Would you date someone in SSPX?

[GloriaMaria]

“Would you date someone in the SSPX?”

I spent the better part of a decade with the SSPX. Those years were spent in a few different SSPX locations, so we were able to see a broad spectrum of SSPX chapels.

Before even tackling the Catholic/Not Catholic question, I guess I’d have to mention some social concerns. SSPX families are very isolationist. People who are not SSPX are actually and truly considered NOT to be really Catholic by many SSPX attendees. So, if you are a young man for instance, and you go to the Diocesan church, and you wish to court a young lady at the SSPX - you will be expected to “convert”. You will be expected to marry her in the SSPX (whose marriages are not valid or licit).

They tell their children it is better to marry in the SSPX. I also told this to my children. But at the very least they will expect the non-SSPX person to be willing to embrace Tradition.

They are very serious about modesty. There is nothing wrong with that as a concept. However, all the young ladies are expected to dress both inside and outside of the chapel completely in below knee length skirts or dresses, with sleeves at least halfway to the elbow and necklines no more than two finger widths below the collarbone. This is very specific. So, if you marry into the SSPX, be prepared to conform to these standards.

In the confessional you and your spouse will get very Catholic advice, but it will also be advice that will help the SSPX continue to operate and grow. You will be asked to send your children far away to schools operated by the SSPX, in some cases. If not this, then at least you will be expected to home school using a traditional Catholic school program.

You will be expected to make many financial sacrifices, including but not limited to moving far away from family and friends to help establish or grow an SSPX mission or school. We were asked to do this (for our “faith” mind you) and we did.

Some people around here think that it’s absurd to use the word “cult” when referring to the SSPX. Perhaps they have not “been there, done that”.

Be very, very careful when dealing with the SSPX. On the surface you can justify it, but the adverse consequences spiritually and materially are insidious.

If I would give any advice to a young person in this situation I would say marry someone who is Catholic, and willing to be practicing in your diocese. If they insist on removing themselves from the authority of your own diocesan Bishop, then be prepared to make the sacrifice of letting them go. If they are raised SSPX but willing and able to separate themselves from the wishes of their family and go to the Diocese, then OK. If not, then you would be the person under extreme pressure and the SSPX are very convincing.

 

[TEPO]

In the SSPX there is no big “T” or small “t” tradition… It’s spelled TRADITION “all caps”.

…just kidding.

 

[TEPO]

I know the subject of SSPX has been discussed many times on these forums, and I’ve read through some of the threads. But I didn’t find one that addressed this particular question.

What are your thoughts?

Are there any SSPX comedians? how about SSPX people who can smile?

…I think I might have a built up stereotype towards the SSPX crowd.

 

[TEPO]

Though while I may think of SSPX-ers as being robotic, I still view the line of liberal theoloscisms on the left as having juvenile personality conflicts.

 

[bilop]

The SSPX is considered to be in formal schism with the Catholic Church. My husband, who is knowledgeable on this issue, states that this dates back to when Cardinal Lefebvre ordained a number of bishops WITHOUT ecclesial approval - even though the current Pope had said he would ordain some bishops within a few months. Consequently, there was no “state of emergency” that Lefebvre felt was present, and he had no license to ordain those bishops.

As a result of their illicit consecration and subsequent ordinations, SSPX priests and bishops are barred from celebration of the sacraments. Catholics are not to attend an SSPX chapel unless there are no other Catholic churches available to attend. Confessions and marriages celebrated by SSPX clergy are not valid.

People wishing to attend the EF should speak to their bishop and the FSSP about the possibility of an FSSP presence in their diocese. This group is 100% in communion with Rome, and celebrate valid, licit EF Masses.

They are NOT is formal schism, and the excommunications have been lifted.

Their Masses are valid, but illicit.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Agreed, Hoosier. Some people here just spout off inaccurate and misguided opinions on the SSPX that really have no basis in truth. The SSPX is not in schism; they are in an irregular situation. I’m not a member of the SSPX, but I do attend the Traditional Mass when I can. I wish folks would get clear on what the status of the SSPX is, and save their anger and venom for those so-called “Catholics” who don’t care to assent to the Church’s teachings but remain in “good standing.” Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Gov. Cuomo for starters.

Concur.

I’d much rather date a SSPXer (if I weren’t married) than a Kennedy/Pelosi/Mahoney/Cuomo type “Catholic”.

