Many people today say that they "believe in" something. In common language, we say that to believe in something or someone is to have faith in them. Is this the same kind of faith that Jesus spoke of when He said: "Thy faith hath made thee whole" (Mk 10:52), or that Pope Pius XII spoke of when he said: "Only those are to numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration (Baptism) and who profess the True Faith" (Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, D2286) ?
Pope John Paul II wrote to Cardinal Willebrands, President of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, on the 500th anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther (Nov 10, 1983), saying that:
"One must be enlightened by the convincing manner of the proud religious spirit of Martin Luther, animated by a burning passion for the question of eternal salvation." (Peter Lovest Thou Me, Abbé Daniel LeRoux, Instauratio Press, 1989, p. 105; Documentation Catholique #1863, Dec 4, 1983, p. 1071)
Does having a "proud religious spirit" or a "burning passion for the question of eternal salvation" guarantee that someone has faith?
Many people today blindly obey religious "authorities" without thinking, as usually happens in a religious cult.
• This leads us to ask other questions regarding such people:
"Is faith a "feeling" ?"
• This also leads us to ask questions about the religious authorities who encourage their followers to blindly believe them:
We can only really answer the above questions after a thorough look at
the more fundamental question: "What is true faith?"
We've already said that when we have confidence in someone, it is common to say that we have "faith" in that person. Similarly, when someone tells us something that we can't verify with our own experience or senses, we often say that we "take it on faith" that what they say is true. In both of these cases, we are speaking of human faith, and this is not at all what we mean when we talk about faith in God. Faith in God is rather theological faith, and this is what we will be referring to in our discussion when we say "True Faith."
Let us look at the Catholic Faith, which we will test to see if it is true theological Faith. Since we will be considering the SSPX later in this document, we will use the definition of the Catholic Faith found in the Catechism of St. Pius X:
"Faith is a supernatural virtue, which God infuses into our souls, and by which, relying on the authority of God Himself, we believe everything which He has revealed, and which through His Church He proposes for our belief." (Catechism of St. Pius X, question 9 On the Virtues)
So, the hallmarks of the Catholic Faith are:
We will comment on each of the above points:
1. Faith is a supernatural virtue, infused by God.
St. Thomas Aquinas, in his summary of Catholic theology, the Summa Theologica, teaches (S.T. II-II.6.1) that when someone has Faith, he (she) is raised up beyond their nature to something higher (to God). Certainly, all of us are capable of "self-improvement." However, the movement to something higher which is implied by Faith goes beyond any concept of self-improvement, which is simply reaching the potentials of the human nature we already have. So, although the act of believing is something that a believer does, nonetheless, no-one is capable of raising themselves beyond the potentials of their own nature, unless there were something outside of themselves helping. In the case of a believer, it is God's grace that helps him (her) rise up beyond their nature. This is in direct contrast to what is being preached by the New Age Movement, which says that we can become "gods" by our own efforts. Just like the promise of the serpent to Eve, this promise of the New Age Movement: "you will be like gods" is a false promise. All we could do through our own efforts would be the perfecting of some sort of natural virtue, and this is far short of what we could become if we allowed God to help us.
2. By Faith, we believe everything that God has revealed.
A condition for having Catholic Faith is that we must accept everything that is revealed by God. This is also true of theological faith, because if we have faith in God, we will believe everything revealed by God. There can be no middle position or compromise. If you don't believe everything God has revealed, then that is a sure sign that somehow, at some point, you don't have faith in God.
This idea was taught by Pope Leo XIII (Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896):
"He who dissents in even one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme Truth and the formal motive of faith." (emphasis ours)
This agrees with what St. Thomas Aquinas says in the Summa Theologica (S.T. II-II.5.3):
"Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith."
So, we must believe everything revealed by God to have theological faith. But, how do we know what has been revealed by God?
