Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on December 24, 2019, 11:05:30 AM
-
I spoke with a seminarian who attended the SSPX seminary in Winona in 2000, and then came back in 2006 (a few years after +Williamson left) and stayed for a few years.
The changes, hitting him all at once, were shocking. I'm surprised he stayed that long!
But he told me some very, very interesting things about seminary life in 2006.
Fr. Le Roux came up with a shorthand for the 3 virtues he wanted every seminarian to practice most of all:
THE THREE D'S
------------------
Delicacy - ???
Disinterestedness - "Whatever the superior wants, that's what I want". Complete passivity.
Dependence
Of all the virtues the SSPX American seminary could be pushing on its seminarians -- to the extent they even have a shorthand "Remember the 3 D's!" they can remind each other with -- those three "virtues" are some very curious selections for their FUTURE PRIESTS.
I need not list a bunch of better virtues for a priest: wisdom, prudence, piety, knowledge, fortitude, lack of human respect, charity, devotion to Mary, etc. You could easily add to this list.
Also, the super-virtue for SSPX seminarians today is OBEDIENCE. Therefore, logically, the Superior General (the highest target of obedience) is venerated as a living saint. His mouth always speaks the words of God.
They even created a sort of "holy card" commemorating certain Bishop Fellay meeting(s) in Rome, etc.
-
Isn't that going to attract the wrong kind of seminarian? Like, the lavender variety?
I'm not saying all modern SSPX seminarians are lavender. But those young men who ARE of the lavender persuasion will be attracted to this new seminary ideal. THAT is the problem.
-
Isn't that going to attract the wrong kind of seminarian? Like, the lavender variety?
I'm not saying all modern SSPX seminarians are lavender. But those young men who ARE of the lavender persuasion will be attracted to this new seminary ideal. THAT is the problem.
Yes, I would definitely like to see the "delicacy" defined.
Delicate priests repulse me.
As for the "disinterestedness," it is manifest in every SSPX priest still in the SSPX:
None of them even know there is a crisis in the SSPX, and if they did, they would simply prefer wine and good cheese to exploring the causes of it.
They are convinced (without really caring one way or the other, though) that they are carrying on the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre, which was squandered by the GREC-Celier blueprint long ago.
-
Meanwhile, tough and virile priests are edifying to all.
I've been blessed to know many good priests. Strong in Faith, apostolic, men of action, trampling human respect underfoot, committed to Christ the King and devotion to the Blessed Mother, truly interested in the Faith as is shown by their wide knowledge of Catholic doctrine, prayers, lives of the saints...
And these same priests are personally holy as well, practicing mortification and truly living the Cross.
I don't want to list any, because I might leave some out. But not all of them are in the Resistance, for example Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer (not to be confused with Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer).
There are a lot of old-school SSPX priests that would be in this list. Priests who knew how to inspire Catholics to live the Catholic Faith and Tradition (but I repeat myself).
The kind of priests that wouldn't put up with young women dressing immodestly. The priests who took their male parishioners to task for the lack of altar servers. The kind of priests that kept getting "complained about" by lukewarm parishioners, and transferred around as a result...
-
Just for starters, Thomistic philosophy teaches that men are the ACTIVE or agent principle, while women are the passive or the receiver.
Passivity is not primarily a male virtue. Detachment from one's own will, perhaps, in preference to God's. But passivity as such? Men are supposed to be active, doing their part to bring about God's order in the world.
-
I suspect that Delicacy refers to political delicacy ... as in the types of political double-speak that one hears from SSPX leadership these days.
-
Obedience has been emphasized since my days in the late 80s / early 90s. That's because it's the only way to maintain cohesion in a group that is itself in a chronic state of disobedience to the Pope and the hierarchy. So they emphasize blind obedience to the SSPX leadership while at the same time promoting "faith is greater than obedience" to justify rebellion from Rome. Bishop Williamson pointed out (even while he was still there) that the SSPX is destined to break up because it relies on an artificial principle of unity ... at one time, the personality of one Archbishop Lefebvre. This was right after the Archbishop had passed away. +Williamson predicted that the SSPX would fall apart after his death, since his cult of personality could no longer unify the group, in as much as Catholics can be united only under one Pope and one hierarchy. I always think back about those lectures to explain why +Williamson didn't constitute a formal group for The Resistance. He didn't believe that it was appropriate or even viable, considering the Traditional movement just a loose-knit group of Catholics trying to keep the faith.
-
+Williamson predicted that the SSPX would fall apart after his death, since his cult of personality could no longer unify the group, in as much as Catholics can be united only under one Pope and one hierarchy. I always think back about those lectures to explain why +Williamson didn't constitute a formal group for The Resistance. He didn't believe that it was appropriate or even viable, considering the Traditional movement just a loose-knit group of Catholics trying to keep the faith.
The Holy Ghost gave him a healthy blessing of Wisdom and Prudence, that's for sure, maybe even some Prophecy. Talk about graces of state! The Holy Ghost dished out graces/blessings to +Williamson from the same heavenly treasure chest that He dished out graces/blessings to one +Marcel Lefebvre years earlier. In fact, they may even be the self-same graces/blessings, that had been returned to the treasure chest after +Lefebvre was done with them after he entered his eternal reward!
+Williamson is one of the most under-appreciated men of his day, and history will be much kinder to him than his own age is. Better than the fate of Obama or John Paul II, who were adored by their own age, but whom history will excoriate to the Nth degree!
-
This has to be the gαyest thing that I have ever heard.
-
Fr. Le Roux came up with a shorthand for the 3 virtues he wanted every seminarian to practice most of all:
THE THREE D'S
------------------
Delicacy - ???
Disinterestedness - "Whatever the superior wants, that's what I want". Complete passivity.
Dependence
Of all the virtues the SSPX American seminary could be pushing on its seminarians -- to the extent they even have a shorthand "Remember the 3 D's!" they can remind each other with -- those three "virtues" are some very curious selections for their FUTURE PRIESTS.
I need not list a bunch of better virtues for a priest: wisdom, piety, knowledge, fortitude, lack of human respect, charity, devotion to Mary, etc. You could easily add to this list.
Also, the super-virtue for SSPX seminarians today is OBEDIENCE. Therefore, logically, the Superior General (the highest target of obedience) is venerated as a living saint. His mouth always speaks the words of God.
They even created a sort of "holy card" commemorating certain Bishop Fellay meeting(s) in Rome, etc.
Delicacy? (totally homo!) Disinterestedness? (indifference.) Dependence (not a manly virtue.)
Looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck? To say the least certainly the 3D's are not manly, I withhold further comment about the author of the 3 D's because I have never been around Fr. Le Roux.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8nzJbMjn64&feature=youtu.be&t=248 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8nzJbMjn64&feature=youtu.be&t=248)
Wouldn't you put forward a seminarian with a bit more -- masculine confidence? -- as the face of your promotional material? I understand not all men (seminarians) have equal confidence, testosterone, etc. -- but wouldn't you give SOME thought to the kind of men that will respond to a given video?
Sometimes God doesn't mean for you to be a video personality, know what I mean? I can relate to that with my unsymmetrical face and my nasal voice (I sound like I have a permanent cold).
I'm not criticizing this priest necessarily; I am specifically criticizing here the Powers that Be who *purposely* chose him to be the face of the new seminary.
-
Yes, I would definitely like to see the "delicacy" defined.
I suspect that, publicly, Fr. Le Roux would say "delicacy" would mean to be delicate when mentioning anything that can be perceived controversial or upsetting to your audience (the laity, school kids, non-Catholics, Novous Ordo Catholics). Or in other words, do not say anything that will hurt someone's feelings (especially if they are a benefactor). Instead of "mortal sin", say "big mistake", instead of saying "your dress is to tight" say nothing!
However, if the person is a Resistance or other threat to the new branding image, then fire away!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8nzJbMjn64&feature=youtu.be&t=248 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8nzJbMjn64&feature=youtu.be&t=248)
Wouldn't you put forward a seminarian with a bit more -- masculine confidence? -- as the face of your promotional material? I understand not all men (seminarians) have equal confidence, testosterone, etc. -- but wouldn't you give SOME thought to the kind of men that will respond to a given video?
Sometimes God doesn't mean for you to be a video personality, know what I mean? I can relate to that with my unsymmetrical face and my nasal voice (I sound like I have a permanent cold).
I'm not criticizing this priest necessarily; I am specifically criticizing here the Powers that Be who *purposely* chose him to be the face of the new seminary.
Wow. Yeah.
Ps: That aside, the whole vid is one big BS story to justify escaping the ghost of Bishop Williamson (another symbolic telegraph to Rome), for which they were willing to get in bed with the Jaidhofer Foundation/Max Krah.
-
The Holy Ghost gave him a healthy blessing of Wisdom and Prudence, that's for sure, maybe even some Prophecy. Talk about graces of state! The Holy Ghost dished out graces/blessings to +Williamson from the same heavenly treasure chest that He dished out graces/blessings to one +Marcel Lefebvre years earlier. In fact, they may even be the self-same graces/blessings, that had been returned to the treasure chest after +Lefebvre was done with them after he entered his eternal reward!
+Williamson is one of the most under-appreciated men of his day, and history will be much kinder to him than his own age is. Better than the fate of Obama or John Paul II, who were adored by their own age, but whom history will excoriate to the Nth degree!
