Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: ThatBritPapist on April 20, 2025, 11:33:59 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9PYF_rf_Ow&ab_channel=SSPXNews-English
A lot will be omitted from this and I am sure they won't talk about the "famous" Rector from 1983-2003
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9PYF_rf_Ow&ab_channel=SSPXNews-English
A lot will be omitted from this and I am sure they won't talk about the "famous" Rector from 1983-2003
That being said His Lordship can be timestamped at 0:51 and at 1:20 from a Docuмentary about Ridgefield and is quoted.
I hope they emphasise the influence His Lordship had on STAS
-
That being said His Lordship can be timestamped at 0:51 and at 1:20 from a Docuмentary about Ridgefield and is quoted.
I hope they emphasise the influence His Lordship had on STAS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TtyDeSYB84&ab_channel=sspx7464
Here is said aforementioned docuмentary on Ridgefield, maybe some of the Older Cathinfo users here know about the docuмentary and give some insight and spot some old face's
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9PYF_rf_Ow&ab_channel=SSPXNews-English
A lot will be omitted from this and I am sure they won't talk about the "famous" Rector from 1983-2003
I expect them to talk about Bp W alot, and show clips from his time there. The Bp is dead and now they can edit history as they please. However, the seminary's first rector Bp. Sanborn is still alive and kicking, so he will be able to fact check the early years for us.
-
I expect them to talk about Bp W alot, and show clips from his time there. The Bp is dead and now they can edit history as they please. However, the seminary's first rector Bp. Sanborn is still alive and kicking, so he will be able to fact check the early years for us.
What would they rewrite? The corporate SSPX has done alot since 2000 to downplay Bp Williamson and the Fr Schmidberger Obituary was the nail in the coffin.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TtyDeSYB84&ab_channel=sspx7464
Here is said aforementioned docuмentary on Ridgefield, maybe some of the Older Cathinfo users here know about the docuмentary and give some insight and spot some old face's
@11:00 Fr. Kevin Robinson.
-
@11:00 Fr. Kevin Robinson.
(https://i.imgur.com/pDqmDKk.jpeg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/pDqmDKk.jpeg)
Front row left to right (fully visible): Fr. Steve Stanich, Fr. Kevin Robinson, Fr. Ed McDonald (At far left obscured looks like Bennie Vanderputten)
Second row fully visible: Fr. Jason Hoovar, Fr. Chris Leith, Fr. Lawrence Novak (?)
-
Front row left to right (fully visible): Fr. Steve Stanich, Fr. Kevin Robinson, Fr. Ed McDonald (At far left obscured looks like Bennie Vanderputten)
Second row fully visible: Fr. Jason Hoovar, Fr. Chris Leith, Fr. Lawrence Novak (?)
I believe that's Eugene Novak in the back right ... a younger brother, who did not finish at STAS.
-
I believe that's Eugene Novak in the back right ... a younger brother, who did not finish at STAS.
You are corrects, Ladislaus! I recognised the Novak "look" but the look seemed "off" to be Lawrence.
Who is standing behind Benedict Vanderputten? Who is behind Fr. Steve Stanich? I think we all know who is behind Jason Huvar, may his Lordship rest in peace! Who is beside Msgr. Williamson?
-
Front row left to right (fully visible): Fr. Steve Stanich, Fr. Kevin Robinson, Fr. Ed McDonald (At far left obscured looks like Bennie Vanderputten)
Second row fully visible: Fr. Jason Hoovar, Fr. Chris Leith, Fr. Lawrence Novak (?)
Does anyone know whatever became of Fr. Hoovar? Is he still with the SSPX?
-
You are corrects, Ladislaus! I recognised the Novak "look" but the look seemed "off" to be Lawrence.
Who is standing behind Benedict Vanderputten? Who is behind Fr. Steve Stanich? I think we all know who is behind Jason Huvar, may his Lordship rest in peace! Who is beside Msgr. Williamson?
I belive that behind Benedict Vanderputten is Fr. Stephen Delallo, but don't recognize the individual behind Fr. Stanich.
-
Does anyone know whatever became of Fr. Hoovar? Is he still with the SSPX?
Or Huvar (sp?). The last I had heard of him was when he was serving the Franciscan Minim nuns at their church in Mexico City back in the 1990's or earlier: La Orden Mínima Franciscana del Perpetuo Socorro de María (https://minimasfranciscanas.org/inicio.html) (I had the privilege of visiting there back in 1998. It is rather impressive. I recall how it was open to the public for Mass attendance and all the men occupied the pews on one side and all the women on the other side. It is only about a mile or so from the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I don't know if the SSPX priests still service the nuns' church.)
-
Didnt Fr. Jason Huvar left the priesthood, married and joined the military
-
Around 2:30 that looks like Fr. Albert O.P. Is he still at Silver City?
