Author Topic: Offline Priests - A fundamental problem in SSPX and Resistance (Read 3633 times)

Matthew · « **on:** October 31, 2014, 11:58:19 AM »

Has anyone besides me noticed this?

The SSPX has/had a firm policy against priests going online on Catholic fora, etc.

Because of this, even the Resistance priests (who are all former SSPX priests) have a long-entrenched habit of staying aloof from all fora.

Yes I realize these priests are busy, but they are missing a great opportunity to smash confusion, rumors, etc. AT THE OUTSET by not spending even 5 minutes a week posting things officially themselves.

And I'd go further and say that their aloofness is a MISTAKE and it is CAUSING great trouble and confusion by leaving everything up to laymen.

All they'd have to do is sign up for an account on a couple of the major fora -- they can use a Library computer once a week or something. How long would it really take them?

This is critical for managing information, reputations, etc.

I don't care who is right, wrong, or in-between in this whole dispute, but all I can say for sure is that it's a huge, embarrassing black eye for the Resistance that this is being played out in the public sphere:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Someone-starting-rumors-starting-trouble-about-Fr-Zendejas

Even if Pablo were correct, it's still embarrassing that the official spokesman can't spell, uses a half-dozen question marks in a row, etc. It makes intelligent, educated folk want to stay as far from the Resistance as possible.

I mean, this message was sent to the official Resistance mailing list at InThisSignYouShallConquer.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2014, 02:09:31 PM »

Absolutely correct. I believed this was a big problem years ago, when certain groups had a major advantage, and they knew who was in the dark and how to manipulate situations to their advantage.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2014, 02:17:25 PM »

A very wise (*New Zealand) seminary professor told me personally last year that he does not and would not use the internet (probably even if his life depended on it).

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2014, 02:21:53 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

A very wise (*New Zealand) seminary professor told me personally last year that he does not and would not use the internet (probably even if his life depended on it).

Why not, I ask? It's not sinful.

Perhaps it's a generational/age thing.

I must objectively state that these priests are OBJECTIVELY missing the boat. They are called to be apostles (or helpers of apostles, in the case of priests) in TWENTY - FOURTEEN. They are not called to be some kind of luddite recreations of 17th Century France, however quaint/beautiful/Catholic that time period was.

The fact of the matter is that the lost sheep that need saving, as well as a healthy chunk of the Mystical Body of Christ, is online.

I can understand not wasting too much time online. But total abstinence? Total abstinence from something non-sinful is for those without discipline (think: former alcoholics abstaining from alcohol completely)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2014, 02:31:57 PM »

Give him a call and tell him about it. I'm sure he'll listen. In the meantime, I'm sure he'll never be able to read your comment (opinion).

Marlelar · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2014, 09:04:58 PM »

I understand they do not want to commit time to answer questions on a forum, but if they sent out a weekly newsletter like the good Bishop does that would give them the opportunity to nip any rumors in the bud.

Marsha

Francisco · « **Reply #6 on:** November 01, 2014, 01:22:27 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Centroamerica
A very wise (*New Zealand) seminary professor told me personally last year that he does not and would not use the internet (probably even if his life depended on it).

Why not, I ask? It's not sinful.

Perhaps it's a generational/age thing.

I must objectively state that these priests are OBJECTIVELY missing the boat. They are called to be apostles (or helpers of apostles, in the case of priests) in TWENTY - FOURTEEN. They are not called to be some kind of luddite recreations of 17th Century France, however quaint/beautiful/Catholic that time period was.

The fact of the matter is that the lost sheep that need saving, as well as a healthy chunk of the Mystical Body of Christ, is online.

I can understand not wasting too much time online. But total abstinence? Total abstinence from something non-sinful is for those without discipline (think: former alcoholics abstaining from alcohol completely)

With the encouragement of Stephen Heiner, Justin Schoeder and the True Restoration group, Traditional Catholic clergy like Bishop Sanborn, Fr Cekada and others, are using social media like Twitter to promote Traditional Catholicism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 01, 2014, 10:36:14 AM »

I'm annoyed that my Traditional chapel and school refuse to even use EMAIL to communicate with parents. Would go a LONG way towards smashing rumors before they even got started.

Frances · « **Reply #8 on:** November 01, 2014, 10:47:04 AM »

Mine charges $50 a year. So I don't bother. They have my name, address, and two phone numbers. If they want me, they can find me, otherwise, I keep to my own affairs. :dancing-banana:

curioustrad · « **Reply #9 on:** November 01, 2014, 11:12:47 AM »

Quote from: Marlelar

I understand they do not want to commit time to answer questions on a forum, but if they sent out a weekly newsletter like the good Bishop does that would give them the opportunity to nip any rumors in the bud.

