SSPX that we even considered the possibility
that something might be wrong. If you don't even think that something is
wrong, you're not going to try to find out why something is wrong.
Why not pray for the Priests rather than indict them? Isn't that what Our Lord said to do?
Our Response
As a matter of fact, a lady who has also read our websites has made the same suggestion. We intend to add to the website a request for prayers for the SSPX priests and bishops. In retrospect, this is only fair, as it is because of the SSPX that we know the faith (and Canon Law) as well as we do. And it is also a good thing to pray for priests anyway. We probably know more than one third of the priests of the SSPX personally, and we would like nothing better than for them to have the grace to realize that something is wrong. Or if we are wrong, maybe God can let us know why or how.
We still think that if the priests are leading people astray, then the people should be made aware of these things.