Author Topic: Email about Neo-SSPX Seminary (Read 7982 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 05, 2015, 09:31:13 PM »

This was not written to me. It was sent to a resistance-affiliated blogger.

Oddly enough, I had to use Google Cache to get to it -- he seems to have taken it down. Too bad -- this needs to get out!

(Resistance) Email about Neo-SSPX Seminary
May 5th, 2015

Hey _____,

I'm wondering if you can give me some spiritual direction.

I'm visiting the Winona seminary at the moment because I felt the calling
to priesthood from Our Lord.

I'm shocked and disappointed with the priests here and the students, many
of whom seem to be here for the fraternal brotherhood rather than for
the formation of holy priests..

I'm just shocked and so disappointed because I expected much more.

Since I started following your apostolate, you are like the voice of sanity
and reason in my life. Do you recommend I get in touch with the
Resistance priests? I can't join this seminary in Winona. I'm not
inspired, these priests are awful, and I don't feel Our Lords presence
here in this place or in the hearts of the seminarians. I can't force
myself to love it and give my life for something that doesn't inspire
me.

Please help.

Thank you,
Anonymous

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** May 05, 2015, 09:37:25 PM »

Did you feel anything similar when you went to the seminary back when Bishop Williamson was in charge?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** May 05, 2015, 09:39:37 PM »

He was probably counseled by a priest to take it down, I read it earlier today. The author is very vague and generalized apart from being anonymous.

There's nothing wrong with being anonymous or his sharing his opinions, but he calls all the priests there "awful" and that they are all only seemingly there for "fraternal reasons". That is a serious statement which, unless he can state specific reasons for each individual person, then it is a rash judgement as well as a subjective one.

I would just guess and say that the person who wrote this letter does not have a vocation, and is probably a bit immature. I wouldn't want to confess to him. Imagine how awful I am.

All in all the letter is trash and shouldn't be reproduced unless he cared to put his name on it and elaborate on his generalized accusations. I'm not defending the fellayists at all, perhaps many aspects of the letter are indeed true, but I can think of one good priest there that will not compromise and is a bit more extreme than even the resistance itself as far as the New Mass and other issues are concerned.

He doesn't feel the presence of the Lord there...fyi the fellayists consecrations are valid.

Pilar · « **Reply #3 on:** May 05, 2015, 10:19:10 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

This was not written to me. It was sent to a resistance-affiliated blogger.

Oddly enough, I had to use Google Cache to get to it -- he seems to have taken it down. Too bad -- this needs to get out!

(Resistance) Email about Neo-SSPX Seminary
May 5th, 2015

Hey _____,

I'm wondering if you can give me some spiritual direction.

I'm visiting the Winona seminary at the moment because I felt the calling
to priesthood from Our Lord.

I'm shocked and disappointed with the priests here and the students, many
of whom seem to be here for the fraternal brotherhood rather than for
the formation of holy priests..

I'm just shocked and so disappointed because I expected much more.

Since I started following your apostolate, you are like the voice of sanity
and reason in my life. Do you recommend I get in touch with the
Resistance priests? I can't join this seminary in Winona. I'm not
inspired, these priests are awful, and I don't feel Our Lords presence
here in this place or in the hearts of the seminarians. I can't force
myself to love it and give my life for something that doesn't inspire
me.

Please help.

Thank you,
Anonymous

Oh brother! If this is even a genuine letter, he sounds like some kind of nut. He doesn't "feel" the Lord's presence. Not in the "place" nor even in the "hearts of the seminarians". And he can't "force" himself "to love it" or give his "life for something that doesn't inspire" him.
I read this earlier on the trad blogger's twitter. It is embarrassing, period. If anything, it makes the resistance look bad, since he is looking toward that as the "voice of sanity" in his life. And if +Williamson ever got a hold of this guy he would tell him exactly what to do with his feelings. Someone should tell him that seminarians go to the seminary to love God and do his will, to improve themseles, not to feel out other seminarians hearts. And they are certainly not there to have fun. I have had two sons there, and believe me, it is no picnic. If he couldn't "feel" Our Lord's presence in the Blessed Sacrament at the seminary (since he claims he can't "feel" it in the "place"), why would he expect to "feel" it anywhere else? Or is he trying to claim that the consecrations there are invalid? He reminds me of the people who come to traditional parishes expecting everyone to be floating on air with their hands folded and a insipid smiles on their faces.