3. Everything we must believe has been proposed to us for belief by God's Church.
The object of the Catholic Faith (what things Catholics must believe) has been revealed by God and is taught by His Church. Only by having one authoritative source and interpreter of God's revelation can the individual believer be assured of knowing exactly what must be believed, without any confusion. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that everyone goes directly to God. The Catholic way is more certain than the Protestant way, as "private interpretation" of God's revelation is fallible and if everyone is left on their own, the result would be an uncountable number of conflicting versions of God's revelation. This is in fact what we see today among Protestant sects, and sadly, we also see this in the Post-Vatican II church, where everyone has abandoned the certain teachings of the past, in favour of new experimental "inspirations," "theories," and "interpretations." The crucial role that the Catholic Church plays in our Faith is brought to mind every time we say the creed: "Credo in Deum... et in apostolicam ecclesiam."
Thus we see that because Martin Luther rejected some of the things revealed by God and taught by His Church, he did not have the Catholic Faith. And so-called Catholics who "pick-and-choose" which Church teachings they want to believe, do not have the Catholic Faith either, since they deliberately deny one or more things revealed by God and taught by His Church. It really doesn't matter how sincere or passionate their "religious spirit" might otherwise be. You either accept all the Teachings of the Church or you don't.
We will answer this question by a series of logical arguments. We have intentionally simplified our argumentation as much as possible. If you have difficulty, please read and re-read this section. Hopefully, you will find that what we say simply makes sense.
We begin by examining the reality of things. In reality, God either exists, or God does not exist. It cannot be both, and it must be one or the other. And if God exists, this does not depend on us. No-one can make God exist or not exist simply by using their imagination, or by "believing" or not "believing." The same is true of a place, such as New York City. If New York City exists, it does not exist because I imagine or believe it exists. New York City existed before I was born, and (barring a nuclear war), New York City will exist after I die. And I can't make New York City stop existing by using my imagination, or by believing that it doesn't exist. And to say that "New York City exists for you" or "New York City is true for you" is utter nonsense, because no-one can cause New York City to exist or not exist by using their imagination or by believing.
It is possible to demonstrate, by rational argument, that God must exist, and that there must be only one God. St. Thomas Aquinas summarizes these rational arguments in the Summa Theologica (S.T. I.2). We will start with the assertion that God exists, and that there is, in reality, only one God. To demonstrate this convincingly will take us away from our topic.
If in reality, there is only one God, then (for example) Hindu and other "gods" do not exist. A "god" either exists in reality or does not exist in reality; you cannot make a "god" exist or not exist simply by using your imagination, or by "believing" or not "believing" that it exists. And not even a billion Hindu imaginations or beliefs can make Hindu gods exist. Neither does it make sense for a "god" to exist for some people and not exist for others. A "god" either exists or does not exist. Period.
Furthermore, in order that the human race not remain ignorant about God, the human race has been given Divine Revelation about God. Even considering that this revelation has been given to many persons over a long period of time, anything that God reveals must be consistent with previous revelations. God simply would not give a new message to someone that contradicts a message previously given to someone else. Truth does not contradict Truth. Therefore, there can only be one Divine Revelation to the human race, even though that revelation has been given over time. Any messages or writings that do contradict what we know to be truly part of what God has revealed, cannot be part of Divine Revelation. And so:
Therefore, along with Martin Luther, those Catholics who refuse to accept all the Teachings of the Church, not only do not have the Catholic faith, but they have no theological faith at all. Thus it is actually incorrect to say "the Protestant faith," because the Protestant "faith" is not really faith at all (unless you consider it to be some kind of human faith. It certainly doesn't come from God. Nor can such faith get anyone to heaven.)
4. We believe relying on the Authority of God who has revealed to us.
Finally, we believe because it is God who has revealed to us. If we were to believe merely because some human authority said so, even if they were religious leaders, this would only be human faith. To have Catholic Faith, we must believe because God has said so.