God Bless

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

“Would you date someone in the SSPX?”

I spent the better part of a decade with the SSPX. Those years were spent in a few different SSPX locations, so we were able to see a broad spectrum of SSPX chapels.

Before even tackling the Catholic/Not Catholic question, I guess I’d have to mention some social concerns. SSPX families are very isolationist. People who are not SSPX are actually and truly considered NOT to be really Catholic by many SSPX attendees. So, if you are a young man for instance, and you go to the Diocesan church, and you wish to court a young lady at the SSPX - you will be expected to “convert”. You will be expected to marry her in the SSPX (whose marriages are not valid or licit).

They tell their children it is better to marry in the SSPX. I also told this to my children. But at the very least they will expect the non-SSPX person to be willing to embrace Tradition.

They are very serious about modesty. There is nothing wrong with that as a concept. However, all the young ladies are expected to dress both inside and outside of the chapel completely in below knee length skirts or dresses, with sleeves at least halfway to the elbow and necklines no more than two finger widths below the collarbone. This is very specific. So, if you marry into the SSPX, be prepared to conform to these standards.

In the confessional you and your spouse will get very Catholic advice, but it will also be advice that will help the SSPX continue to operate and grow. You will be asked to send your children far away to schools operated by the SSPX, in some cases. If not this, then at least you will be expected to home school using a traditional Catholic school program.

You will be expected to make many financial sacrifices, including but not limited to moving far away from family and friends to help establish or grow an SSPX mission or school. We were asked to do this (for our “faith” mind you) and we did.

Some people around here think that it’s absurd to use the word “cult” when referring to the SSPX. Perhaps they have not “been there, done that”.

Be very, very careful when dealing with the SSPX. On the surface you can justify it, but the adverse consequences spiritually and materially are insidious.

If I would give any advice to a young person in this situation I would say marry someone who is Catholic, and willing to be practicing in your diocese. If they insist on removing themselves from the authority of your own diocesan Bishop, then be prepared to make the sacrifice of letting them go. If they are raised SSPX but willing and able to separate themselves from the wishes of their family and go to the Diocese, then OK. If not, then you would be the person under extreme pressure and the SSPX are very convincing.

I don’t think it is absurd to use cult to describe it. I think it is disrespectful and aims only at divisiveness. That you may have personal feelings on the issue should not dictate your terminology. Opus Dei would fit most people’s definition of a “cult” as would LDS or any religious order requiring isolation. Lets play fair.

I do agree with your assessment aside from the bias and emotional aspects. SSPX tend to stick to their own. SSPX put a primacy on traditionalist things. But lets be careful because the SSPX could be in full communion at any time and we should remember that. Most of the laity are affiliated with the SSPX in “name” only. THere is no membership.

I think it is disrespectful to call Amish cultish, I think it is disrespectful to call other religions or orders within the Catholic faith cults.

 

[AllSeasons]

“Would you date someone in the SSPX?”

I spent the better part of a decade with the SSPX. Those years were spent in a few different SSPX locations, so we were able to see a broad spectrum of SSPX chapels.

Before even tackling the Catholic/Not Catholic question, I guess I’d have to mention some social concerns. SSPX families are very isolationist. People who are not SSPX are actually and truly considered NOT to be really Catholic by many SSPX attendees. So, if you are a young man for instance, and you go to the Diocesan church, and you wish to court a young lady at the SSPX - you will be expected to “convert”. You will be expected to marry her in the SSPX (whose marriages are not valid or licit).

They tell their children it is better to marry in the SSPX. I also told this to my children. But at the very least they will expect the non-SSPX person to be willing to embrace Tradition.

They are very serious about modesty. There is nothing wrong with that as a concept. However, all the young ladies are expected to dress both inside and outside of the chapel completely in below knee length skirts or dresses, with sleeves at least halfway to the elbow and necklines no more than two finger widths below the collarbone. This is very specific. So, if you marry into the SSPX, be prepared to conform to these standards.

In the confessional you and your spouse will get very Catholic advice, but it will also be advice that will help the SSPX continue to operate and grow. You will be asked to send your children far away to schools operated by the SSPX, in some cases. If not this, then at least you will be expected to home school using a traditional Catholic school program.

You will be expected to make many financial sacrifices, including but not limited to moving far away from family and friends to help establish or grow an SSPX mission or school. We were asked to do this (for our “faith” mind you) and we did.