I have to plainly say that I was shocked and a little disgusted to see this nonsense given space on that traditional blogger's twitter and also here on CI. It diminishes us.

poche · « **Reply #4 on:** May 05, 2015, 11:24:33 PM »

I am not a supporter of either seminary. However it should be recognized that the priests and seminarians are all human beings with human frailtys and human failings, imperfections, and quirks. The person who is looking to enter religious life should remember that he also has some of these failings. Or maybe the percieved imperfections of these individuals is less imperfect than those of the one who was doing the complaining.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** May 06, 2015, 12:11:08 AM »

Ok, I'll admit the anonymous letter-writer seems to be somewhat lacking in the courage department, I'll give you that.

Also, Pilar made a good point about the writer being too focused on his feelings.

I also agree with Centroamerica -- describing the priests as "awful" was an emotion-fueled statement at best, and rash judgment at worst.

Nevertheless, he is one voice in the chorus that should be heard, even if you wish to dismiss it (I wouldn't blame you). However flawed his subjective, emotional, immature views, I have no reason to believe they are not truthful.

This anecdote is merely a subjective, emotional personal anecdote. I'm only asking readers to accept it as such, and do with it what you will.

To be honest, I have a real sore spot for censorship. And a weak spot for expose's.

You know how people say today, "I stopped reading at..." Well, my brain decided "this needed to be posted" as soon as I read, "This page is no longer available."

Like I said, I'll admit it -- I'm a sucker for truth-out, leaks, truth leaks, anti-censorship, unapproved releases, etc. I'm EXTREMELY libertarian when it comes to information and anti-censorship.

AJNC · « **Reply #6 on:** May 06, 2015, 12:51:40 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

<To be honest, I have a real sore spot for censorship. And a weak spot for expose's.

You know how people say today, "I stopped reading at..." Well, my brain decided "this needed to be posted" as soon as I read, "This page is no longer available."

Like I said, I'll admit it -- I'm a sucker for truth-out, leaks, truth leaks, anti-censorship, unapproved releases, etc. I'm EXTREMELY libertarian when it comes to information and anti-censorship.

That's why I like Cathinfo.

Pilar · « **Reply #7 on:** May 06, 2015, 02:35:07 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Ok, I'll admit the anonymous letter-writer seems to be somewhat lacking in the courage department, I'll give you that.

Also, Pilar made a good point about the writer being too focused on his feelings.

I also agree with Centroamerica -- describing the priests as "awful" was an emotion-fueled statement at best, and rash judgment at worst.

Nevertheless, he is one voice in the chorus that should be heard, even if you wish to dismiss it (I wouldn't blame you). However flawed his subjective, emotional, immature views, I have no reason to believe they are not truthful.

This anecdote is merely a subjective, emotional personal anecdote. I'm only asking readers to accept it as such, and do with it what you will.

To be honest, I have a real sore spot for censorship. And a weak spot for expose's.

You know how people say today, "I stopped reading at..." Well, my brain decided "this needed to be posted" as soon as I read, "This page is no longer available."

Like I said, I'll admit it -- I'm a sucker for truth-out, leaks, truth leaks, anti-censorship, unapproved releases, etc. I'm EXTREMELY libertarian when it comes to information and anti-censorship.

But Matthew, there are several reasons to believe his statements are not objectively truthful anyway. You named them. He was subjective, emotional, and immature. Not to mention that he comes off as judgmental, especially for having only visited the seminary. What can we take as truth from his letter? Only his feelings, which may have been true for him. My guess is that he was told he didn't belong in the seminary and got his nose out of joint.

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** May 06, 2015, 07:13:32 AM »

Right off,you can see that this is a phoney. It is the email version of a troll.

We know that Winona is off the track in how it forms its "new" priests but certainly not that far off. It is either an over zealous resistance supporter or likewise a loyalist culter. There is a certainly a sense of immaturity about the whole thing.

An individual with a Catholic sense, would not speak of others in this loose way.

Graham · « **Reply #9 on:** May 06, 2015, 07:50:47 AM »

I saw a recent photo of seminarians at Winona fawning over a luxury car. I'm ready to believe that the atmosphere there is "awful." It's too bad this fellow didn't write a more substantial email, though.

wallflower · « **Reply #10 on:** May 06, 2015, 08:20:11 AM »

Quote from: Graham

I saw a recent photo of seminarians at Winona fawning over a luxury car. I'm ready to believe that the atmosphere there is "awful." It's too bad this fellow didn't write a more substantial email, though.