St Thomas Aquinas says that in order to have Catholic Faith, YES, a believer must think:
"It is proper to the believer to think with assent" (S.T. II-II.2.1)"To believe is an act of the intellect" (S.T. II-II.2.2)
It should be obvious that only those who CAN think are obliged to think in order to have faith. According Canon Law (the Law of the Church) everyone has a God-given ability to think except two groups of people:
(The above comes from Canon 12 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and Canon 11 of the 1983 Code). These persons are not considered to have the ability to think, nonetheless they have the virtue of faith which was infused into their souls when they received the sacrament of Baptism. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, speaking about Baptism in the Summa Theologica:
"The little child is made a believer, not as yet by that faith which depends on the will of the believer, but by the sacrament of faith itself, which causes the habit of faith." (S.T. III.69.6 ad 1)
And so, everyone who is above the age of reason and not mentally retarded is considered by the Church to have the ability to think. Whether or not they ever use their ability to think is another matter altogether!
Do you have to be a great intellectual to have faith? No. As we stated above, children below the age of reason, and mentally retarded persons, don't have to think to have faith through their Baptism, because they CANNOT think. Yet among all those people who have the ability to think, there are some who are smarter than others. Do those who are not as "smart" have to think in order to have faith?
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that everyone must know their religion according to their ability:
"Both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed... As to other minute points... men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office." (S.T. II-II.2.7)
"As regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in Divine Scriptures." (S.T. II-II.2.5)"The unfolding of the articles of faith is not equally necessary for the salvation of all, since those of higher degree, whose duty it is to teach others, are bound to believe explicitly more things than others are." (S.T.II-II.2.6 ad 1)
When looked at in this way, a so-called "simple faith" is one where someone knows only the primary articles of faith, those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed. However, even those with a simple faith must think about their beliefs in order to have faith.
There are several notions of what it means to believe in something,
or in other words, to have faith. Besides the Catholic Faith, which we
have shown is true theological Faith, we will consider only two others.
We begin with a brief comparison of these three kinds of faith:
|
|
|
|
|
| Dose this faith require thinking before believing? |
|
(fideists don't think at all) |
(modernists think after believing) |
| The internal process which the "believer" follows to arrive at "faith" |
|
|
|
| A statement summarizing the process of believing | "I think about this proposition and believe it because it is revealed with the Authority of God." | "I won't think, I just believe this proposition because an authority says so." | "I believe this proposition because it feels right." |
| What authority does the believer accept as a motive to believe? |
|
|
[modernists claim that their inner religious sense has been given to them directly by God] |
All other kinds of "faith" that are not Catholic are not really theological faith at all. However, for the sake of convenience, we will use the word "faith" when referring to these imposters.
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 defines Fideism as:
A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority. (Catholic Encyclopedia, article on Fideism)
So, the hallmarks of Fideism (and fideistic "faith") are:
Because fideists say that we can never be certain of what we think, it is rather obvious that fideistic "faith" does not require thinking. On the contrary, a fideist will discourage you from thinking, since thinking can't be "trusted."
Why would anyone want to promote fideistic "faith"? We can think of two reasons:
A fideistic "faith" which uses the authority of God as its reason for belief is illogical. This is because it is founded on a circular argument: you must believe that God exists before you can believe anything else, but you cannot believe that God exists without already believing that He exists, since you cannot believe in anything without the authority of God, and you could never begin to believe that God exists if you didn't already believe that He exists.
A fideistic "faith" which uses the authority of men as its reason for belief is dangerous. This is the "faith" of religious cults. With this kind of fideistic "faith," those in charge of a religious organization have absolute power over the believer, because they have control over the believer's mind. This would be true even if those in charge claim they are "holy" religious leaders. (A truly holy person would never claim that he (she) is holy, and would never demand that he (she) have such absolute control over a believer). Fideistic "faith" is an error that conservative-minded Catholics, who look to authority figures for answers, can easily fall into.