I heard him say these things back in 1990, just a short time after +Lefebvre had passed away, much to the astonishment of the young zealous SSPX seminarians ... who all felt that the SSPX would save the Church. +Williamson said that opposite, that God would save the Church in due time, and that the SSPX merely served as a lifeboat for His faithful in the meantime.
-
Sometimes God doesn't mean for you to be a video personality, know what I mean? I can relate to that with my unsymmetrical face and my nasal voice (I sound like I have a permanent cold).
Same here (that I'm not suited to video), which is why I have always avoided various requests to appear on video. I was clearly not meant for that. That seminarian in that clip would be well advised to grow some facial hair ... by the way.
-
I heard him say these things back in 1990, just a short time after +Lefebvre had passed away, much to the astonishment of the young zealous SSPX seminarians ... who all felt that the SSPX would save the Church. +Williamson said that opposite, that God would save the Church in due time, and that the SSPX merely served as a lifeboat for His faithful in the meantime.
He also wrote about it at times in his Rector's Letters. Here's an excerpt from his 1st letter after +ABL died.
April 1, 1991:
Will [the SSPX] fail? If it depends on human weakness, yes; if it depends on God's grace, no. And what does the Lord God have in mind? Only He knows. We had fondly thought he would conserve the Archbishop to guide us for many years yet, but the Archbishop was right, it was not to be. We may now fondly think that the Society is meant by God to be His light-bearer until the Church's crisis is over, but the Lord God is not short of alternatives, and He may have in mind still more darkness. It would not be undeserved.
However, it is never to be forgotten that, as St. Augustine said, He abandons nobody who has not first abandoned Him. With or without the great Archbishop, with or without his little Society, no sheep that seeks the Good Shepherd will be forced to lose Him. That is an intrinsic impossibility. "Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom" (Lk XII, 32).
Another, later example:
July 1, 1998:
Chaos in people's hearts and minds swirls all around us. Sister Lucy of Fatima called it "diabolical disorientation", and the Archbishop's dear little Society of St. Pius X is going to need a miraculous protection if its faith is not also to perish in the universal storm, still rising. The old-fashioned barometer, reading lower and lower, is beginning to sway on the wall!
Question: can the Society withstand this tornado-force dream? Can Society Catholics, especially priests, withstand the mighty suction of Fiftiesism, that glossy version of Catholicism without the Cross, all the outer trappings of Tradition, but with none of the substance (cf. II Timothy Ill, 5)? The glamorous modern world which seduced so many priests and bishops into Vatican II is more glamorous and modern than ever - what guarantees that the Society will not in turn go the way of all conciliar flesh? ...
Listen to a Society priest now working in the U.S.A.: "Here, either a priest fights like a hero, or he slips into Fiftiesism without even realizing it. It's strange, but that's how it is. A priest must have unusual strength of character and rock-solid convictions to stand fast, or he will slide the way the whole modern environment encourages him to slide. So a polarisation is inevitable in all our parishes. That was not so yesterday, when a comfortable conservatism was still possible, but the days of those good conservative priests are gone. Today it's all or nothing. This or that priest may vigorously deny they are liberal, but if they are incapable of serious, steady, almost heroic action, they will give way in practice. You may even not be liberal, but if you do not do what you should do, you will still act like a liberal."
I have long asked myself whether the Society will last until the Chastisement. If it does, God will have given it a special protection. Time will tell if that is His will.
-
Mamma mia. That video was disgusting. Enough with the gαy sounding priests within the SSPX.
-
Obedience has been emphasized since my days in the late 80s / early 90s. That's because it's the only way to maintain cohesion in a group that is itself in a chronic state of disobedience to the Pope and the hierarchy. So they emphasize blind obedience to the SSPX leadership while at the same time promoting "faith is greater than obedience" to justify rebellion from Rome. Bishop Williamson pointed out (even while he was still there) that the SSPX is destined to break up because it relies on an artificial principle of unity ... at one time, the personality of one Archbishop Lefebvre. This was right after the Archbishop had passed away. +Williamson predicted that the SSPX would fall apart after his death, since his cult of personality could no longer unify the group, in as much as Catholics can be united only under one Pope and one hierarchy. I always think back about those lectures to explain why +Williamson didn't constitute a formal group for The Resistance. He didn't believe that it was appropriate or even viable, considering the Traditional movement just a loose-knit group of Catholics trying to keep the faith.
This makes me think of the section in the "Letter of the Nine" (1983) dealing with "Loyalty":
Loyalty
The fundamental reason for the Society's existence is to promote loyalty to the Church and her teachings. Unfortunately, it seems that the distinction between the primary loyalty which we owe to the Church and the subordinate loyalty we give to the Society has become somewhat blurred in the practical order.
Priests, seminarians, and the faithful associate themselves with the Society to the extent that the Society is loyal to Tradition; they associate with it because they want the traditional Mass, the traditional sacraments and the traditional teachings and practices of the Church. The trust we have received from them is based on this. It is the trust under which we have labored in the United States these past ten years. We have received this trust from them in a true contractual sense. The support we have asked from them and received was a conditional support. The condition was that we be loyal to Tradition and the people would be loyal to us. It is not loyalty to persons or organizations, but loyalty to the Church and her traditions that counts in their eyes.
We believe it should be the practice of the Society to avoid giving the impression that loyalty to the Society is on the same level as loyalty to the traditions of the Church and the Church itself. We priests cannot propose loyalty to the Society as equal in value to loyalty to the traditional rites and doctrines. Therefore, the primary motive of everything we do is loyalty to the Church.
To the extent that any organization, including the Society, would do things which conflict with the traditions and immemorial practices of the Church, to that extent we reject these things without hesitation or reservation.
-
This makes me think of the section in the "Letter of the Nine" (1983) dealing with "Loyalty":
Loyalty
The fundamental reason for the Society's existence is to promote loyalty to the Church and her teachings. Unfortunately, it seems that the distinction between the primary loyalty which we owe to the Church and the subordinate loyalty we give to the Society has become somewhat blurred in the practical order.
Priests, seminarians, and the faithful associate themselves with the Society to the extent that the Society is loyal to Tradition; they associate with it because they want the traditional Mass, the traditional sacraments and the traditional teachings and practices of the Church. The trust we have received from them is based on this. It is the trust under which we have labored in the United States these past ten years. We have received this trust from them in a true contractual sense. The support we have asked from them and received was a conditional support. The condition was that we be loyal to Tradition and the people would be loyal to us. It is not loyalty to persons or organizations, but loyalty to the Church and her traditions that counts in their eyes.
We believe it should be the practice of the Society to avoid giving the impression that loyalty to the Society is on the same level as loyalty to the traditions of the Church and the Church itself. We priests cannot propose loyalty to the Society as equal in value to loyalty to the traditional rites and doctrines. Therefore, the primary motive of everything we do is loyalty to the Church.
To the extent that any organization, including the Society, would do things which conflict with the traditions and immemorial practices of the Church, to that extent we reject these things without hesitation or reservation.
Personally, I think the 9 made some good points, just not their conclusion about the pope.
-
Personally, I think the 9 made some good points, just not their conclusion about the pope.
Well, I'll be.....
That's more than I would have expected....I'll take it Sean.....Merry Christmas to you!
-
Well, I'll be.....
That's more than I would have expected....I'll take it Sean.....Merry Christmas to you!
Yes, we are nigh upon the Christmas truce.
-
Well, I'll be.....
That's more than I would have expected....I'll take it Sean.....Merry Christmas to you!
Merry Christmas 2V!!
-
Delicacy - I see this as a kind of prudence that says the right thing at the right time. A good example of this type of prudence comes from the life of St Hugh of Lincoln;
Hugh was consecrated Bishop of Lincoln on 21 September 1186[4] at Westminster.[1] Almost immediately he established his independence of the King, excommunicating a royal forester and refusing to seat one of Henry's courtly nominees as a prebendary of Lincoln; he softened the king's anger by his diplomatic address and tactful charm. After the excommunications, he came upon the king hunting and was greeted with dour silence. He waited several minutes and the king called for a needle to sew up a leather bandage on his finger. Eventually Hugh said, with gentle mockery, "How much you remind me of your cousins of Falaise" (where William I's mother Herleva, a tanner's daughter, had come from). At this Henry just burst out laughing and was reconciled. As a bishop, he was exemplary, constantly in residence or travelling within his diocese, generous with his charity, scrupulous in the appointments he made. He raised the quality of education at the cathedral school. Hugh was also prominent in trying to protect the Jews, great numbers of whom lived in Lincoln, in the persecution they suffered at the beginning of Richard I's reign, and he put down popular violence against them—as later occurred following the death of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln—in several places.
https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=5936
Disinterestedness - This could be related with the virtue of detachment. Think of the holy people of Acadia who chose exile and imprisonment rather than to deny their Catholic Faith. Or rather the Catholics of Mosul who chose exile rather than to accept the false religion of Islam.
Dependence - One way that this could be understood would be in total dependence on the will of God. What does God want? What does God want me to do? "Fiat mihi secundum voluntatem tua" - The Blessed Virgin Mary
-
Delicacy - I see this as a kind of prudence that says the right thing at the right time. A good example of this type of prudence ...
Disinterestedness - This could be related with the virtue of detachment.
