Any SSPX "converts" to Rome out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ks_catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mitch2007, wow - thank you for sharing your history. This all gives new meaning to Jesus praying that we would all be one. Division pained Him; division pains us. “… I was increasingly put off by certain subcultural tendencies in our chapel, which I felt were probably similar all over - eg, obsession over skirts; excessive rigorism; a holier-than-thou mentality; a “negative” outlook on everything; cynicism and love of conspiracy theories; far right sympathies and a “them and us” mentality, a sectarian, cultish spirit - the SSPX right or wrong, or the SSPX can do no wrong, all outside are Protestants, even pagans, the exceptions are just that, exceptions, and if only they knew about us they would follow us. Failure to support the SSPX was seen as evidence of ones ignorance, moral cowardice, doctrinal deviance or malice.” Oh my goodness - you have described my husband.

Thanks, Bether. The Novus Ordo parish I attend with our kids is very orthodox - perpetual adoration, benediction, stations, high daily mass attendance, rosary, many (male) altar servers aged 10-19 at each mass, large families, etc. Sometimes I wonder if my husband resents their orthodoxy as it has to make it more difficult for him to justify his SSPX position. He has fallen for the Society’s arguments hook, line, and sinker. He won’t attend a Tridentine mass offered by a priest who believes in the licitness of the Novus Ordo, so even the FSSP are out. We are personally acquainted with the Superior General of the FSSP, and he has been unable to convince my husband of his errant views. Sigh. I pray. I fast. I hope. Praying & fasting are far easier than not losing hope, though. I don’t know if it is specifically SSPX related, but my husband is pretty big on a good wife being a submissive wife, and it is pretty obvious that I am not submissive if I won’t follow him to church. Ergo, not a “good” wife. This has been tremendously difficult on our marriage.
 
I am glad this is all coming out because every last word that Mitch2007 wrote is true.
 
Cider said:
Well no one can answer that question here without risking their membership since CAF has decided posting anything explaining the SSPX positions on the matter is considered “proselytizing”.
Click to expand...
I personally wonder if we shouldn’t just stop discussing the SSPX. Because anyone who is pro SSPX and too vocal about it, eventually steps over the line, and is suspended/banned.

I think once you start debating with those who are against the SSPX, eventually it will become proselytizing because you will almost be on the defensive.
 
That is why I have severely limited my participation in the SSPX topics. Since only posts that are critical of them are allowed the topics are extremely one sided.

The only thing I will say, as someone who attended mass at an SSPX parish for quite awhile when no diocesan EF was available to me, my experience was very different than what has been posted here.
 
ks_catholic said:
Mitch2007, wow - thank you for sharing your history. This all gives new meaning to Jesus praying that we would all be one. Division pained Him; division pains us. “… I was increasingly put off by certain subcultural tendencies in our chapel, which I felt were probably similar all over - eg, obsession over skirts; excessive rigorism; a holier-than-thou mentality; a “negative” outlook on everything; cynicism and love of conspiracy theories; far right sympathies and a “them and us” mentality, a sectarian, cultish spirit - the SSPX right or wrong, or the SSPX can do no wrong, all outside are Protestants, even pagans, the exceptions are just that, exceptions, and if only they knew about us they would follow us. Failure to support the SSPX was seen as evidence of ones ignorance, moral cowardice, doctrinal deviance or malice.” Oh my goodness - you have described my husband.

