This last posting of yours seems a bit too rosy for my taste. Since you have been in the seminary, I guess you have your own experiences. I do, too, and I know of severe criticism of the Society´s seminaries. But these critics are usually not directed at the Syllabus etc, but rather on the more human, or inhuman aspects: That is, the way the seminarians are treated. There you have a strict discipline, but on the other hand no paternal and fraternal charity. A pecking order in the seminary hierarchy, an internal spy system and slavish obedience to the superiors.
This usually leads to the formation of priests who have the typical "spirit of Econe", as many call it. They are probably educated and pious, but often also very cold, distanced and proud.

Maybe this is all different in the States, but I know a lot of people how made exactly the same observations, even from the most loyal sons of the society.
And this germ was also carried into the sedevacantist movement, most notably and in its most extreme form with Bp. Sanborn and MHT seminary. "Econe extreme", I would call it.
It is true, the whole traditionalist movement, is tremendously influenced by Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society. It is basically the only untouched branch of the Church, and every other branch just springs forth from it. Thats definitely not always bad...but also not always good.

Another thing that came to mind -- the idea the clerics (even those in the lower years) praying parts of the Divine Office together in common -- that wasn't even done in the Fifties or earlier, nevermind in modern-day sedevacantist seminaries.

This was an element that Archbishop Lefebvre added to the statutes of the SSPX, which wasn't found in plain-vanilla seminaries before the Council.

Thats correct. I think the Archbishop based his seminary very much on his experiences at the French seminary in Rome, but obviously made some additions. Saying (or rather, singing) the Divine Office in common is a good addition and very much in spirit of the true liturgical movement.
But not everything he did was entirely new, just like the "at least three priests in a priory" thing. Thats just how parishes worked in the past, at least in the home country. In it makes perfectly sense. The sedevacantist priests have it much more difficult there, usually living alone in a world of enemies, not being able to have a regular spiritual life. And then you can see the fruits...

I have a book on seminary life from before V2 -- it mentions how seminarians would go home for the summer, and often get jobs to pay their way, etc. Very different from my own experience at an SSPX seminary.

This arouse mainly because of the congregation-like structure of the Society as well as the general apostasy and moral downfall of the world. When you came home from the (secular) seminary in the old times, you would be part of a parish in a more or less Catholic world. Not so today. The SSPX realized very well that they have to form young men much differently and much more now - starting with the Year of Spirituality, which was also not done in pre-V2 times.

I much prefer the "leave the world" aspect, as well as liturgical prayer (Divine Office) in common. I don't think I would have even tried out life in a seminary if I'd been born in 1940. The priesthood would have seemed too "social" for someone with my personality -- just like the Novus Ordo priesthood still seems to me today.

Being "social" is one of the greatest features of the Christian in general and priest in particular. At the first moment I wanted to say that you should join a monastery...but those require the greatest social skills of them all.

Again: Do I think that the SSPX have the best seminaries? Yes I do.
Do I think that they have the best priests? Yes, I do, too.
Are there things wrong in the seminaries? Definitely, too.

A friend of mine asks himself all the time: How could such a holy man as the Archbishop produce such coldblooded (I am tempted to write "evil") figures as Schmidberger, Cacqueray or also Sanborn and Ricossa. It remains a mystery.

FWIW, I respectfully disagree.

Well, maybe you know more then I do. But if I were a freemason, I wouldn´t infiltrate it  

I'm having a noob moment here, but who/what is DD?

Thank you.

Dear gladius,
As someone who has heard of the charges against Fr. Cekeda and Bishop Dolan (also Bp. Sanborn?), but who is new to this forum and does not know many sedevacantist laymen or clerics, I mean this as no disrespect, please do not take it that way, but I hope you are telling the truth and not lying, exagerating, or misleading with your accusations against these clerics.