Many people believe that the Catholic Church demands blind faith from the people. Because of this, some think that the Catholic Church is a religious cult. Certainly, if the Catholic Church did demand blind faith, it would be reasonable to suspect that the Church was a religious cult. However, this idea is clearly false, as the Catholic Church has always insisted that people think about their Faith, unlike religious cults.
The first person who tried to teach others that thinking was not necessary for faith was the medieval heretic, Peter Abelard. St. Paul had said in his Letter to the Hebrews (11:1) that:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence [Latin: argumentum] of things that appear not."
(We have added the emphasis to the texts we quote in this section).
Peter Abelard changed this definition of St. Paul, saying instead that faith was:
"the estimation (or appreciation) [Latin: existimatio] of things that appear not" (Theologia scholarium II, PL 178, 1051).
Abelard had the audacity to think that he could "correct" the teachings of St. Paul. St. Bernard strongly fought against Abelard, because Abelard's new definition of faith as "estimation" or "appreciation" rejects all thinking:
"But as for these estimations/appreciations of the Academics, doubting all things they know nothing." (Tractatus de erroribus Abælardi, PL 182, 1061).
Abelard's many false teachings were condemned by the Council of Sens in the year 1140. In the 1200's, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote (as we've already seen) that someone has to think in order to believe:
"It is proper to the believer to think with assent" (S.T. II-II.2.1)"To believe is an act of the intellect" (S.T. II-II.4.2)
The idea that you have to think in order to believe again came under attack in the 1800's. On Dec 20, 1834, Pope Gregory XVI asked Fr. Louis Bautain to correct his teachings on the subject of Faith and Reason. After negotiating with Rome, Fr. Bautain had to agree to the following proposition:
"In regard to these various questions [of Faith and Reason], reason precedes faith and should lead us to it." (D1626)
Pope Pius IX meanwhile taught the necessity of thinking as a preparation for believing:
"Indeed, human reason, lest it be deceived and err in a matter of so great importance, ought to search diligently the fact of divine revelation, so that it can know with certainty that God has spoken, and so render to Him, as the Apostle so wisely teaches, 'a rational service' [Rom 12:1]." (Qui Pluribus, Nov 9, 1846, D1637)
Despite such clear teaching by the Pope, Fr. Augustine Bonnetty had to be asked in June 1855 by the Sacred Congregation of the Index to correct what he had been teaching on Faith and Reason. Fr. Bonnetty agreed to the following proposition:
"The use of reason precedes faith and leads men to it by the help of revelation and of grace." (D1651)
To settle the matter once and for all, the infallible Council of Vatican I (1869-70) condemned the idea that we should not think about our faith:
"right reasoning demonstrates the basis of faith" (D1799)
Vatican I also condemned those who say that thinking is useless to know God:
If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema. (D1806, Canon 1 on Revelation)
Vatican I also condemned those who say that we shouldn't think and that we should believe based on religious "feelings":
If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one’s internal experience or private inspiration: let him be anathema. (D1812, Canon 3 on Faith)
Fideistic "faith" (without thinking) is not Catholic Faith, but is rather the despotic faith imposed by unscrupulous religious cult leaders on followers who prefer not to think for themselves.
Pope St. Pius X, who wrote about the "faith" of modernists in the document Pascendi Gregis (D2077-2078), did not give a definition of modernistic "faith." His purpose in writing this document was to describe characteristics of modernists so that we could recognize modernism in action.
From the description of the "faith" of modernists given by the pope, we know that the hallmarks of modernistic "faith" are:
The modernistic believer does not think in order to believe, but rather listens to what is revealed by their religious sentiments and "feelings." The danger of modernistic "faith" is not limited to people with liberal theological views. Many conservative-minded Catholics, without thinking, unrestrainedly chase after the latest apparition, no matter how silly, approved by the Church or not, all based on the inner religious "feeling" they might have by being associated with an apparition. Thus, modernistic faith is an error that conservative-minded Catholics, who look for authentic religious experience, can easily fall into.