Some people around here think that it’s absurd to use the word “cult” when referring to the SSPX. Perhaps they have not “been there, done that”.

Be very, very careful when dealing with the SSPX. On the surface you can justify it, but the adverse consequences spiritually and materially are insidious.

If I would give any advice to a young person in this situation I would say marry someone who is Catholic, and willing to be practicing in your diocese. If they insist on removing themselves from the authority of your own diocesan Bishop, then be prepared to make the sacrifice of letting them go. If they are raised SSPX but willing and able to separate themselves from the wishes of their family and go to the Diocese, then OK. If not, then you would be the person under extreme pressure and the SSPX are very convincing.

Thank you for posting this, GloriaMaria. This is the exact kind of information I was looking for - that from an (former) insider. Personally, I’m okay with the Tridentine Mass, modesty in clothing, homeschooling, but I do have reservations about marriages performed by SSPX priests, which like you said, are not valid or licit - I suppose they can be convalidated later, but still. It’s the first time I’ve heard about moving far away to grow an SSPX mission - is it mandatory or do you have a say in this?

 

[underacloud]

underacloud;11380827:

a Catholic could not validly enter marriage with the intention of baptising in SSPX or any faith other than Roman Catholic (in communion with Rome).

How do you mean? There’s no defect of consent or impediment corresponding to that.

I believe there is. A Catholic providing marriage consent promises to raise children in the Church. Such as…

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

An intention to baptise into a Christian group not in communion with Rome would not meet this criteria. Any more than a Catholic marrying in the Church but intending to baptise into say an Eastern Church.

But, this remains a contentious issue and I’m sure a canon law expert may see things a little differently.

 

[EasterJoy]

Concur.

I’d much rather date a SSPXer (if I weren’t married) than a Kennedy/Pelosi/Mahoney/Cuomo type “Catholic”.

God Bless

Hmmm…would I marry Hugh Hefner or David Koresh? Gee, do I have marry either one of them?

A billion Catholics in the world, there are a lot between those on each end who think they’re better at guiding the Church than the Pope. Whether the dissenters want to put us in the right ditch or the left ditch hardly matters. Look among those who at least try to drive on the marked road.

 

[chevalier]

I believe there is. A Catholic providing marriage consent promises to raise children in the Church. Such as…

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

An intention to baptise into a Christian group not in communion with Rome would not meet this criteria. Any more than a Catholic marrying in the Church but intending to baptise into say an Eastern Church.

But, this remains a contentious issue and I’m sure a canon law expert may see things a little differently.

If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, the Catholic is required to promise to do his or her best to have the children brought up in the Catholic faith, but taking even an express intention to baptise the children in some other faith as a defect of consent goes too far, I think. There are some grounds to say that openness to having children must include openness to raise them in the faith, but I’m not sure you could plausibly claim a nullity ground there under similation. Those are usually very restrictive, at least in the Roman Rota’s view (some local tribunals interpret them more widely).

 

[underacloud]

If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, the Catholic is required to promise to do his or her best to have the children brought up in the Catholic faith, but taking even an express intention to baptise the children in some other faith as a defect of consent goes too far, I think. There are some grounds to say that openness to having children must include openness to raise them in the faith, but I’m not sure you could plausibly claim a nullity ground there under similation. Those are usually very restrictive, at least in the Roman Rota’s view (some local tribunals interpret them more widely).

I’m not speaking of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic (as many in SSPX may be baptised Catholics anyway), I’m just speaking of Catholic marriage in general. Catholic marriage, in general, requires the intention to raise children in the faith. The intention not to do this would require a Catholic pastor to refuse the marriage in my opinion. In practise, or at a tribunal, it may be interpreted differently.

But would any faithful Catholic, knowing that the SSPX is not considered in communion with Rome, agree to marriage with a spouse who intends to baptise into a faith not in communion with Rome? While many hope that the SSPX will return to communion with Rome, in the meantime any Catholic should consider such a relationship - between a Catholic and an SSPX attendee (for want of a better term) - to be extremely problematic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, their orders are not recognised. Their priests are recognised as validly ordained, but suspended due to their belonging to an improper order. Catholics are not recommended to participate in SSPX masses, which are recognised as valid but illicit (unlawful).