Your fellow Catholic

Jim

Very good point --

Trads should always -- until death -- be distrustful of their own ability to practice the virtue of obedience since, as you point out, the very Trad movement is founded on apparent disobedience and mistrust of Church authority figures.

It's always helpful to know what to watch out for. I think we should all watch out for this one.

Well, maybe I have a problem with obedience indeed. Still, I think there is a major problem of blind or slavish loyalty (I should not even use the word obedience) in the traditionalist world, where priests are becoming infallible Gods. In our situation, where there are no (in the "independent" area) or few (in the SSPX) checks and balances, this becomes a major problem. Superiors can just do whatever they want. In the seminaries, this seems to be even more so the case.

I could be wrong and my own viciousness is betraying me here. But if I would not have the same information from many very holy and humble persons, then I would not utter this criticism.

Dear gladius,
As someone who has heard of the charges against Fr. Cekeda and Bishop Dolan (also Bp. Sanborn?), but who is new to this forum and does not know many sedevacantist laymen or clerics, I mean this as no disrespect, please do not take it that way, but I hope you are telling the truth and not lying, exagerating, or misleading with your accusations against these clerics.

Your fellow Catholic

Jim

Dear Jim,

As someone who has heard of and was personally involved with several of the charges, and knows a few sedevacantist laymen and clerics, I hope you are not lying about not knowing many sedevacantist laymen or clerics.

A review of Fr. Cekada's "School Dazed" article might be in order; it can be found here:

SGG info archives

Here is Fr. Cekada's lying masterpiece for reference:

School Dazed

Well, maybe I have a problem with obedience indeed. Still, I think there is a major problem of blind or slavish loyalty (I should not even use the word obedience) in the traditionalist world, where priests are becoming infallible Gods. In our situation, where there are no (in the "independent" area) or few (in the SSPX) checks and balances, this becomes a major problem. Superiors can just do whatever they want. In the seminaries, this seems to be even more so the case.

I could be wrong and my own viciousness is betraying me here. But if I would not have the same information from many very holy and humble persons, then I would not utter this criticism.

Oh no I didn't mean you personally! I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was referring more to the unknown third parties whose criticism you were drawing from. I have no idea what goes on in there and I'm the least likely person that priests and seminarians would confide in, but even if they did, I would be wary of anecdotes just because obedience is so mangled right now.  

I can say that thinking about it more this morning, I realized that based on the premise that in order to be good leaders we have to be good followers, it's very probable that there are more issues with abuse of authority in the seminaries than I realize or would like to know. If obedience is such a deep-rooted source of confusion and we are so lost in knowing how to follow, then knowing how to wield authority when we do have it is probably just as challenging, if not more so, even for our good yet human trad priests and seminarians. I still have difficulty believing it's as cold as all that, but you probably have a better point than I gave you credit for.

As far as loyalty goes, yes, as an SSPX lifer I see that too. I don't know what to do about it though. We cling to our good priests for dear life. We don't have any other choice. Many of you here have the ability to study all the details of Church politics but there are so many of us who just have to pick a side and try not to fall off the roller coaster as we learn bit by bit. I've been lucky enough, if you can call it that, to see a couple of SSPX priests and a few nasty parishioners do a lot of harm throughout the years on several different occasions. Every single parish I've been to has their issues. So for myself and my family, sticking with the SSPX is a matter of will, of believing it's our best option, of pushing through for GOD rather than man.

I can't speak for the specifics of every family's journey but I think there's a lot of favor going towards the priests' weaknesses being lesser evils in the bigger picture. Sometimes that assessment is very wrong but many times it's right. We take our lumps, we offer them up, we hope we've learned something that brings us closer to God in the end and we keep pushing through. Not that all times are that hard, I have a genuine attachment to many SSPX parishioners and priests and most times are happy times; but when the waters are rough, there is definitely a loyalty/perceived or real lesser evil/naivete element that can be dangerous. If there was ever a time when God's Infinite Mercy and accounting of our every little intention and effort is needed, it is now.