Author Topic: 25 million to raise for New Seminary in Virginia?!!! (Read 5156 times)

Tomas de Torquemada · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2012, 09:52:57 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Tomas de Torquemada
I think one needs to step back and look at this more objectively. If it wasn't for the current situation with the society right now people would not object to this. Some of the most glorious churches in the world, certainly in the US, were built by the poor, struggling to feed their families. Even the very beautiful, but simple country churches scattered around came at a great cost to those who built them. We mustn't start acting like protestants and using their arguments, just because we may be upset with an unrelated decision by the Superior General.

That's where you miss the point. It's exactly because of this situation that we cannot trust what is being done with the money.

nadieimportante had a great point about this: in this time of crisis, you don't know what future security there will be with properties. It can be taken away.

Zorayda is right to be concerned about the financial priorities of the society.

It's very apparent that the liberalizers in the SSPX are those most concerned with these big projects and with big money.

You miss the point. I am talking about the principle, rather than the application. Zorayda was complaining about the money, rather than who was spending it. Unless I missed something.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2012, 10:05:40 PM »

Quote from: Tomas de Torquemada

You miss the point. I am talking about the principle, rather than the application. Zorayda was complaining about the money, rather than who was spending it. Unless I missed something.

There is such a thing as misallocation of resources. The SSPX chapel schools should be better organized.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2012, 10:21:44 PM »

Quote from: Tomas de Torquemada

I think one needs to step back and look at this more objectively. If it wasn't for the current situation with the society right now people would not object to this. Some of the most glorious churches in the world, certainly in the US, were built by the poor, struggling to feed their families. Even the very beautiful, but simple country churches scattered around came at a great cost to those who built them. We mustn't start acting like protestants and using their arguments, just because we may be upset with an unrelated decision by the Superior General.

I didn't think too highly of this project idea when it was first announced, before the present SSPX crisis. I agree with others that the needs of the SSPX seminary could be more than adequately met with much less money. When there are still faithful who must attend Mass in hotel rooms, does the district really need such an expensive seminary?

Tomas de Torquemada · « **Reply #13 on:** June 13, 2012, 08:29:13 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Tomas de Torquemada
I think one needs to step back and look at this more objectively. If it wasn't for the current situation with the society right now people would not object to this. Some of the most glorious churches in the world, certainly in the US, were built by the poor, struggling to feed their families. Even the very beautiful, but simple country churches scattered around came at a great cost to those who built them. We mustn't start acting like protestants and using their arguments, just because we may be upset with an unrelated decision by the Superior General.

I didn't think too highly of this project idea when it was first announced, before the present SSPX crisis. I agree with others that the needs of the SSPX seminary could be more than adequately met with much less money. When there are still faithful who must attend Mass in hotel rooms, does the district really need such an expensive seminary?

That is comparing apples to oranges, though. They are too different things. Local chapels are supported locally, at least primarily. When that particular Mass center can support itself financially, and afford to build/buy a church, then it is free to do so. This is the case regardless of affiliation (Society, Sede, Independent, Diocese, etc).

The larger entity (District/Diocese/etc) is responsible for the overall continuation of that entity. One may certainly have concerns that they are not properly using those funds, and I would bet that every public/religious construction project has its critics. But I disagree with the notion that the district has a responsibility to build everyone a local church before tending to the needs of the seminary, which is absolutely necessary for the continuation of the society.

Again, I am speaking in terms of principle here. The particular situation may change things, but in principle I don't have a problem with it.

Tomas de Torquemada · « **Reply #14 on:** June 13, 2012, 09:06:58 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Tomas de Torquemada
You miss the point. I am talking about the principle, rather than the application. Zorayda was complaining about the money, rather than who was spending it. Unless I missed something.

There is such a thing as misallocation of resources. The SSPX chapel schools should be better organized.

We are talking about the seminary, not the chapel schools. Again, these are different entities. But as far as the schools being better organized, I don't disagree. I think many of the people teaching in them would agree as well. It seems to me that there has been some movement in that direction. We shall see what happens.