Pope Benedict said in 2009 of the SSPX: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

Here is a discussion thta may prove helpful in understanding this: zenit.org/en/articles/mass-with-the-society-of-st-pius-x

Yes.

My point was, though, that SSPX people do not deny the teachings of the Church. Nor do they deny papal primacy. They might be overscrupulous in their adherence, but they don’t see themselves as being part of some other church.

It has been my observation as well that there are differences among them.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Thank you for posting this, GloriaMaria. This is the exact kind of information I was looking for - that from an (former) insider. Personally, I’m okay with the Tridentine Mass, modesty in clothing, homeschooling, but I do have reservations about marriages performed by SSPX priests, which like you said, are not valid or licit - I suppose they can be convalidated later, but still. It’s the first time I’ve heard about moving far away to grow an SSPX mission - is it mandatory or do you have a say in this?

No, it wouldn’t be mandatory to move. You might be advised to as we were. I know an SSPX family who were Third Order SSPX (these people are actually members of the SSPX as laypeople, while most of the rest of the parishoners are not) who moved more than once to build missions - under obedience. But I think they were still allowed to consider the prospect, but with more pressure due to obedience. Ultimately, we all have free will. Personally, we were convinced that, for our children’s spiritual welfare, we should follow this advice from the priest.

I don’t mean to come across as emotional. I’m actually at an emotional distance at this point. I also have nothing against home schooling (we did for many years), modesty, and the TLM. The message I was trying to impart with those topics is that those things are a necessary and mandatory part of the SSPX culture. For instance, if I sent a daughter out to play in the muck with pants on, even though she usually wore a skirt, I would be criticized. When I cut a daughters hair to shoulder length, I was criticized (it wasn’t considered modest). Or when our family had a situation which made it necessary to send children to diocesan Catholic school, we were criticized. We were also advised to, when there was no SSPX Mass on a Sunday (mission territory) to stay home or pray a Holy Hour in the chapel, instead of fulfilling our obligation at the Parish Church.

I say these things to identify the culture.

I would also like to mention this. When we say that the SSPX is not “outside” the Church, there needs to be a clarification. We had a number of our children baptized and confirmed in the SSPX. When our family returned to the Diocesan Church we were required to have our children formally registered as Catholics, and to make a profession of faith publicly. They had to enter like a Protestant or an Eastern Orthodox convert. No, there was no question of “re-baptism” or “conditional confirmation” - those sacraments are considered valid. But make note that they were not considered in union with the Catholic Church. They were not considered to be technically Catholic. And none of my good intentions changed this fact. Imagine my dismay…

So, while a marriage could be convalidated later, I think a couple who *understood *the situation would be committing a mortal sin to go ahead with the sacrament in this way.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No, it wouldn’t be mandatory to move. You might be advised to as we were. I know an SSPX family who were Third Order SSPX (these people are actually members of the SSPX as laypeople, while most of the rest of the parishoners are not) who moved more than once to build missions - under obedience. But I think they were still allowed to consider the prospect, but with more pressure due to obedience. Ultimately, we all have free will. Personally, we were convinced that, for our children’s spiritual welfare, we should follow this advice from the priest.

I don’t mean to come across as emotional. I’m actually at an emotional distance at this point. I also have nothing against home schooling (we did for many years), modesty, and the TLM. The message I was trying to impart with those topics is that those things are a necessary and mandatory part of the SSPX culture. For instance, if I sent a daughter out to play in the muck with pants on, even though she usually wore a skirt, I would be criticized. When I cut a daughters hair to shoulder length, I was criticized (it wasn’t considered modest). Or when our family had a situation which made it necessary to send children to diocesan Catholic school, we were criticized. We were also advised to, when there was no SSPX Mass on a Sunday (mission territory) to stay home or pray a Holy Hour in the chapel, instead of fulfilling our obligation at the Parish Church.

I say these things to identify the culture.

I would also like to mention this. When we say that the SSPX is not “outside” the Church, there needs to be a clarification. We had a number of our children baptized and confirmed in the SSPX. When our family returned to the Diocesan Church we were required to have our children formally registered as Catholics, and to make a profession of faith publicly. They had to enter like a Protestant or an Eastern Orthodox convert. No, there was no question of “re-baptism” or “conditional confirmation” - those sacraments are considered valid. But make note that they were not considered in union with the Catholic Church. They were not considered to be technically Catholic. And none of my good intentions changed this fact. Imagine my dismay…

So, while a marriage could be convalidated later, I think a couple who *understood *the situation would be committing a mortal sin to go ahead with the sacrament in this way.