-
Around 2:30 that looks like Fr. Albert O.P. Is he still at Silver City?
That is supposed to be Fr Albert OP according to the comments
-
"That is supposed to be Fr Albert OP according to the comments"
What do you mean? Avoid abbreviations like below? In the future, try incorporating a period at the end of a sentence?
(https://i.imgur.com/U9gD3ne.png)
-
"That is supposed to be Fr Albert OP according to the comments"
What do you mean? Avoid abbreviations like below? In the future, try incorporating a period at the end of a sentence?
(https://i.imgur.com/U9gD3ne.png)
Why should I avoid abbreviating it? Did you get your head in a twist because I typed out "Fr Albert OP" and didn't add a period:fryingpan::laugh2:
To re-clarify what I meant, you asked if the chap in the docuмentary at 2:30 was Fr Albert OP. What I'm trying to say is that you're correct due to the YouTube Comment left by the uploader of the video
(https://i.imgur.com/EChhpYf.png)
-
Ok. It looks like you wanted me to go search the Youtube comments. Yada yada yada. Your emoji usage is impressive, however. You may want to change your name to ThatBritKnucklehead or simpler yet, TheTool. Cheers.
-
Recognize anyone in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoC2PGp9ICM
-
Recognize anyone in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoC2PGp9ICM
Yes, very many ... alas no pictures of myself though :laugh1: I think I was rather adept at avoiding the camera.
-
Yes, very many ... alas no pictures of myself though :laugh1: I think I was rather adept at avoiding the camera.
My response exsctly to the same question.
-
I was very happy to see that they gave Bishop Williamson credit and to hear him spoken fondly of. That was nice.
-
I was very happy to see that they gave Bishop Williamson credit and to hear him spoken fondly of. That was nice.
I did not get any fondness for Bishop Wiliamson from this film. The presence and contribution of Msgr. Wlliamson to the North American seminary is presented in an abbreviated and incomplete way. So too were the rôles and importance of Bishops Sanborn and Ward presented incompletely.
I am pleased that Msgr. Hodgson was mentioned, but why no mention of Fr. Coomaraswamy?
A big deal was made in the film of the move from Winona to Dillwyn. Why was not the travails of thr move from Ridgefield to Winona given equal attention? I worked on the Winona seminary during the summer of 1988, before the start of the new term in September. There was so much work to do, and the poor guys who were doing the long exercises there in August had to endure a quite many privations until many essential things -- like the boiler, the kitchen, painted rooms and hallways, cleaned and waxed floors, and fully functioning lavatories on every floor could be had. Brs. Gerard, Joseph, Hillary, and Benedict put in grueling days of hard labour to get the building ready for the academic year. Additionally there was the whole crew of us laymen doing our part. All of that is left in silence in the film.
I found this docuмentary to be in fact a propaganda piece promoting the new seminary building in Virginia. It is certainly not a full, docuмentary history of STAS -- it is FAR from being a true docuмentary. Propaganda is the only appropriate word.
-
Rest assured the move and work on the new location was much to suffer as well, quite likely on an equal scale more or less. I was a little surprised they mentioned Bp. Williamson as much as they did, but certainly dwelt too long on the new building project, which in my opinion doesn't accomplish their goal in the slightest of being awe inspiring.
-
I did not get any fondness for Bishop Wiliamson from this film. The presence and contribution of Msgr. Wlliamson to the North American seminary is presented in an abbreviated and incomplete way. So too were the rôles and importance of Bishops Sanborn and Ward presented incompletely.
I am pleased that Msgr. Hodgson was mentioned, but why no mention of Fr. Coomaraswamy?
A big deal was made in the film of the move from Winona to Dillwyn. Why was not the travails of thr move from Ridgefield to Winona given equal attention? I worked on the Winona seminary during the summer of 1988, before the start of the new term in September. There was so much work to do, and the poor guys who were doing the long exercises there in August had to endure a quite many privations until many essential things -- like the boiler, the kitchen, painted rooms and hallways, cleaned and waxed floors, and fully functioning lavatories on every floor could be had. Brs. Gerard, Joseph, Hillary, and Benedict put in grueling days of hard labour to get the building ready for the academic year. Additionally there was the whole crew of us laymen doing our part. All of that is left in silence in the film.
I found this docuмentary to be in fact a propaganda piece promoting the new seminary building in Virginia. It is certainly not a full, docuмentary history of STAS -- it is FAR from being a true docuмentary. Propaganda is the only appropriate word.
I'd have to agree. I felt that they mentioned +Williamson only because they had no choice given that he was there for, oh, 20+ years. But they spent tons of time on his successors, lavishing praise on the first for teaching semarians about fatherhood. I too had some (lesser) involvement in prepping for Winona, which as you point out is barely given 1% of the time that they give to the work at Dillwyn.