Dependence - One way that this could be understood would be in total dependence on the will of God. What does God want? What does God want me to do? "Fiat mihi secundum voluntatem tua" - The Blessed Virgin Mary
.
If he meant prudence, he should say prudence, not delicacy. We wouldn't be trying to figure out what he means by "delicacy" (ugh) if he said prudence.
.
If he meant detachment, say detachment.
.
And if he meant what you say in the 3rd case, call it resignation to the Will of God.
.
Sorry it wouldn't be a cutesy "3 Ds", but it would be much clearer, more Catholic in that it aligns with virtues commonly taught in Catholic Tradition, and certainly less effeminate-sounding (and effeminate-attracting as Matthew pointed out).
-
Same here (that I'm not suited to video), which is why I have always avoided various requests to appear on video. I was clearly not meant for that. That seminarian in that clip would be well advised to grow some facial hair ... by the way.
I have to wonder if SSPX priests and seminarians are even allowed to grow facial hair. Wasn't it the traditional norm for Latin Rite priests to be clean-shaven?
-
I have to wonder if SSPX priests and seminarians are even allowed to grow facial hair. Wasn't it the traditional norm for Latin Rite priests to be clean-shaven?
Ladislaus must know this already, but no, seminarians weren't allowed to grow any. It's a Roman Rite thing.
I think almost every ex-seminarian, 6 months after they left, sported some kind of facial hair. I grew a full beard as soon as I left. I might have even stopped shaving 1 day before I left. hahaha
The same was my experience in JROTC in public high school. No facial hair allowed. At my graduation a few weeks after my last day of class, I already had a pathetic 18-year-old's beard (as an aside, it's amazing that you're not really "full grown" at 18).
Fr. Doran was one of those who chafed at this particular Roman Rite custom (he said "They want their priests to look like they're 12..." or something to that effect)
Years later, he joined the Maronite Rite, and quickly had a full beard. He even grew a beard during a short vacation from the seminary. I forgot what country he was going to.
It might be a Roman Rite thing, but in the secular world it's very much a Baby Boomer (and maybe earlier) custom. Note how many millennials have facial hair. It seems like facial hair is coming back into style.
Why would men want to look like women anyhow? Male lions have a MANE. Lionesses do not. God put facial hair on (most) men. It's not jewelry, makeup, or any man-made accessory. You can't criticize that which happens naturally *when you do absolutely nothing*.
-
About the 3 D's
I was fascinated when I heard this, because it finally gave me an EXPLANATION for what I had observed for years.
I noticed years ago (and spoke on CI about countless times) how the "new type" of seminarian differed in personality, bearing, etc. and now I understand why!
-
Just what the world needs more effeminate French priests
-
Obedience has been emphasized since my days in the late 80s / early 90s. That's because it's the only way to maintain cohesion in a group that is itself in a chronic state of disobedience to the Pope and the hierarchy. So they emphasize blind obedience to the SSPX leadership while at the same time promoting "faith is greater than obedience" to justify rebellion from Rome. Bishop Williamson pointed out (even while he was still there) that the SSPX is destined to break up because it relies on an artificial principle of unity ... at one time, the personality of one Archbishop Lefebvre. This was right after the Archbishop had passed away. +Williamson predicted that the SSPX would fall apart after his death, since his cult of personality could no longer unify the group, in as much as Catholics can be united only under one Pope and one hierarchy. I always think back about those lectures to explain why +Williamson didn't constitute a formal group for The Resistance. He didn't believe that it was appropriate or even viable, considering the Traditional movement just a loose-knit group of Catholics trying to keep the faith.
This is possibly one of the most significant posts I have ever read in this forum.
The more I see how the priests behave and the more I read about the SSPX, the more I see that authority is a big problem.
How can you convince people to obey the superior general if he doesn't obey the pope? How can you tell people that they can question everything that big boss does, but they can't question absolutely anything that the little boss says?
The result is that most priests turn to blind obedience. I think that is the only way that they can live in this situation, and that is why it was possible for Bp. Fellay and co. to turn the superior general into dictator general.
I really can't see a religious congregation working like this. As I understand, the superior of a congregation handles the administrative work. Doctrine and faith have always been the Pope's business. That is why the SSPX is so "weird". The superior general is not the pope, and he cannot act like a pope. He cannot be the one who guards doctrine. That is simply not the nature of his position.
I find it really amazing that Bp. Williamson could see this far right after Archbp. Lefebvre passed away. Some people say that he is a pessimist, I think that he merely sees and says things as they are, without fantasizing on absurd hopes that everything will be fine without greater struggles..
-
It is agreed upon by all sides that it was the personal charisma and leadership of Archbishop Lefebvre that held the SSPX together amidst the warring factions of R&R, sede, accordist, and other factions (particularly in the 70’s and early 80’s), since lacking ordinary jurisdiction, there was never any ecclesiastical/canonical compulsion which would normally enforce unity:
If eventually you found yourself disagreeing with Lefebvre, you could just leave, and there was nothing anyone could do about it (whereas for fully approved communities, defecting from one community to join or start another would have required the consent of both superiors).
And so, over time, half the priests Lefebvre ordained eventually cut ties with the SSPX for one reason or another, and all he could do is say goodbye. Consequently, one Society priest tells me that overall, the average lifespan of priestly service in the SSPX is only 10 years (ie., on average, priests leave the SSPX after 10 years).
It seems that the “solution” to this problem was to attempt to transfer the veneration SSPX members formerly had forLefebvre to his successors, and I think the process Ladislaus describes was/is their attempt to do that very thing.
Obviously, the principle of unity sought for could and should have been the faith, but then disagreements about the faith naturally ensue because it is by authority that the rule of faith is transmitted, from the pope on down.
This problem of authority is that of which Bishop Williamson speaks when he shrinks from founding congregations:
If authority is daily made more and more unstable by the passage of time (ie., silently inculcating a stronger and stronger spirit of independence as individual clergy continue to form their own personal postures and positions in response to the growing list of Roman and diocesan scandals, thereby creating more and more opportunities for disagreements with each other and their would-be superiors), then the phenomenon of departures experienced in Lefebvre’s day should logically be exacerbated today.
This is why Bishop Williamson speaks of “herding cats” and concluding “it may be better not to try” in response to the request of those like me who fear to abandon Lefebvre’s model, despite the anticipated defections and divisions which are sure to come (personally, I believe we are obligated to try with congregations, because independence is opposed to the hierarchical constitution of the Church, but it is not worth falling out over, and perpetuating the phenomenon of division I have been discussing).
The neo-SSPX, therefore, really could not do otherwise in inculcating this hero worship of the Superior General, unless it was regularized by Rome...a course it has long pursued, and which is almost accomplished.
-
Everything you wrote is spot on, Sean. Bishop Williamson saw this unfolding 30 years ago. He didn't need any special private revelation to foresee it ... just his keen understanding of human nature and the constitution of the Church.
-
It is agreed upon by all sides that it was the personal charisma and leadership of Archbishop Lefebvre that held the SSPX together amidst the warring factions of R&R, sede, accordist, and other factions (particularly in the 70’s and early 80’s), since lacking ordinary jurisdiction, there was never any ecclesiastical/canonical compulsion which would normally enforce unity:
If eventually you found yourself disagreeing with Lefebvre, you could just leave, and there was nothing anyone could do about it (whereas for fully approved communities, defecting from one community to join or start another would have required the consent of both superiors).
And so, over time, half the priests Lefebvre ordained eventually cut ties with the SSPX for one reason or another, and all he could do is say goodbye. Consequently, one Society priest tells me that overall, the average lifespan of priestly service in the SSPX is only 10 years (ie., on average, priests leave the SSPX after 10 years).
It seems that the “solution” to this problem was to attempt to transfer the veneration SSPX members formerly had forLefebvre to his successors, and I think the process Ladislaus describes was/is their attempt to do that very thing.
Obviously, the principle of unity sought for could and should have been the faith, but then disagreements about the faith naturally ensue because it is by authority that the rule of faith is transmitted, from the pope on down.
This problem of authority is that of which Bishop Williamson speaks when he shrinks from founding congregations:
If authority is daily made more and more unstable by the passage of time (ie., silently inculcating a stronger and stronger spirit of independence as individual clergy continue to form their own personal postures and positions in response to the growing list of Roman and diocesan scandals, thereby creating more and more opportunities for disagreements with each other and their would-be superiors), then the phenomenon of departures experienced in Lefebvre’s day should logically be exacerbated today.
This is why Bishop Williamson speaks of “herding cats” and concluding “it may be better not to try” in response to the request of those like me who fear to abandon Lefebvre’s model, despite the anticipated defections and divisions which are sure to come (personally, I believe we are obligated to try with congregations, because independence is opposed to the hierarchical constitution of the Church, but it is not worth falling out over, and perpetuating the phenomenon of division I have been discussing).
The neo-SSPX, therefore, really could not do otherwise in inculcating this hero worship of the Superior General, unless it was regularized by Rome...a course it has long pursued, and which is almost accomplished.
That makes sense.
When I try to see the consequences of this, I cannot help but think that catholic traditionalism is unsustainable in the long term.
A congregation that is not under the pope's authority is apparently doomed to failure. A congregation that is under the pope authority is a failure. How can we survive then?
It is hard to imagine that we will have a catholic pope in the near future.