Thanks, Bether. The Novus Ordo parish I attend with our kids is very orthodox - perpetual adoration, benediction, stations, high daily mass attendance, rosary, many (male) altar servers aged 10-19 at each mass, large families, etc. Sometimes I wonder if my husband resents their orthodoxy as it has to make it more difficult for him to justify his SSPX position. He has fallen for the Society’s arguments hook, line, and sinker. He won’t attend a Tridentine mass offered by a priest who believes in the licitness of the Novus Ordo, so even the FSSP are out. We are personally acquainted with the Superior General of the FSSP, and he has been unable to convince my husband of his errant views. Sigh. I pray. I fast. I hope. Praying & fasting are far easier than not losing hope, though. ** I don’t know if it is specifically SSPX related, but my husband is pretty big on a good wife being a submissive wife, and it is pretty obvious that I am not submissive if I won’t follow him to church. Ergo, not a “good” wife**. This has been tremendously difficult on our marriage.
Click to expand...
I’ve never been part of the SSPX–but I have been researching via reading Traditionalist sites and other types of references. From what I have read–there is a definite emphasis placed on the role of women being submissive. I believe this emphasis --grooming of women to a submissive role–attracts the kind of men who yearn for the days when women were property.
 
Walking_Home said:
I’ve never been part of the SSPX–but I have been researching via reading Traditionalist sites and other types of references. From what I have read–there is a definite emphasis placed on the role of women being submissive. I believe this emphasis --grooming of women to a submissive role–attracts the kind of men who yearn for the days when women were property.
Click to expand...
As an exclusive SSPX’er (is the correct term?) I can vouch this is not correct. Yes, men are encouraged to be the head of the household, to be leaders and good examples for their families, to be men. But, (and I love the way this was described by one of priests), women are described as the heart of the family, indeed the heart of society, and should be treated accordingly. We have been instructed quite clearly that we must show due reverence to women, to place them on a pedestal, so to speak.

So, a submissive role for women is not a part of SSPX and I can ensure you that any men in our parish who thought differently would be quickly instructed by our priests to change their ways.

PS. I am glad someone else has raised the issue that it is very difficult to fully defend or justify the SSPX as it would be seen as proselytizing. I was going to mention the same thing, as I could see I was going to be kicked out before I hit double figures in posts.
 
Dragonslayer said:
As an exclusive SSPX’er (is the correct term?) I can vouch this is not correct. Yes, men are encouraged to be the head of the household, to be leaders and good examples for their families, to be men. But, (and I love the way this was described by one of priests), women are described as the heart of the family, indeed the heart of society, and should be treated accordingly. We have been instructed quite clearly that we must show due reverence to women, to place them on a pedestal, so to speak.
Click to expand...
And that idea is traditional to Catholicism and is still discussed on Catholic radio programs like Father Loya’s A Body of Truth.
 
Dragonslayer said:
As an exclusive SSPX’er (is the correct term?) I can vouch this is not correct. Yes, men are encouraged to be the head of the household, to be leaders and good examples for their families, to be men. But, (and I love the way this was described by one of priests), women are described as the heart of the family, indeed the heart of society, and should be treated accordingly. We have been instructed quite clearly that we must show due reverence to women, to place them on a pedestal, so to speak.

So, a submissive role for women is not a part of SSPX and I can ensure you that any men in our parish who thought differently would be quickly instructed by our priests to change their ways.

PS. I am glad someone else has raised the issue that it is very difficult to fully defend or justify the SSPX as it would be seen as proselytizing. I was going to mention the same thing, as I could see I was going to be kicked out before I hit double figures in posts.
Click to expand...
From an SSPXer at a “Trad” site.
Modern women want to have their cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...
Do you know any modern women who seem to want all the benefits of old-fashioned values/morals, but want things that old-fashioned women would never have sought, such as career, equal power in marriage, etc.?
Click to expand...
I’ve actually met women who seem old-fashioned in some ways – but they are completely modern in other ways.
Click to expand...
It makes you wonder, does a man even exist for them? And how could he – he’d be a walking contradiction. A square circle.
Click to expand...
 
Dragonslayer said:
As an exclusive SSPX’er (is the correct term?) I can vouch this is not correct. Yes, men are encouraged to be the head of the household, to be leaders and good examples for their families, to be men. But, (and I love the way this was described by one of priests), women are described as the heart of the family, indeed the heart of society, and should be treated accordingly. We have been instructed quite clearly that we must show due reverence to women, to place them on a pedestal, so to speak.

So, a submissive role for women is not a part of SSPX and I can ensure you that any men in our parish who thought differently would be quickly instructed by our priests to change their ways.