Marsha

But then the good Bishop in question has been doing exactly what Matthew asks - communicate with us - and for 3 weeks now he has been pushing "apparitionism" and starting more rumors than CI can hold threads (if such a thing were possible) - SIGH !

Marlelar · « **Reply #10 on:** November 01, 2014, 06:48:30 PM »

Quote from: curioustrad

But then the good Bishop in question has been doing exactly what Matthew asks - communicate with us - and for 3 weeks now he has been pushing "apparitionism" and starting more rumors than CI can hold threads (if such a thing were possible) - SIGH !

True, these past few have been confusing to say the least. But previous one have been wonderful. More often than not the good Bishop's newsletters have been edifying.

Marsha

curioustrad · « **Reply #11 on:** November 01, 2014, 07:17:00 PM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Quote from: curioustrad
But then the good Bishop in question has been doing exactly what Matthew asks - communicate with us - and for 3 weeks now he has been pushing "apparitionism" and starting more rumors than CI can hold threads (if such a thing were possible) - SIGH !

True, these past few have been confusing to say the least. But previous one have been wonderful. More often than not the good Bishop's newsletters have been edifying.

Marsha

Oh I agree absolutely but here I would argue that the discordant note in a piece of music stands out more than the rest of the melody played well.

In reference to the topic of this thread there is a lot of good for priests to use the internet to their benefit, but I think fora have one huge drawback - they equalize the priest with the laity. In a church setting - clergy have a pulpit and can use it to bolster their arguments but the internet levels the playing-field a priest is just one man behind a computer screen with many other lay-people behind theirs.

It can be argued that the internet was useful for allowing the resistance to get going since the shenanigans of Menzingen were quickly disseminated but this illustrates how useful it is for people to "know" what is going on, and how disastrous for + Fellay to have his every internal docuмent to leaked. This accounts for the SSPX warnings to laity about the dangers of listening to the internet for "rumors".

I think the use of the internet has both pros and cons for priests and it's not surprising to me at least that so few priests are willing to use modern technology as a result.

A wise priest once said to me, "if you want to destroy a person's reputation, the internet is the place to do it."

hollingsworth · « **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2014, 12:55:21 PM »

curioustrad:

Quote

A wise priest once said to me, "if you want to destroy a person's reputation, the internet is the place to do it."

Reputations have been destroyed for millennia, long before the internet phenomenon could ever have been imagined. IMO, a not so wise priest might have made the same observation.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2014, 01:21:59 PM »

Quote

curioustrad said:
But then the good Bishop in question has been doing exactly what Matthew asks - communicate with us - and for 3 weeks now he has been pushing "apparitionism" and starting more rumors than CI can hold threads (if such a thing were possible) - SIGH

Reality, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder. That the bishop has been "pushing "apparitionism"" is not my perception at all. He has been trying to explain how disappointed Our Lady is. She does not approve of the stated motives and reasons for past Rosary Crusades. She wanted them conducted for the single purpose of bringing about the Consecration of Russia. You might fault the bishop for believing as he does that Our Lady communicated with a "seer," and asked her to pass this message along. You might not believe any of this. You might feel that the only way to address this enormity is by heaping abuse upon the alleged seer, by discrediting her in every way possible, by pointing to her perceived character flaws, by photographing her house, etc. But the fact remains: Bishop Williamson believes her, though his faith in her may have fallen off earlier. It has since been renewed. Apparently, Bp. Fellay himself believes in her, or at least did so at one time. The bishop is not "pushing" apparitionism per se . He has simply contructed a narrative involving an alleged apparition, in which he himself is, apparently, supremely confident, and by which, he feels, a deeper understanding of the 'Rosary Crusade' era may be better understood and accepted by all. Obviously, a number of trads are troubled. But name for me, historically, one apparition, Church approved or otherwise, which has not been hotly disputed. It is no different here. I believe the bishop is telling the truth. I believe "Mary Smith" is telling the truth. Could that change? I suppose it could, if later overwhelming evidence reveals that the whole thing is a hoax. So stop sighing, Curioustrad.

Matthew · « **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2014, 01:35:21 PM »

Quote from: curioustrad

In reference to the topic of this thread there is a lot of good for priests to use the internet to their benefit, but I think fora have one huge drawback - they equalize the priest with the laity. In a church setting - clergy have a pulpit and can use it to bolster their arguments but the internet levels the playing-field a priest is just one man behind a computer screen with many other lay-people behind theirs.

Yes, but I would envision a priest having a special status or account type --

All his posts would have a light-red background. He could give TEN thumbs-up or thumbs-down with a single click. And he'd probably have regular "mod" powers as well.

All of this would be fitting for a man of his office.