This line of thinking seems to fit very well with Bp. Williamson's predictions that chastisement is near. I think that this is the way that he imagines that we will get out of this mess, and it makes a lot of sense.
If chastisement takes too long, catholicism apparently will disappear. Traditionalism will turn into heresy and schism. I cannot see it happening any other way.
-
Maybe this has already been mentioned on this thread, but +ABL didn't want the SSPX bishops to be the Superior General for the Society. I don't know if +ABL gave his reasons for this, but one of the reasons might be that too much deference might be given to a Bishop ordained by +ABL himself; and as such, it would be better to have a priest member of the SSPX as superior general.
Bishops generally command more respect and obedience than a priest would, at least in normal Church times.
-
That makes sense.
When I try to see the consequences of this, I cannot help but think that catholic traditionalism is unsustainable in the long term.
A congregation that is not under the pope's authority is apparently doomed to failure. A congregation that is under the pope authority is a failure. How can we survive then?
Yes, the whole "Traditional" package is hardly ideal. However, focusing too much on its flaws, dangers, inherent irregularity, etc. will lead one to Bishop Fellay's path. "We gotta make a deal with Rome STAT! They're still Modernist? Who cares! We're all going to end up schismatic like the Orthodox..."
We have to trust in God. Talking about "What if God took too long and the Catholic Faith were extinguished?" is more than just academic or theoretical talk, it is outright blasphemous!
A good God -- which accurately describes God, need I point out -- would not put us in a no-win situation. And by "win" I mean "save our souls". God WILL give us the necessary grace(s) for salvation; that is de fide. God doesn't ask or require anything of ANYONE without also giving them the means to accomplish it!
God has given us the Traditional movement as a lifeboat for the Faith during these dark times. When that movement fails, the chastisement will be "nigh, even at the doors" because "unless the days were shortened, not even the elect would be saved".
-
...We have to trust in God. ...
A good God -- which accurately describes God, need I point out -- would not put us in a no-win situation. And by "win" I mean "save our souls". God WILL give us the necessary grace(s) for salvation; that is de fide. God doesn't ask or require anything of ANYONE without also giving them the means to accomplish it!
Hate to be redundant, but what you say here reminds me again of that letter by +BW after the death of +ABL:
April 1, 1991:
Will [the SSPX] fail? If it depends on human weakness, yes; if it depends on God's grace, no. And what does the Lord God have in mind? Only He knows. ...
However, it is never to be forgotten that, as St. Augustine said, He abandons nobody who has not first abandoned Him. With or without the great Archbishop, with or without his little Society, no sheep that seeks the Good Shepherd will be forced to lose Him. That is an intrinsic impossibility. "Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom" (Lk XII, 32).
-
This line of thinking seems to fit very well with Bp. Williamson's predictions that chastisement is near. I think that this is the way that he imagines that we will get out of this mess, and it makes a lot of sense.
If chastisement takes too long, catholicism apparently will disappear. Traditionalism will turn into heresy and schism. I cannot see it happening any other way.
Hi, Giovanni. While some chastisement may likely come, since the weight of man's sins and offenses are very great, unless they are counter-balanced by proportionate prayers and sacrifices, imho, it is a mistake to WANT chastisement to come. Not saying you or H.E. wants that to happen, or are waiting for it; but I have seen such an attitude, among some Laity, of an "it's all over mentality". Either, chastisement, or end of the world, and there's nothing to do but wait for it. I think we should strive to inculcate a "Restoration mentality" in Tradition instead.
The former almost leads to despair. The latter gives hope. God has promised, and Our Lady has guaranteed, the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart, the Conversion of Russia etc will happen in the end, so our hope is solid, being based on the Immaculata's Promise.
Imo, we have to be ready, however long it takes. Perhaps, in 10 to 15 years, we will see some chastisement followed by Restoration. Perhaps, alternately, it may take as long as 30 to 50 years. But till the end, those devoted to the Church and to Tradition must go on. And God is Faithful and will give the necessary graces to all who co-operate with His Will. Restoration will come from Him in His Time.
He has already promised also, by the Mother of God at Quito etc, to send a holy Pope, at the end of the prophesied 20th century crisis.
The Holy Ghost gave him a healthy blessing of Wisdom and Prudence, that's for sure, maybe even some Prophecy. Talk about
graces of state! The Holy Ghost dished out graces/blessings to +Williamson from the same heavenly treasure chest that He dished out graces/blessings to one +Marcel Lefebvre years earlier. In fact, they may even be the self-same graces/blessings, that had been returned to the treasure chest after +Lefebvre was done with them after he entered his eternal reward!
Matthew, as is clear from the above, You venerate Bp. Williamson as a living saint full of the Holy Ghost's graces, or at least as a very holy Bishop completely faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. And that's fine, the Resistance needs that. So why are you opposed to us likewise believing Bp. Fellay is a holy and perhaps even Saintly Successor to Archbishop Lefebvre? From our perspective, everything changes after Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, and Universae Ecclesiae in 2011, not to mention Doctrinal Discussions since then. Thereafter, it is reasonable and right to pursue canonical normalization and normal relations with Rome in due time, in our opinion.
Any way you look at it, any organized society, beginning from a natural family, requires authority and order in order to function. Imagine if sons were constantly trying to undermine their Father's paternal authority in the house. The household couldn't function like that, could it? Granted, Faith is greater than Obedience; but obedience is required in all things not contrary to the Faith, and normal relations with Rome, in the post SP era, manifestly is not contrary to the Faith; otherwise pure self-will can result, and that is nearly fatal in a religious Fraternity or order, all of whose members should be absolutely dead to self-will, living to do only the Will of God, which is normally made known through Superiors. We know the Fourth Commandment is the First Commandment with a Promise, as St. Paul says; Eph 6:"[1] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=6&l=1-#x) Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is just. [2] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=6&l=2-#x) Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with a promise: [3] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=6&l=3-#x) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest be long lived upon earth.
The Catechism of Trent says the honor and reverence we give to our Superiors in the Church is a spiritual extension of this Commandment. Why do Monks take vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, if obedience is not intrinsically necessary for an order's functioning? Only in the case when something is manifestly contrary to God's Commandments was, as the Sanhedrin's command not to preach Jesus Christ Our Lord, can we rightly say with the Apostles, Acts 5: [29] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=5&l=29#x) But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men."
I don't see the SSPX in any respect telling anyone to disobey the commandments of God; otherwise, I would not belong to it. As it is, the SSPX wants to obey, as far as is reasonably possible in these times, what Our Lord Himself said in Mat 18:17. The SSPX is preparing for a long, long fight ahead; perhaps, many decades still.
This is clear from the Letter of the General Council: "When one watches how events are unfolding it is highly likely that the end of this crisis will take tens of years yet. But to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church ... This dialectic between the Truth and the Faith on the one side and Authority on the other is contrary to the Spirit of the Priesthood ... We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society."
-
Could someone here give a thumbnail definition of "Fiftiesism"?
It's one of those terms that I think I know what it means --- Dad goes out to work every day, Mom stays home with several kids, everything is very clean and well-organized, the whole family sits down at a decent hour to a nourishing, home-cooked dinner, television in the home is either non-existent or severely restricted, the family goes to the Traditional Latin Mass every Sunday (at the very least) in dress clothes, many families produce a vocation to the priesthood or religious life, and the priest's word is law, no further discussion necessary. In other words, Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best dressed up in Catholic clothing. Is that it?
-
Could someone here give a thumbnail definition of "Fiftiesism"?
It's one of those terms that I think I know what it means --- Dad goes out to work every day, Mom stays home with several kids, everything is very clean and well-organized, the whole family sits down at a decent hour to a nourishing, home-cooked dinner, television in the home is either non-existent or severely restricted, the family goes to the Traditional Latin Mass every Sunday (at the very least) in dress clothes, many families produce a vocation to the priesthood or religious life, and the priest's word is law, no further discussion necessary. In other words, Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best dressed up in Catholic clothing. Is that it?
I understand it to mean a superficial Catholic Faith, that one displays in the exterior, as a matter of habit or routine, but not out of conviction. All bishops at the Council were offering the Latin Mass in the 1950's and teaching the Traditional Faith, yet, almost all were mondernist on the inside and their modernism came out once they got the chance in the 1960's.
-
I understand it to mean a superficial Catholic Faith, that one displays in the exterior, as a matter of habit or routine, but not out of conviction. All bishops at the Council were offering the Latin Mass in the 1950's and teaching the Traditional Faith, yet, almost all were mondernist on the inside and their modernism came out once they got the chance in the 1960's.
Well, doctrinally, they were already beginning to be Modernist on the outside too. It wasn't hidden. But it was harder to see with the backdrop of the Traditional Mass still out there. That's why they had to get rid of the Mass; it flew in the face of their modern attitudes and doctrine. The lex orandi of the Tridentine Mass had fallen out of sync with their lex credendi.