The seminarians have no say, I am sure, in the fundraisers they are given.

Even so, the problem with luxury is attachment. If these young men are willing to give up their lives for the priesthood, I doubt they are *that* attached to riches. One can have an appreciation for beauty (not that a car is my personal taste, but for some it is) while not being attached or driven by it. I see how this applies in every other aspect of life, I can see how it could apply to a vehicle as well. I do not believe "contempt for the world" means we run around disparaging everything in some attempt at false poverty. If something is beautiful, if something is luxurious, if something is above average, it's ok to acknowledge that, while of course keeping it in its proper place of importance or unimportance.

Graham · « **Reply #11 on:** May 06, 2015, 09:06:16 AM »

Then I guess their superiors told them to fawn over it?

I'm not going to have a pseudo-intellectual discussion about it. The photo is awful, and I can imagine the atmosphere is too. We're dealing with a liberalized, bourgeois group here. I just wish the letter writer would have put more substance.

claudel · « **Reply #12 on:** May 06, 2015, 10:06:57 AM »

Quote from: Graham

I saw a recent photo of seminarians at Winona fawning over a luxury car.

"Fawning"? Surely not. (I trust that Graham will soon realize that he should have chosen a more accurate word.) Assuming the car was a Volvo, a Saab, a Roller, a Merc, or some other exemplar of engineering and design, they might reasonably have looked longingly, gawked, gushed, effused, even drooled—heck, I'm fifty years their senior, and I might have joined them!

Fawning would be reserved for the car's owner, especially if he offered an hour behind the wheel to whichever one of the assembled mob told him most convincingly how clever he was for buying such a great car! What's more, learning how to fawn and flatter is an important part of any priest's training, all the more so if the SSPX mends fences with Rome. No priest unprepared to fawn and flatter has ever gotten to first base with a self-important auxiliary bishop who thinks he was consecrated for his virtue rather than his connections.*

Quote from: wallflower

… the problem with luxury is attachment. If these young men are willing to give up their lives for the priesthood, I doubt they are that attached to riches. One can have an appreciation for beauty (not that a car is my personal taste, but for some it is) while not being attached or driven by it. I see how this applies in every other aspect of life, I can see how it could apply to a vehicle as well. I do not believe "contempt for the world" means we run around disparaging everything in some attempt at false poverty. If something is beautiful, if something is luxurious, if something is above average, it's ok to acknowledge that, while of course keeping it in its proper place of importance or unimportance.

Precisely! I couldn't have put the matter better. An important intellectual, psychological, and especially moral part of coming to maturity is acquiring a sense of excellence and learning that excellence, in all legitimate spheres of human activity, ought to be perceived, admired, and encouraged. Discrimination, proportion, subordination: these essential traits of the properly formed mind and character take their full meaning only in a context where it's understood that "quality" and "excellence" are not merely blunt instruments advertisers use to flog toothpaste, cell phones, or underwear.

One other thing: Regarding a photograph, any photograph, as an honest and reliable conveyor of the whole truth—even a meaningful fraction of truth—constitutes a far graver lapse in judgment for anyone in today's USA over the age of 18 than any seminarian's doubtless brief bout of gawking at a hot car would ever be.
____________________________

*One thing I learned in thirty years of working in the publishing racket is that flattery—the more effusive and obvious, the better—may not get you everywhere, but it will get you a darn sight farther than plainspokenness and sincerity, especially when you're trying to get an underpaid and exhausted author to meet a deadline.

Graham · « **Reply #13 on:** May 06, 2015, 10:29:00 AM »

Quote from: claudel

One other thing: Regarding a photograph, any photograph, as an honest and reliable conveyor of the whole truth—even a meaningful fraction of truth—constitutes a far graver lapse in judgment for anyone in today's USA over the age of 18 than any seminarian's doubtless brief bout of gawking at a hot car would ever be.

This is not about "appreciation of quality." That's a laughworthy red herring. The photo is a nice pictorial summary of one of the main problems of the new SSPX: bourgeois worldliness.

claudel · « **Reply #14 on:** May 06, 2015, 10:40:40 AM »

Quote from: Graham

The photo is a nice pictorial summary of one of the main problems of the new SSPX: bourgeois worldliness.

Thank you, Graham, for making my point. Even if one were to grant that your summary judgment of the SSPX had merit (for present purposes, I neither grant nor dispute it), you are tendentiously superimposing a measure of significance on a still photo that no photo can reasonably bear. No amount of spluttering or sneering at me will alter that fact.