Modernistic "faith" is more dangerous than fideistic "faith" in many ways. Just as fideistic "faith" often results from the sin of sloth, so modernistic "faith" often results from the sin of pride. This is because the "inner religious feeling," and not the Catholic Church, is the determiner of all belief for someone with modernistic "faith." Through a continued habit of using only their own religious "feelings" to make judgements regarding their faith, a believer (liberal or conservative) can easily become their own pope, refusing to listen to the wisdom of the Church.
In one respect, modernistic "faith" is the complete inversion of all theological faith. This is because Catholic Faith proceeds from the top downward: from God, to the Church, to the believer; whereas modernistic "faith" proceeds from the bottom upwards: from the believer, to the Church. The Catholic Faith is God-centered; modernistic "faith" is self-centered.
Modernistic "faith," along with other aspects of modernism, was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in 1907 in the documents Lamentabili Sane and Pascendi Gregis.
There are several examples that show that the SSPX encourages a kind of faith that is not the Catholic Faith.
For some years now, the SSPX has been appealing to sensus fidei in order to explain why simple, unenlightened Catholics would join them after bypassing a crossfire argumentation zone of the Official Church vs. the SSPX.
The SSPX dedicates to the term "sensus fidei" a heading of its article "Neither Schismatic nor Excommunicated," which was first published in Italian and then translated into French, English and Spanish and spread world-wide. The opening sentence under that heading states:
"In the conflict appearing between "obedience" and Truth, better-informed Catholics have chosen the Truth, assured, in their sensus fidei, that only Truth will ensure union with the invisible Head of the Church who is Christ." (Originally appeared in the Courrier de Rome, Sept 1988; quoted in "Is Tradition Excommunicated," Angelus Press, 1993, p. 4)
We have found no occurrence of the term sensus fidei in any Church document prior to the Second Vatican Council, where it is used in item #12 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. It is officially translated into English as a "supernatural appreciation of the faith," although its true meaning was never defined by the Council.
The most immediate, the most natural, and the most plausible translation of sensus fidei is "sense of the faith." Cardinal Ratzinger explains the term "sensus fidei" in his "Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian," item 35, which we quote as follows:
The sense of the faith is a property of theological faith; and, as God's gift which enables one to adhere personally to the Truth, it cannot err. This personal faith is also the faith of the Church since God has given guardianship of the Word to the Church. Consequently, what the believer believes is what the Church believes. The "sensus fidei" implies then by its nature a profound agreement of spirit and heart with the Church, "sentire cum Ecclesia."Although theological faith as such then cannot err, the believer can still have erroneous opinions since all his thoughts do not spring from faith.
Despite this explanation of sensus fide by Cardinal Ratzinger, the term remains problematic:
Saint Thomas Aquinas seems to hint at an instinctive appreciation, not of Faith itself, but of things which belong or correspond to it:
"As by other virtuous habits a man sees what accords with those habits, so by the habit of faith a man’s mind is inclined to assent to those things which belong to the true faith and not to other things." (S.T. II-II:4:4, ad 3).
As the above shows, there is some sort of supernatural appreciation resulting from the faith, but this is not an appreciation of the faith.
It would be far more consistent both with clarity and with Catholic Tradition to use, like Saint Thomas, the term "the habit of faith", "the light of faith", or simply "Faith" instead of "sensus fidei", whether it mean "supernatural appreciation of the faith" or anything else. But consistency with clarity and with Catholic Tradition are no distinctive marks of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore, the ambiguous term "sensus fidei" is consistent with the Council which invented it!
It should be clear from what we've already said that an appeal to sensus fidei by the SSPX is no guarantee of orthodox Catholic Faith. (This follows first and foremost from the bewildering ambiguity of the term). On the contrary:
Thus we can see how the theological notion of "sensus fidei" can be abused, and now:
It is most ironic that the SSPX, which condemns Vatican II and Vatican II theologians, would use an invention of Vatican II theologians as the basis for its defence against criticism.