PS. I am glad someone else has raised the issue that it is very difficult to fully defend or justify the SSPX as it would be seen as proselytizing. I was going to mention the same thing, as I could see I was going to be kicked out before I hit double figures in posts.
Click to expand...
The view on women is not an issue for me - although I will say and this is an opinion that SOME traditionalists take it too far or use it as an excuse. However, this does not mean that one should turn around say that ALL traditionalists are sexists nor that all feminists subscribe to things like abortion and contraception. These are called generalizations. The issue becomes when something becomes a hot bed for it and the organization does not seem to do enough to correct the issue. This is all my perception.
 
40.png
Walking_Home:
From an SSPXer at a “Trad” site.

Modern women want to have their cake and eat it too.

Do you know any modern women who seem to want all the benefits of old-fashioned values/morals, but want things that old-fashioned women would never have sought, such as career, equal power in marriage, etc.?

I’ve actually met women who seem old-fashioned in some ways – but they are completely modern in other ways.

It makes you wonder, does a man even exist for them? And how could he – he’d be a walking contradiction. A square circle.
Click to expand...
Come on. That’s only one person. There are people who take it too far everywhere.
 
TrueLight said:
Come on. That’s only one person. There are people who take it too far everywhere.
Click to expand...
Not one person. From reading “Trad” sites–the consensus is—a woman’s place is to stay home–cook/clean–and have baby–after baby–after baby–etc.
 
So why are you posting in the Traditional Catholicism forum if you are so convinced that all trads think XYZ, and you find it offensive ?
 
Cider said:
So why are you posting in the Traditional Catholicism forum if you are so convinced that all trads think XYZ, and you find it offensive ?
Click to expand...
I am not saying all Trads—I am saying the “Trads” of the SSPX variety. Now within the SSPX–there may be some who are a bit more moderate–but the longer they remain within the SSPX–it seems the more extreme their views become. Especially if their SSPX priest is of the Bishop Williamson mindset.
 
Well since I’ve actually attended SSPX chapels on a regular basis I will take my personal experience over some copy and paste from a forum.
 
Cider said:
Well since I’ve actually attended SSPX chapels on a regular basisI will take my personal experience over some copy and paste from a forum.
Click to expand...
The man I quoted in my post–attends an SSPX chapel on a regular basis.
 
Walking_Home said:
The man I quoted in my post–attends an SSPX chapel on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
So do I, and as I said, my first hand experience tells me this is not the case in a SSPX parish. If it did, I also know from first hand experience our priests would try to correct it.

“but the longer they remain within the SSPX–it seems the more extreme their views become”.

Wow… another unfounded generalization.
 
Dragonslayer said:
So do I, and as I said, my first hand experience tells me this is not the case in a SSPX parish. If it did, I also know from first hand experience our priests would try to correct it.

“but the longer they remain within the SSPX–it seems the more extreme their views become”.

Wow… another unfounded generalization.
Click to expand...
Dragonslayer, would you agree there is a strong “us vs them” mentality?
 
Dragonslayer said:
So do I, and as I said, my first hand experience tells me this is not the case in a SSPX parish. If it did, I also know from first hand experience our priests would try to correct it.

“but the longer they remain within the SSPX–it seems the more extreme their views become”.

Wow… another unfounded generalization.
Click to expand...
Really–I guess you glossed over the cultishness --which others have noticed growing within the Society.
 
The local FSSP parish can be prone to some us/them mentality. Fr. Ripperger is really good about coming down on that kind of stuff when he hears it. I can imagine when people are unfettered by Rome that they have less impetus not to slander or indulge in conspiracy theories.
 
TrueLight said:
Dragonslayer, would you agree there is a strong “us vs them” mentality?
Click to expand...
Do you mean on here? If so, I would say yes, but only to a degree. I’m sure some people have made up there mind on an issue and will not budge on their position. But that’s understandable, it’s human nature. I’m sure it goes both ways too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top