-
Delicacy - I see this as a kind of prudence that says the right thing at the right time. A good example of this type of prudence comes from the life of St Hugh of Lincoln;
Hugh was consecrated Bishop of Lincoln on 21 September 1186[4] at Westminster.[1] Almost immediately he established his independence of the King, excommunicating a royal forester and refusing to seat one of Henry's courtly nominees as a prebendary of Lincoln; he softened the king's anger by his diplomatic address and tactful charm. After the excommunications, he came upon the king hunting and was greeted with dour silence. He waited several minutes and the king called for a needle to sew up a leather bandage on his finger. Eventually Hugh said, with gentle mockery, "How much you remind me of your cousins of Falaise" (where William I's mother Herleva, a tanner's daughter, had come from). At this Henry just burst out laughing and was reconciled. As a bishop, he was exemplary, constantly in residence or travelling within his diocese, generous with his charity, scrupulous in the appointments he made. He raised the quality of education at the cathedral school. Hugh was also prominent in trying to protect the Jews, great numbers of whom lived in Lincoln, in the persecution they suffered at the beginning of Richard I's reign, and he put down popular violence against them—as later occurred following the death of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln—in several places.
https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=5936
Disinterestedness - This could be related with the virtue of detachment. Think of the holy people of Acadia who chose exile and imprisonment rather than to deny their Catholic Faith. Or rather the Catholics of Mosul who chose exile rather than to accept the false religion of Islam.
Dependence - One way that this could be understood would be in total dependence on the will of God. What does God want? What does God want me to do? "Fiat mihi secundum voluntatem tua" - The Blessed Virgin Mary
poche sometimes you surprise me.
-
That makes sense.
When I try to see the consequences of this, I cannot help but think that catholic traditionalism is unsustainable in the long term.
A congregation that is not under the pope's authority is apparently doomed to failure. A congregation that is under the pope authority is a failure. How can we survive then?
It is hard to imagine that we will have a catholic pope in the near future.
This line of thinking seems to fit very well with Bp. Williamson's predictions that chastisement is near. I think that this is the way that he imagines that we will get out of this mess, and it makes a lot of sense.
If chastisement takes too long, catholicism apparently will disappear. Traditionalism will turn into heresy and schism. I cannot see it happening any other way.
It goes with his belief in Garabandal.
Some of the Catholic prophets have said that the Church will disappear. Papacy and everything. Then will be resurrected out of seemingly nothing. Looks as if SSPX, FSSP, and other traditional orders will disappear also for awhile.
Williamson is not dumb. He sees which way the wind has been blowing the world for the last 200 years and where the world is heading.
-
Could someone here give a thumbnail definition of "Fiftiesism"?
.
Here is a clip from one old +BW letter, and an entire letter where he spoke of it:
.
...Fiftiesism, that glossy version of Catholicism without the Cross, all the outer trappings of Tradition, but with none of the substance (cf. II Timothy Ill, 5)...
.
Excerpts from the letter below:
.
"...the Fiftiesism of our own time, the pre-Vatican II shell-game was the end-product of 150 years of Liberal Catholicism blending Church and world, attempting to combine the values of the Faith with those of the Revolution..."
.
"At the heart then of Fiftiesism in our own time is that while outwardly the Faith in the 1950's seemed to be lived, practised and defended, and the Mass was the Mass of all time, nevertheless inwardly too many Catholics' hearts were going with the world."
.
"To how many "Catholics" in the 1950's was "religion" what one did on Sunday morning while in real life the world was being saved, for instance from Communism, by the American Constitution, free enterprise, etc. etc.? No doubt the Faith was believed in, every article of it, but how many "Catholics" let that Faith form their character and define their view of the world? ... How many on the contrary seek to "enjoy" the world as much as they can, to have all possible "fun", while keeping just short of mortal sin? That is pure Fiftiesism, and it will have the same disastrous results."
.
The full letter:
What is Fiftiesism?
August 3, 1998
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
Following on the mention of "Fiftiesism" in last month's letter, a reader reasonably asked what it is, and if there is anywhere he can read up on it. Since Fiftiesism is a serious threat to "Traditional" Catholics, and since little has to my knowledge been written about it as such, let us examine it here.
"Fiftiesism" is a name for the kind of Catholicism that was generally practised in the 1950's, between World War II and Vatican II. To many Catholics who can look back that far, the 1950's seem like a golden age for the Church, because all kinds of Catholic systems were still up and running that crashed a few years later. On the other hand, precisely because so many Catholic systems crashed in the 1960's and 1970's, not all can have been well with the Church in those 1950's. There must have been "something rotten in the State of Denmark".
For instance the magnificent building now housing the Seminary in Winona was put up by the Dominicans, sparing no expense, in the early 1950's, only to be abandoned by them in 1970, and sold for a song. And this Novitiate for their central United States Province was merely one Catholic institute amongst thousands all over the world that followed this path from riches to rags. Can the 1950's really have been such a golden age as they seem?
Fiftiesism is then the name for what was wrong alongside - or inside - all that was right in the practice of Catholicism in the 1950's. Church structures stood tall but termites were burrowing away within, so that with one strong push from Vatican II, the structures were all ready to fall over. Traditional Catholics today must take thought to avoid re-building a Church of the 1950's all ready to fall over again!
To illustrate what was good as well as bad in the Catholicism of the 1950's, let us think of English Catholicism in the 1520's, just before the Reformation in England of the 1530's and 1540's.
On the good side, England looked in the 1520's like a completely Catholic nation. It had been Catholic for nearly 1,000 years, with the result that for an Englishman then to be Catholic was the most normal and simple thing in the world. Young King Henry VIII was so Catholic that he was awarded by Rome the title of "Defender of the Faith" for his refutation of Luther's errors! As for the English people, a scholarly book was written a few years ago to prove how Catholic they still were, as though the Reformation was none of their fault.
Alas, on the bad side, what were the fruits of this 1520's Catholicism? By the end of the 1550's Catholics were being persecuted, and Queen Elizabeth I was skillfully and ruthlessly maneuvering England into national apostasy, wherein to remain Catholic was a glorious but highly dangerous avocation. Catholic priests were hunted down by her secret police, hanged, drawn and quartered as traitors, so that while an English priest in the 1560's had to have the same Catholic Faith and priesthood as a priest in the 1520's, nevertheless in the transformed circuмstances he was called upon to be a quite new kind of priest. Hence the Jesuit Order, "old and new".
What had happened? The Catholicism of English Catholics in the 1520's had been tried by the Lord God and found wanting. As events of the 1530's and 1540's proved, their Catholicism, which we might call "Twentiesism", had been too much of a shell-game. The clergy had "lacked grace" (Thomas More). As for the people, they had resisted, for instance in the Pilgrimage of Grace, but not enough. So God punished English Twentiesism by letting it turn into the permanent shell-game of Anglicanism (known in the U.S.A. as Episcopalianism), founded on Elizabeth's Anglican Establishment.
Now imagine a Jesuit priest in England of the 1560's saying to the small congregations of his faithful remnant, "My dear people, all is changed, changed utterly, a terrible beauty is born. No more Twentiesism!", and you can see why a Traditional priest would say to Traditionalists in the 1990's, "No more Fiftiesism!"
In fairness to English Catholics of the 1520's, the problem of their shell-game had been building up over many generations before them, and it did not mean that every English Catholic was losing or would lose the Faith, because of course there was a glorious first harvest of martyrs under Henry VIII, and a second under Elizabeth I.
In fairness likewise to the Fiftiesism of our own time, the pre-Vatican II shell-game was the end-product of 150 years of Liberal Catholicism blending Church and world, attempting to combine the values of the Faith with those of the Revolution, and not every Catholic of the 1950's proved to be deep-down in love with the world, because, as in Reformation England, a by the grace of God faithful remnant pulled through Vatican II to constitute the bedraggled but glorious remains of the Tridentine Church known to us as "Tradition", or the Traditionalists"!
At the heart then of Fiftiesism in our own time is that while outwardly the Faith in the 1950's seemed to be lived, practised and defended, and the Mass was the Mass of all time, nevertheless inwardly too many Catholics' hearts were going with the world. Thence it was simply a matter of time before all those strict priests celebrating the ancient liturgy with every detail in place, would throw away their birettas and loosen up with eucharistic picnics improvised from one moment to the next. Americans old enough remember how suddenly this change could take place, almost overnight. The inside was rotten. Many Catholics pretended to love God, but really they loved the world. God spat them out at Vatican II.
But why in the 1950's were so many Catholics inwardly loving the world? Because the modern world, industrialized and suburbanized, is too much with us, all-glamorous, all-powerful, all-seductive. For even if a man and his family are intent upon remaining Catholic, still man remains a three-layered creature, not only individual and familial but also social, and all three layers are connected. Hence society exerts an enormous anti-Catholic pressure upon Catholics when it has been, like ours, largely in the grip of Masonic Revolutions for the last 200 years.
To illustrate Fiftiesism here in the U.S.A. (since most readers of this letter are Americans, but of course Fiftiesism was worldwide, as was Vatican II), let us quote three anti-Catholic principles firmly believed in by many American Catholics of the 1950's (and 1990's?), one social, one familial, one individual, amongst many others.
False social principle: separation of Church and State. This deadly error means that Jesus Christ is no longer King over society, He is only King of the sacristy. Society can supposedly do as it likes, and Our Lord has nothing to say! On the contrary read in the Bible the history of the People of God from Abraham and Moses through David, Solomon and Ezra to see if God's religion tells peoples what as peoples they must do!
False familial principle: co-education. Boys are designed by God quite differently from girls because He has quite different parts for them to play in life. So the Catholic Church has always known and taught that from as early an age as possible, let us say no later than seven or eight, they should be taught differently and separately. Yet how many "Catholics" in the U.S.A. were accustomed to coeducation in the 1950's and still see no problem with it in the 1990's? Not even in the most primitive tribes will you find coeducation! They have too much sense!