In one of its own official publications, the SSPX gives its own understanding of sensus fidei as follows:
"The only possible explanation [for the continuity and expansion of the SSPX] is sensus fidei, which gives the faithful a supernatural sensitivity, thanks to which they can know what the Church has always believed and taught. Sensus fidei somehow provides a theological conclusion that the faithful person cannot always explain and demonstrate. It will be the theologian’s role to demonstrate how right that conclusion is." (back cover. Ediciones Fundación San Pío X. Buenos Aires, 1991. Translated from Spanish).
In this quote, the SSPX explains sensus fidei as a "supernatural sensitivity."
The first sentence in the above quotation from the SSPX publication contains two errors. The first error is to use "sensus fidei" as a means by which a believer can have certainty about what he (she) believes. We've already discussed the ambiguities of the term "sensus fidei." These ambiguities alone make it impossible to use sensus fidei as a basis for any certainty.
The second error in the first sentence in the above quotation is to assume that if supporters of the SSPX have divine theological faith, then this necessarily explains the growth of the SSPX.
Someone may have divine theological faith in the true Catholic notion the Mass as a sacrifice, and in the divine foundations of the Catholic Church. Both are divine truths.
However, divine theological faith can never refer to the holiness of a recent and particular group in itself, irrespective of what they say or do.
The second sentence in the above quotation from the SSPX publication is illogical. It is a serious error of logic to speak of a theological "conclusion" made by a believer without any preceding argumentation. What the believer has as a result of sensus fidei could be called "postulate," "belief," "supposition"—anything but "conclusion." A conclusion made without argumentation makes as much sense as spaghetti made without flour.
We've already said that the term "sensus fidei" was not used in Church documents prior to Vatican II. Rather than find its roots in Catholic Tradition, the term "sensus fidei" (sense of the faith) is more likely derived from the modernist notion of an "inner religious sense." As we've already noted, Pope St. Pius X teaches in his condemnation of modernism, Pascendi Gregis, that this "inner religious sense," and not divine revelation, is the modernist's source of the Catholic religion (D 2077-2078).
The second and third sentences in the above quotation from the SSPX publication "Is Tradition Excommunicated?" refer to the way in which sensus fidei acts in the internal process followed by an SSPX believer in the act of believing. Let's number these two sentences:
1.& 2. "Sensus fidei, somehow provides a theological conclusion that the faithful person cannot always explain and demonstrate."
3. "It will be the theologian’s role to demonstrate how right that conclusion is."
Let's now look at how the sensus fidei of the SSPX
functions much like the "inner religious sense" of modernists with regard
to an act of faith. We'll use the last two sentences from the above quotation
as we've numbered them to describe the internal process followed by the
SSPX believer:
|
|
|
|
| What "faith" depends on |
|
|
| The internal process which the "believer" follows to arrive at "faith" |
|
|
| A statement that summarizes the process of believing | "I believe this proposition because it feels right." | "I believe this proposition because it feels right." |
Anyone who wants to have true theological faith should refuse an SSPX "faith" that comes from within the believer, but rather should want to have the Catholic Faith that comes from acceptance of the Teachings of the Church.
We have posted elsewhere on this website the letter that Fr. Marshall Roberts wrote to explain his reasons for leaving the SSPX. To read that letter in full, click here. We cite below a portion of that letter:
Some have accused me of being too "intellectual" and thus deceived by the devil. If I were not so preoccupied with theology, they say, I would never have left the bosom of the Society. A simple faith is more pleasing to God, they protest.