Thanks for your insight. It is quite informative and interesting.

 

[Edward_H]

I don’t think it is absurd to use cult to describe it. I think it is disrespectful and aims only at divisiveness. That you may have personal feelings on the issue should not dictate your terminology. Opus Dei would fit most people’s definition of a “cult” as would LDS or any religious order requiring isolation. Lets play fair.

I do agree with your assessment aside from the bias and emotional aspects. SSPX tend to stick to their own. SSPX put a primacy on traditionalist things. But lets be careful because the SSPX could be in full communion at any time and we should remember that. Most of the laity are affiliated with the SSPX in “name” only. THere is no membership.

I think it is disrespectful to call Amish cultish, I think it is disrespectful to call other religions or orders within the Catholic faith cults.

Careful with your hasty and sweeping generalizations.

How about most people who know little about Opus Dei might classify it as cultish.

We need to separate opinions that are data rich from ones fed largely by the media.

 

[AllSeasons]

No, it wouldn’t be mandatory to move. You might be advised to as we were. I know an SSPX family who were Third Order SSPX (these people are actually members of the SSPX as laypeople, while most of the rest of the parishoners are not) who moved more than once to build missions - under obedience. But I think they were still allowed to consider the prospect, but with more pressure due to obedience. Ultimately, we all have free will. Personally, we were convinced that, for our children’s spiritual welfare, we should follow this advice from the priest.

I don’t mean to come across as emotional. I’m actually at an emotional distance at this point. I also have nothing against home schooling (we did for many years), modesty, and the TLM. The message I was trying to impart with those topics is that those things are a necessary and mandatory part of the SSPX culture. For instance, if I sent a daughter out to play in the muck with pants on, even though she usually wore a skirt, I would be criticized. When I cut a daughters hair to shoulder length, I was criticized (it wasn’t considered modest). Or when our family had a situation which made it necessary to send children to diocesan Catholic school, we were criticized. We were also advised to, when there was no SSPX Mass on a Sunday (mission territory) to stay home or pray a Holy Hour in the chapel, instead of fulfilling our obligation at the Parish Church.

I say these things to identify the culture.

I would also like to mention this. When we say that the SSPX is not “outside” the Church, there needs to be a clarification. We had a number of our children baptized and confirmed in the SSPX. When our family returned to the Diocesan Church we were required to have our children formally registered as Catholics, and to make a profession of faith publicly. They had to enter like a Protestant or an Eastern Orthodox convert. No, there was no question of “re-baptism” or “conditional confirmation” - those sacraments are considered valid. But make note that they were not considered in union with the Catholic Church. They were not considered to be technically Catholic. And none of my good intentions changed this fact. Imagine my dismay…

So, while a marriage could be convalidated later, I think a couple who *understood *the situation would be committing a mortal sin to go ahead with the sacrament in this way.

Thank you very much for the post. It was very informative.

 

[mwncheesehead]

But would any faithful Catholic, knowing that the SSPX is not considered in communion with Rome, agree to marriage with a spouse who intends to baptise into a faith not in communion with Rome?QUOTE]

Underacloud, what do you mean “a faith not in communion with Rome”? As if the SSPX is a different faith? Um, it’s the same Catholic faith. The SSPX is currently in an irregular situation. They’re not in schism.

 

[underacloud]

underacloud;11389027:

But would any faithful Catholic, knowing that the SSPX is not considered in communion with Rome, agree to marriage with a spouse who intends to baptise into a faith not in communion with Rome?

Underacloud, what do you mean “a faith not in communion with Rome”? As if the SSPX is a different faith? Um, it’s the same Catholic faith. The SSPX is currently in an irregular situation. They’re not in schism.

“Not in communion” is the current status. Yes, they are not in schism, but they are not in full communion and their ministries are illicit. That’s the legal/canonical position. A faithful Catholic ought to consider SSPX to be a no-go.

I hope they return to full communion.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

“Not in communion” is the current status. Yes, they are not in schism, but they are not in full communion and their ministries are illicit. That’s the legal/canonical position. A faithful Catholic ought to consider SSPX to be a no-go.

I hope they return to full communion.

I think the previous poster was questioning your use of the world “faith” not “not in communion”