False individual principle: the split between "religion" and real life. To how many "Catholics" in the 1950's was "religion" what one did on Sunday morning while in real life the world was being saved, for instance from Communism, by the American Constitution, free enterprise, etc. etc.? No doubt the Faith was believed in, every article of it, but how many "Catholics" let that Faith form their character and define their view of the world? How many "Traditionalists" to this day really put their trust in Our Lord Jesus Christ to solve problems of home, family, politics, education, economics, the arts, etc., etc.? How many on the contrary seek to "enjoy" the world as much as they can, to have all possible "fun", while keeping just short of mortal sin? That is pure Fiftiesism, and it will have the same disastrous results.
What is the solution to Fiftiesism, then and now? It is not complicated. The problem lies in pretending to put God first but not really doing so. The solution lies in obeying the First Commandment first, in loving the Lord God - Jesus Christ - with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength and with all our mind, and in putting no other gods or solutions before Him. Nor is it impossible to do so. The world, the flesh and the Devil may dominate our environment as never before in all history, but God remains God and we remain children of His Mother.
A powerful and practical means she obtained from her Son to help us put the First Commandment back in place is the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. These were given only twice at the Seminary this year, but they brought forth a bouquet of testimonials from which we shall quote next month to encourage you to make use of one of the Society's three retreat houses in the U.S.A.. Go to the retreats where you hear they really knock down, drag out the retreatants! Those are where the action is!
And may Our Lord pull all of us back from the world, the flesh and the Devil, lest His Chastisement catch us still in Fiftiesism, ready for Hell!
Sincerely yours in His Sacred Heart,
-
Sometimes God doesn't mean for you to be a video personality, know what I mean? I can relate to that with my unsymmetrical face and my nasal voice (I sound like I have a permanent cold)
You too, eh?
This is one reason I don't do podcasts. I can generate a passable "radio" voice when the occasion calls for it, but my natural speaking voice is a train wreck of a pseudo-patrician drawl --- my vowels are drawn out beyond all reason --- and a mid-Southern twang, kind of like Bill Buckley inhaling helium, if you can imagine such an abomination. And I speak very slowly and deliberately.
The keyboard is my friend. Covers a multitude of linguistic sins.
And I am all in favor of being urbane, tactful, and civil, but I fear "delicacy" goes beyond that. Sometimes you just have to be a sledgehammer instead of a feather.
-
So why are you opposed to us likewise believing Bp. Fellay is a holy and perhaps even Saintly Successor to Archbishop Lefebvre?
:laugh2:
Thank you for the good laugh!
Considering St. Ignatius' advice on the matter, calling ANY of the vagus clerics of Traddieland "saint" is absurd.
-
.
Here is a clip from one old +BW letter, and an entire letter where he spoke of it:
..
Excerpts from the letter below:
.
"...the Fiftiesism of our own time, the pre-Vatican II shell-game was the end-product of 150 years of Liberal Catholicism blending Church and world, attempting to combine the values of the Faith with those of the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn..."
.
"At the heart then of Fiftiesism in our own time is that while outwardly the Faith in the 1950's seemed to be lived, practised and defended, and the Mass was the Mass of all time, nevertheless inwardly too many Catholics' hearts were going with the world."
.
"To how many "Catholics" in the 1950's was "religion" what one did on Sunday morning while in real life the world was being saved, for instance from ƈσmmυɳιsm, by the American Constitution, free enterprise, etc. etc.? No doubt the Faith was believed in, every article of it, but how many "Catholics" let that Faith form their character and define their view of the world? ... How many on the contrary seek to "enjoy" the world as much as they can, to have all possible "fun", while keeping just short of mortal sin? That is pure Fiftiesism, and it will have the same disastrous results."
.
The full letter:
Once again, wisdom from perhaps the most piercing social commentator of our age.
I have long held that the generation that came of age from circa 1940 to 1970 is just simply, horribly, irrevocably LOST. One hopes there are exceptions.
Everything was about conformity, "being respectable", "good feeling", "getting along", and in the case of Catholics, approaching the world with an attitude of "please, please like us". There isn't one Catholic American in a thousand who can get past the concept of free speech, freedom of religion, and other Masonic concepts that got baked into this grand social experiment from Day One.
To see one's Catholicism as a "pit bull" at war with the secular world, at war with error and heresy, just isn't a concept that occurs to people. Putting the most generous, indulgent face possible on it, that is what is wrong with our new president --- he came of age in a certain time, when "all things were made new", and he's just got a blind spot. Legion is the number of those Catholics of the era who found a priest who told them what they wanted to hear, assured them that things such as abortion choice (for others, if not necessarily for oneself) and contraception were matters of "conscience" on which people are going to differ, and differ legitimately.
"Muh conscience", especially where it pertains to sins of the flesh (the human person's weakest area), is the "highway to hell" if ever there were such a thing.
-
Isn't that going to attract the wrong kind of seminarian? Like, the lavender variety?
I'm not saying all modern SSPX seminarians are lavender. But those young men who ARE of the lavender persuasion will be attracted to this new seminary ideal. THAT is the problem.
It is a foregone conclusion that Traddieland was infiltrated from day one of its existence. The MO of the Enemy doesn't change once he's got us on the ropes.
Delicacy??? LOL I am sure His Effeminacy Danielle Dolan could do a Masterclass on that one ;)
-
Once again, wisdom from perhaps the most piercing social commentator of our age.
Fiftiesism is just a repackaging of something said by (among others) the anonymous author of The Interior Life. Said author called it what it is: materialism in piety. He did so in the last part of the 19th century, well before any of our modern ecclesiastical 'heroes' were born.
Yes, the 50s was a spectacular manifestation of the illness diagnosed long before; however, Fiftiesism is (imo) a poor, inaccurate name for the phenomenon.
-
Fiftiesism is just a repackaging of something said by (among others) the anonymous author of The Interior Life. Said author called it what it is: materialism in piety. He did so in the last part of the 19th century, well before any of our modern ecclesiastical 'heroes' were born.
Yes, the 50s was a spectacular manifestation of the illness diagnosed long before; however, Fiftiesism is (imo) a poor, inaccurate name for the phenomenon.
Perhaps, but it's recent enough, that many people have living memory of it, and even for those who don't, it's readily accessible and culturally relatable. All you have to do, is to take familiar sitcoms, those lodestars of pop culture, and put an imaginary layer of Catholicism over top of them --- Happy Days, Leave It To Beaver, and so on. Pretend everybody is Catholic, and imagine what it would look like. Easy.
-
Do you have a link to that book on the interior life by an anonymous author?
-
Do you have a link to that book on the interior life by an anonymous author?
I am not a tech-savvy online kinda guy, but it was published be Roman Catholic Books and edited by Joseph Tissot.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19113620-the-interior-life
-
Do you have a link to that book on the interior life by an anonymous author?
https://archive.org/details/theinteriorlifes00tissuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
-
Bump!
Established in the SSPX seminaries in 2006
THE THREE D'S
------------------
Delicacy - ???
Disinterestedness - "Whatever the superior wants, that's what I want". Complete passivity.
Dependence
Of all the virtues the SSPX American seminary could be pushing on its seminarians -- to the extent they even have a shorthand "Remember the 3 D's!" they can remind each other with -- those three "virtues" are some very curious sɛƖɛctıons for their FUTURE PRIESTS.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And now, the future is here.
The nexgen SSPX priest is no way equipped to assist the faithful in resisting the CÖVÌD genocide and the "Mark of the Beast".
-
Proof is in the pudding. Results of the 3-D’s. Started off strong with good “old school” Priestly mentors and fell victim to the 4th D....DESTROYED!
He talks about blind obedience and never thinking for himself during his entire 7+ year seminary formation.
I listen to this and just scratch my head. How, Why, did this happen???
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQjaViSEoRQ (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQjaViSEoRQ)
Hate to give this Priest “views” but it gives insight into SSPX priestly formation...or lack their of.
-
Proof is in the pudding. Results of the 3-D’s. Started off strong with good “old school” Priestly mentors and fell victim to the 4th D....DESTROYED!
He talks about blind obedience and never thinking for himself during his entire 7+ year seminary formation.
I listen to this and just scratch my head. How, Why, did this happen???
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQjaViSEoRQ (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQjaViSEoRQ)
Hate to give this Priest “views” but it gives insight into SSPX priestly formation...or lack their of.
I didn't see the whole video, but I understood that his spiritual director knew about his struggles. He says that he asked to be expelled and that it was taken as a joke.
You really have to know your priests these days. Each and every one of them is a different case. Don't be naive enough to trust just any traditional priest.
On a more positive side, he sounds like a very honest person. He says he doesn't want to be seem as the victim. I believe that he has some chance of repenting and saving his soul before his time is over. Lord, have mercy.
-
He also says that he just always followed, observed, trying to fit in, figure it out, never taught to be strong or self confident, just wanted to be a Saint. Somehow he thought ordination was like the “silver bullet” that would give him the state of Grace to deal with these temptations....it never did. He decided this God thing was all hooey and no supernatural cure was coming anytime soon and if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em. (Paraphrasing)
So my question is, how can someone spend seven years (and more) submerged in a Catholic seminary and still have such an immature, adolescent understanding of grace?