Contrary to what certain people told Fr. Roberts, Pope Leo XIII certainly taught, in his letter praising the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, that theology is a worthwhile preoccupation, especially as it prepares us to defend the Catholic Faith:
Since in the tempest that is on us the Christian faith is being constantly assailed by the machinations and craft of a certain false wisdom, all youths, but especially those who are the growing hope of the Church, should be nourished on the strong and robust food of doctrine, that so, mighty in strength and armed at all points, they may become habituated to advance the cause of religion with force and judgment, "being ready always, according to the apostolic counsel, to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you" [I Peter 3:15], and that they "may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" [Titus 1:9]. Many of those who, with minds alienated from the faith, hate Catholic institutions, claim reason as their sole mistress and guide. Now, We think that, apart from the supernatural help of God, nothing is better calculated to heal those minds and to bring them into favor with the Catholic faith than the solid doctrine of the Fathers and the Scholastics, who so clearly and forcibly demonstrate the firm foundations of the faith, its divine origin, its certain truth, the arguments that sustain it. the benefits it has conferred on the human race, and its perfect accord with reason, in a manner to satisfy completely minds open to persuasion, however unwilling and repugnant. (Aeterni Patris)
Fr. Roberts says in his letter that SSPX supporters tell him that he needs a "simple faith" to please God. But because the SSPX supporters also suggest to Fr. Roberts that he thinks too much, the "simple faith" they talk about is not the Catholic Faith, which requires thinking, but a fideistic "faith." The obvious conclusion is that, to remain in the SSPX, one should have a fideistic "faith," and not the Catholic Faith, which requires thinking. This fideistic "faith," necessary to remain in the SSPX, can also be expressed by the command: "don't think, just believe us."
We must ask the question: "Why should the SSPX fear and discourage reason (thinking)?" Why, unless they have developed opinions counter to reason? Reason as an aid to Faith was never discredited by the Church, and it is, after all, thanks to reason that Archbishop Lefebvre could draw many of his conclusions. When supporters of the SSPX say that the intellect or its exercise comes necessarily from the devil, and that theology is not worthy of much preoccupation, this is strong evidence of deviating anti-intellectual trends in the SSPX.
Another obvious question: "Why is it that anytime someone starts to think, they begin to discover reasons why they should leave the SSPX?" This can either be because:
If "a simple faith" without thinking (implying blind obedience) were to be made the sole rule to determine whether the SSPX should or may be trusted and followed, this would imply the gross superstition, indeed the idolatry, of the SSPX. Rather than saying "I believe because God has said so," the SSPX believer would instead say "I believe because the SSPX has said so." Thus the new creed of the SSPX would become: "Credo in Fellay... et in fellay-isticam ecclesiam"
We have posted elsewhere on this website the letter that Fr. Gary Campbell wrote to explain his reasons for leaving the SSPX. To read that letter in full, click here. We cite below a portion of that letter:
Originally I came to the Society of St. Pius X to seek freedom from the liberals: I did not want them to do my thinking for me. But now I find that the traditionalists are doing my thinking for me!
Further on in his letter, Fr. Campbell says that his attempts to think for himself were described by his superiors in the SSPX as "temptations." This astonishing admission by Fr. Campbell is further evidence that the SSPX discourages thinking on the part of its members. And since thinking is necessary to have the Catholic Faith, we see that the SSPX leaders prefer their members to have a fideistic "faith" which requires no thinking.
Recently, a reader of the website www.sspx-schism.com sent the following e-mail to the U.S. District Office of the SSPX. (Letter used with permission):
Dear Sirs,I met Mgr Lefebvre personally during his first visit to Buenos Aires in 1977, and I attended plenty of Masses at the local Society branch over several years. Mgr Lefebvre’s standpoint on the Second Vatican Council and on the Novus Ordo are compelling, and I adhere to them.
The website sspx-schism.com is very appropriate to turn souls away from the institution it refers to, while not turning them away from the holy Tridentine Mass. There is a great problem: the website contents look very much as though they were true.
Can you provide some elements for those who have read that website to think otherwise? It would be very good news to learn that such bad news are false and that you, being many and widespread, and representing holy doctrines and addressing many people’s keen personal concerns, are not like that website leads many readers to believe.