What went so horribly wrong??
-
Bump!
The battle between the SSPX and Resistance SEEMS to have subsided as of late -- however, we must remember that if the SEMINARIES HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED THEIR FORMATIVE PROCESS AND CURRICULUM, then the SSPX is still toast.
What IS the SSPX, besides the sum of its priests? And I guess a pile of resources (money and real estate)?
If the priests ordained year after year, starting in 2008 or so are much lower quality and of poorer formation, isn't the SSPX doomed to constant decline, year over year, as older priests are outnumbered, sidelined, re-educated, demoralized, retired, and deceased?
The SSPX is still toast, humanly speaking.
-
Bump!
The battle between the SSPX and Resistance SEEMS to have subsided as of late -- however, we must remember that if the SEMINARIES HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED THEIR FORMATIVE PROCESS AND CURRICULUM, then the SSPX is still toast.
What IS the SSPX, besides the sum of its priests? And I guess a pile of resources (money and real estate)?
If the priests ordained year after year, starting in 2008 or so are much lower quality and of poorer formation, isn't the SSPX doomed to constant decline, year over year, as older priests are outnumbered, sidelined, re-educated, demoralized, retired, and deceased?
The SSPX is still toast, humanly speaking.
It would be helpful if we could learn about their true seminary curriculum?
Several years back, Fr. Joe Pfeiffer accused the seminary of making dramatic curriculum changes. Reading books which impacted their priestly formation away from Catholic tradition.
If we could just get the list of books for their seminary program, it would give us something solid and be insightful.
Otherwise, if an ex-seminarian would come forward and explain the program, that would help us to go beyond the
"Three D's" to see how they are forming them.
-
Oh, how many sincere Catholics will be ruined by the SSPX seminary? I hope they don't teach Fr. Robinson's Modernist guide yet.
-
Oh, how many sincere Catholics will be ruined by the SSPX seminary? I hope they don't teach Fr. Robinson's Modernist guide yet.
There will be more and more seminarians thinking like Fr. Robinson, believe me. And Fr. Robinson is 46 years old, with HALF his priestly formation (the first half) happening under +Williamson.
Imagine the younger generation, with their whole formation in the NEO-SSPX. Keep in mind also: 2004 and 2014 were both under Fr. Le Roux, but which year do you suppose was more "different" than the seminary under +W? You know that things can only be changed so fast.
When the starting point is "100% Traditional formation like under +Lefebvre" and the endpoint is "typical Novus Ordo seminary", it takes a while to get from point A to point B!
-
It would be helpful if we could learn about their true seminary curriculum?
Several years back, Fr. Joe Pfeiffer accused the seminary of making dramatic curriculum changes. Reading books which impacted their priestly formation away from Catholic tradition.
If we could just get the list of books for their seminary program, it would give us something solid and be insightful.
Otherwise, if an ex-seminarian would come forward and explain the program, that would help us to go beyond the
"Three D's" to see how they are forming them.
I fully agree. I have always favored and preferred facts, hard data, proof, evidence, etc. whenever we can get it.
Unfortunately, we seem to be coming up short in this area. I don't know how many young men leave the SSPX seminary, or where they "hang out" online, if they use the Internet at all. I think we might be running into that phenomenon of the young person who is completely aloof from the Internet, or at least all forums and social media in the broadest definition. This group is larger than you think. I know of countless Trad Catholics IRL, who I couldn't stalk or read their posts online if I wanted to. And that assumes I'm not banned from any Trad forum and that anything on Facebook is public, even if you have to locate them by name (rather than using a search engine, which would make it easier).
In other words:
I know dozens of Trads under 40, or even under 30, who I couldn't "check up on" even if I searched for them on Facebook, and scoured ALL known Trad forums. How can so many Trads not need the company of other Trads? Seems messed up to me.
It would be like 3/4 of Trads being teetotalers and not keeping any alcohol in the house. My first thought would be: is alcoholism that rampant among Trads? It is always easier to completely abstain than to use with moderation. There are some good quotes along these lines. So therefore I have to wonder: why are Trads so particularly unable to balance forums and the Internet? Why do so many of them give up, saying it ruins/takes over their life, prevents them from taking care of their family, etc.? Lots of people manage to "drink responsibly" when it comes to the Internet, social media, and forums. Why are Trads so pathetic in this department?
Again, when I hear someone brag about how they go way over-and-above the norm to completely avoid something, really making themselves stand out, I think to myself "Good for you, that's an excellent way to deal with one's weakness. Give it up completely!" Except for sin, of course. Abstaining from all sin, or all sin in a given area, shows strength, not weakness.
For example, if a man told me, "I don't even risk accidental glances at magazines by the checkout aisle or immodestly dressed customers. I'm so devoted to avoiding immorality that I pay extra so all my groceries are delivered to me."
Wouldn't you think that person is ABOVE-AVERAGE weak against sins and temptations of the flesh? I would. Because he's going out of his way, way over-and-above what is normal, to avoid a particular sin.
Likewise, if a man bragged that he "didn't keep any alcohol in the house, on principle" I would assume he had a "past" of alcohol abuse. Why else would he ban alcohol "on principle" considering it's not sinful in itself, and the Catholic Faith doesn't forbid its use?
I know what you're thinking: the Saints went over and above, to heroic heights, to avoid all sins. They stood out. HOWEVER, they were conspicuous in avoiding *all sins* not just one sin. For example, the man who brags about the lengths he goes to avoid (scrupulous non-sin) accidental glances at magazines? He's actually bragging and committing sins of pride. Saints wouldn't do this. And how is that grocery delivery service patron doing with all the OTHER sins that could send him to Hell? Pride? Anger? Lack of charity? Sins of the tongue? How is his prayer life?
-
I fully agree. I have always favored and preferred facts, hard data, proof, evidence, etc. whenever we can get it.
Unfortunately, we seem to be coming up short in this area. I don't know how many young men leave the SSPX seminary, or where they "hang out" online, if they use the Internet at all. I think we might be running into that phenomenon of the young person who is completely aloof from the Internet, or at least all forums and social media in the broadest definition. This group is larger than you think. I know of countless Trad Catholics IRL, who I couldn't stalk or read their posts online if I wanted to. And that assumes I'm not banned from any Trad forum and that anything on Facebook is public, even if you have to locate them by name (rather than using a search engine, which would make it easier).
In other words:
I know dozens of Trads under 40, or even under 30, who I couldn't "check up on" even if I searched for them on Facebook, and scoured ALL known Trad forums. How can so many Trads not need the company of other Trads? Seems messed up to me.
It would be like 3/4 of Trads being teetotalers and not keeping any alcohol in the house. My first thought would be: is alcoholism that rampant among Trads? It is always easier to completely abstain than to use with moderation. There are some good quotes along these lines. So therefore I have to wonder: why are Trads so particularly unable to balance forums and the Internet? Why do so many of them give up, saying it ruins/takes over their life, prevents them from taking care of their family, etc.? Lots of people manage to "drink responsibly" when it comes to the Internet, social media, and forums. Why are Trads so pathetic in this department?
Again, when I hear someone brag about how they go way over-and-above the norm to completely avoid something, really making themselves stand out, I think to myself "Good for you, that's an excellent way to deal with one's weakness. Give it up completely!" Except for sin, of course. Abstaining from all sin, or all sin in a given area, shows strength, not weakness.
For example, if a man told me, "I don't even risk accidental glances at magazines by the checkout aisle or immodestly dressed customers. I'm so devoted to avoiding immorality that I pay extra so all my groceries are delivered to me."
Wouldn't you think that person is ABOVE-AVERAGE weak against sins and temptations of the flesh? I would. Because he's going out of his way, way over-and-above what is normal, to avoid a particular sin.
Likewise, if a man bragged that he "didn't keep any alcohol in the house, on principle" I would assume he had a "past" of alcohol abuse. Why else would he ban alcohol "on principle" considering it's not sinful in itself, and the Catholic Faith doesn't forbid its use?
I know what you're thinking: the Saints went over and above, to heroic heights, to avoid all sins. They stood out. HOWEVER, they were conspicuous in avoiding *all sins* not just one sin. For example, the man who brags about the lengths he goes to avoid (scrupulous non-sin) accidental glances at magazines? He's actually bragging and committing sins of pride. Saints wouldn't do this. And how is that grocery delivery service patron doing with all the OTHER sins that could send him to Hell? Pride? Anger? Lack of charity? Sins of the tongue? How is his prayer life?
I often think it would've been better if you left me banned from the forum :laugh1:
I spend too much time here. On the other hand I've learnt a lot of important things.
I
-
I often think it would've been better if you left me banned from the forum :laugh1:
I spend too much time here. On the other hand I've learnt a lot of important things.
I
'm the type who has to go cold turkey to stop procrastinating, that would mean I'm weak in that department.
It's tough with this forum because it has become my Catholic search engine.
-
I fully agree. I have always favored and preferred facts, hard data, proof, evidence, etc. whenever we can get it.
Unfortunately, we seem to be coming up short in this area. I don't know how many young men leave the SSPX seminary, or where they "hang out" online, if they use the Internet at all. I think we might be running into that phenomenon of the young person who is completely aloof from the Internet, or at least all forums and social media in the broadest definition. This group is larger than you think. I know of countless Trad Catholics IRL, who I couldn't stalk or read their posts online if I wanted to. And that assumes I'm not banned from any Trad forum and that anything on Facebook is public, even if you have to locate them by name (rather than using a search engine, which would make it easier).