I kindly request you to let me know whether the SSPX has said or done anything about that website.
Since that website is compelling and influential, since the issues it explores are very important, since it is on Internet for a long time since, and since you have proved skilled in argumentation in other cases, therefore, if that website is wrong, there is every reason to believe you provide serious facts and arguments for Catholics to remain in your leadership with a clear conscience in spite of that website.
Conversely,
Since that website is compelling and influential, since the issues it explores are very important, since it is on Internet for a long time since, and since you have proved skilled in argumentation in other cases, therefore, if you provide no serious facts and arguments for Catholics to remain in your leadership with a clear conscience in spite of that website, there is every reason to believe the same website is right.
Amicus Plato, sed magis amica Veritas.
[A friend of Plato, but a greater friend of Truth]
Our reader received the following non-answer from the layperson in charge of the SSPX U.S. District website (www.sspx.org):
"To answer your first question; no, the Society of Saint Pius X is not in schism, and a brief canonical and practical review of the various facts is suffice [sic] to show this.The District Office is aware of the sspx-schism.com web site and others like it, and we can certainly understand your concern for them, however, the basis of our own web site is not to be argumentive [sic], but rather explanatory and objective. All of the objections that the web sites in question have to offer, are readily answered on our own, though perhaps not in a direct response fashion. So, really, we are not overly concerned about these anti-SSPX web sites, despite the fact that they may be intelligently and cleverly written."
"Not argumentative, but explanatory and objective." In what way can a non-argumentative explanation be stronger than well-reasoned objections that go unanswered? Is this kind of defence not tantamount to saying: "What we say is true because we say it," or simply "Don't think, just believe us"? This is precisely the foundation of fideistic "faith," which, as we have explained above, is not the Catholic Faith.
This is not at all what is meant by the process described by St. Thomas Aquinas of the "higher intellect teaching the lower" (S.T. II-II.2.6). St Thomas would say that in order to have Catholic Faith, the person with a lower intellect who is being taught by a person with a higher intellect, must still think about what is being taught to them, and not just blindly believe (S.T. II-II.2.1 and II-II.4.2).
Thus we have seen that:
From a sum of these attitudes and of various declarations by the SSPX, we may induce, with a considerable degree of probability, an underlying thinking pattern, which we express using our own words:
"Those who are of the Holy Ghost know from sensus fidei that we are right and they need no rational apology against denouncements and objections. Those who need an rational apology against denouncements and objections posed to us, do not have sensus fidei, are not of the Holy Ghost, and therefore we need not waste any time with their writings."
The "believe-or-leave" attitude which the SSPX has developed appears very strange indeed in view of the fact that many have found their way into the fold of the SSPX on the strength of rational discussion. It is unfair and strange for the SSPX to repress and punish the exercise of reason among its supporters:
Why would the SSPX encourage its supporters to depend on sensus fidei? If the SSPX supports and encourages a fideistic (non-thinking) "faith" among its supporters, as the above letters suggest, then we can think of two reasons why they would also encourage dependence on sensus fidei:
Thus according to our investigations:
The trend of the leaders of the SSPX to discourage thinking
on the part of SSPX members and its supporters is most serious. The leaders
of religious cults do the same.Therefore the SSPX is like a religious
cult:
|
|
|
|
| The SSPX encourages SSPX members and supporters to believe without thinking. | Religious cults encourage cult members and supporters to believe without thinking. | The SSPX acts like a religious cult. |
| Some members and supporters of the SSPX blindly believe the SSPX leaders without thinking. | Anyone who blindly believes without thinking does not have the Catholic Faith. | Some members and supporters of the SSPX do not have the Catholic Faith. |
| Some members and supporters of the SSPX blindly believe the SSPX leaders without thinking. | The members and supporters of religious cults believe the cult leaders without thinking. | Some members and supporters of the SSPX act like the members and supporters of religious cults. |