In other words:
I know dozens of Trads under 40, or even under 30, who I couldn't "check up on" even if I searched for them on Facebook, and scoured ALL known Trad forums. How can so many Trads not need the company of other Trads? Seems messed up to me.
It would be like 3/4 of Trads being teetotalers and not keeping any alcohol in the house. My first thought would be: is alcoholism that rampant among Trads? It is always easier to completely abstain than to use with moderation. There are some good quotes along these lines. So therefore I have to wonder: why are Trads so particularly unable to balance forums and the Internet? Why do so many of them give up, saying it ruins/takes over their life, prevents them from taking care of their family, etc.? Lots of people manage to "drink responsibly" when it comes to the Internet, social media, and forums. Why are Trads so pathetic in this department?
Again, when I hear someone brag about how they go way over-and-above the norm to completely avoid something, really making themselves stand out, I think to myself "Good for you, that's an excellent way to deal with one's weakness. Give it up completely!" Except for sin, of course. Abstaining from all sin, or all sin in a given area, shows strength, not weakness.
For example, if a man told me, "I don't even risk accidental glances at magazines by the checkout aisle or immodestly dressed customers. I'm so devoted to avoiding immorality that I pay extra so all my groceries are delivered to me."
Wouldn't you think that person is ABOVE-AVERAGE weak against sins and temptations of the flesh? I would. Because he's going out of his way, way over-and-above what is normal, to avoid a particular sin.
Likewise, if a man bragged that he "didn't keep any alcohol in the house, on principle" I would assume he had a "past" of alcohol abuse. Why else would he ban alcohol "on principle" considering it's not sinful in itself, and the Catholic Faith doesn't forbid its use?
I know what you're thinking: the Saints went over and above, to heroic heights, to avoid all sins. They stood out. HOWEVER, they were conspicuous in avoiding *all sins* not just one sin. For example, the man who brags about the lengths he goes to avoid (scrupulous non-sin) accidental glances at magazines? He's actually bragging and committing sins of pride. Saints wouldn't do this. And how is that grocery delivery service patron doing with all the OTHER sins that could send him to Hell? Pride? Anger? Lack of charity? Sins of the tongue? How is his prayer life?
.
Interesting observation. Maybe the reason for this is because they are so worldly that they don't talk about religion online anyway, so they don't participate in trad forums or talk about religious subjects on Twitter or Facebook, and therefore they don't show up when you search about such things? I agree that it's highly unlikely that the vast majority of young trads just don't socialize on the internet; almost impossible, I'd say.
-
If they do have an account , they will make sure it is hidden.
-
Tis a timely bump.I relayed via PM to one of my circle here on CI, that the priory that serves us has just received a newly ordained priest. He offered his first public masses, with first priestly blessings, this past weekend at our mission chapel. He hails from a very large family out of Quebec. He received his formation at Econe. I thought he was from France because his Latin is excellent (with a slight French accent) and he does not have that horrible Quebecois dialect to his speech. His English is very broken.
I first met him in the parking lot before Saturday evening Mass and offered him my handshake. This is when my theological deflector shields were raised. It is one of the most limp wristed attempts at a handshake I have ever come across in men. So I thought, oh dear, we got one of these new 3D priests! Even when speaking with him in French, he was very soft spoken - causing me to increase shield strength! The third item was the EXTREMELY fancy and delicate lace alb that Father wore for the Masses. My mind jumped immediately to the ICK priests and their lavender laced linens. In light of the holy oils query I posted earlier, I certainly pray there is nothing lacking in the validity of his ordination.
In short, where our chapel heard we were getting a new priest formed in Econe, my first perception was "uh oh."
God bless this new priest and may he turn out good but indeed it is an "uh oh" situation.
Christe eleison. Gospoda pomiluj. Panie zmiluj sie nad nami. :pray::pray::pray::incense::incense::incense:
-
Tis a timely bump.I relayed via PM to one of my circle here on CI, that the priory that serves us has just received a newly ordained priest. He offered his first public masses, with first priestly blessings, this past weekend at our mission chapel. He hails from a very large family out of Quebec. He received his formation at Econe. I thought he was from France because his Latin is excellent (with a slight French accent) and he does not have that horrible Quebecois dialect to his speech. His English is very broken.
I first met him in the parking lot before Saturday evening Mass and offered him my handshake. This is when my theological deflector shields were raised. It is one of the most limp wristed attempts at a handshake I have ever come across in men. So I thought, oh dear, we got one of these new 3D priests! Even when speaking with him in French, he was very soft spoken - causing me to increase shield strength! The third item was the EXTREMELY fancy and delicate lace alb that Father wore for the Masses. My mind jumped immediately to the ICK priests and their lavender laced linens. In light of the holy oils query I posted earlier, I certainly pray there is nothing lacking in the validity of his ordination.
In short, where our chapel heard we were getting a new priest formed in Econe, my first perception was "uh oh."
God bless this new priest and may he turn out good but indeed it is an "uh oh" situation.
Christe eleison. Gospoda pomiluj. Panie zmiluj sie nad nami. :pray::pray::pray::incense::incense::incense:
I don't know about French-speaking Canadians, but French men in general seem effeminate to the rest of us Westerners.
-
The third item was the EXTREMELY fancy and delicate lace alb that Father wore for the Masses. My mind jumped immediately to the ICK priests and their lavender laced linens.
ICK (Institute of Christ the King) priests? Maybe.
But that's not what I think of when I hear of ostentatious or long surplices! I think of SOCIETY OF ST. JOHN a.k.a. "The Johnnies".
They had long surplices with very long sleeves, lots of lace, and they were very theatrical in their directing of Gregorian Chant. This was according to Br. Marcel, who was there at the time.
And it's true. As a matter of fact, when I was at the Seminary they had standard surplices made by a group of nuns, so that surplices were no longer left to one's personal taste, bank account, etc. Everyone had the same kind. I understand why! I was there 2000 - 2003, and the Johnnies were there around 1997 I think.
I'm talking about Fr. Uruttigoity's group, who, sure enough, were later involved in scandals involving boys.
-
ICK (Institute of Christ the King) priests? Maybe.
But that's not what I think of when I hear of ostentatious or long surplices! I think of SOCIETY OF ST. JOHN a.k.a. "The Johnnies".
They had long surplices with very long sleeves, lots of lace, and they were very theatrical in their directing of Gregorian Chant. This was according to Br. Marcel, who was there at the time.
And it's true. As a matter of fact, when I was at the Seminary they had standard surplices made by a group of nuns, so that surplices were no longer left to one's personal taste, bank account, etc. Everyone had the same kind. I understand why! I was there 2000 - 2003, and the Johnnies were there around 1997 I think.
I'm talking about Fr. Uruttigoity's group, who, sure enough, were later involved in scandals involving boys.
As recounted elsewhere, I almost joined the SSJ (circa 2000) - I still have the long sleeved surplice although without the fancy lace embroidery (I could not wear that!) (The long sleeve surplice is used as an All Hallows/All Saints vestment.) I no longer can serve Mass because of my health, but for certain times of the liturgical year where the Divine Office is recited during ceremonies, I will don either my Roman cassock or the Eastern equivalent I own from another vocational foray. (With the ever growing beard that I sport, plus I always wear one of two St. Benedict crucifixes, I tend to look very eastern/ Slavic liturgically when in black :smirk:)
I visited the ICK in the US long before 2000, and that is where I saw the uber-fancy albs.
I would love to wear my full blown Templar duds - tunic, gloves, cloak with hood, sword and dagger, and chainmail coiffe - for an All Saints party, if we have one this year. Si Deus vult.......
-
I would love to wear my full blown Templar duds - tunic, gloves, cloak with hood, sword and dagger, and chainmail coiffe - for an All Saints party, if we have one this year. Si Deus vult.......
.
Knights Templars? Have you read the history of that organization? :trollface:
-
.
Knights Templars? Have you read the history of that organization? :trollface:
well, the Templars before they went down the tubes. I do have a Hospitaler tunic as well. :smirk:
An addendum, with respect to the new priest in my parts......
When requesting parishioners to come forth to receive the laying on of hands priestly blessing, he did not say come to the altar rail, or to the altar but twice uttered 'Communion Table'. That also makes me wonder what they are teaching in neosspx seminaries.
Root and twig, very odd, very odd indeed.
-
well, the Templars before they went down the tubes. I do have a Hospitaler tunic as well. :smirk:
An addendum, with respect to the new priest in my parts......
When requesting parishioners to come forth to receive the laying on of hands priestly blessing, he did not say come to the altar rail, or to the altar but twice uttered 'Communion Table'. That also makes me wonder what they are teaching in neosspx seminaries.
Root and twig, very odd, very odd indeed.
:(
Yikes! Hopefully it was just a poor choice of word due to lack of English proficiency. One never knows now though...
-
Bump!
-
Same here (that I'm not suited to video), which is why I have always avoided various requests to appear on video. I was clearly not meant for that. That seminarian in that clip would be well advised to grow some facial hair ... by the way.
Neither am I. I have a suspicion that my speaking voice would just repel people. So I write instead.