Plus the fact that they left both you and me out of any pictures proves that it is far from complete. :laugh1:
-
Rest assured the move and work on the new location was much to suffer as well ...
You seem to miss the point, as usual. Move to the new location was covered quite thoroughly, whereas the first was not.
-
... but certainly dwelt too long on the new building project, which in my opinion doesn't accomplish their goal in the slightest of being awe inspiring.
To Elwin's point that it was a propaganda (and likely fundraising) piece for the new building. They're still mightily in the hole there and are probably trying to inspire new donations.
They could have done much more to depict what life was like in the seminary, and that might have inspired some, oh, vocations ... rather than donations. In fact all the time spent on the seminarians' manual labor might in fact have deterred some vocations. Well, if I wanted to spend 12 hours a day doing construction work, I don't need to go to seminary for that.
-
My response exsctly to the same question.
My respoinse about being adept at avoiding the camera was actually meant as a softball for someone to respond that the camera was adeptly avoiding me.
-
In fact all the time spent on the seminarians' manual labor might in fact have deterred some vocations. Well, if I wanted to spend 12 hours a day doing construction work, I don't need to go to seminary for that.
They brought up a good point regarding that that made me think: we don't want soft priests looking for an easy life. Granted, I think only 2 made it through who started in the year of arrival, but still they got a good bit of hard life to toughen up all who endured the move.
-
They brought up a good point regarding that that made me think: we don't want soft priests looking for an easy life. Granted, I think only 2 made it through who started in the year of arrival, but still they got a good bit of hard life to toughen up all who endured the move.
There's some balance to be had, of course, where some manual labor is good. I was referring to the fact that they barely touched upon the spiritual and academic formation there in comparison to all the emphasis on manual labor. They don't even give a brief summary of the seminary schedule, or an overview of the curriculum, nor do you even hear much of their working on chant, etc. In fact, the whole discussion about the Year of Spirituality made it seem like seminarians were all uncultured dumbasses coming in and had to get some courses in to catch up on their defective prior education. More and more as I think back on the video ... I was watching it most with a view to how many people I recognized ... the more I realize how incomplete and unbalanced it was. Now, I know for a fact that the current district superior Fr. John Fullerton was all about the manual labor but barely ever said a peep about the faith, about theology, abou the Crisis in the Church ... so it's quite possible that this emphasis comes from him. But overall the video gives a very incomplete and unbalanced view of seminary life. Those grueling moves took place over a few Summers but got more time in the video than the years and years of formation and instruction.
And very few drop out because of the manual labor ... which doesn't actually consume the bulk of your time there (despite the impression the video might have given). I think some do find the regimented and highly-scheduled life difficult to adapt to, and some can't keep up with the academics, and some just don't find the priesthood a fit for their temperament and personality. In fact, I think there's a serious problem with the SSPX cookie-cutter seminary where it prepares priests for only one flavor of vocation, that of the SSPX priests who hangs out at some priory doing one job or another, and then flies around on weekends to mission chapels. What about those who are more contemplative? More academic? Some in fact might be more inclined toward manual labor and less toward academics. Prior to Vatican II, you had about as many choices as you had different types of personalities out there and there was a fit for everyone. For myself, my personality was a cross between academic and contemplative. But that really wasn't much of an option at SSPX. Every once in a while one or another seminarian transferred over to the Benedictines or something, as the only alternative, but they were often dismissed as not having a vocation, categorically, if they left because that particular life did not suit them ... whereas that's not necessarily true. There's much that they do very poorly there. I find it just a little odd that mine was a typical class where you started with 21 and end up with 3 ordained. There's something wrong there, and the original 21 were for the most part very serious, devout, relatively intelligent young men, the vast majority of whom I personally felt likely had vocations to the priesthood. There are always about 3-4 misfits that cleary don't belong there, and they're often gone by two or three weeks in and work themselves out. But I would have expected that a proper system and proper formationw would have seen 15 of those young men through to ordination. I knew most of those 15 young men who I felt had solid vocations well, and most were broken-hearted when they left, didn't really want to leave, but various incompatibilities between themselves and the seminary life, which were artificially interpreted as "no vocation to the priesthood" (qutie wrongly IMO) did not mean they didn't have vocations, just not to the SSPX priest lifestyle.
-
Oh, on another point ... there was often a bit excessive / forced austerity that is not suitable for everyone, such as how they did not turn on the heat until at least November, and there were many days / weeks where (in Minnesota anyway) we were wearing coats and struggling to write notes as our hands shivered, or where the food was garbage, lacking in nutrition. When seminarians went home, their families often remarked about how sickly and pale they appeared. While priests should be able to adapt to some privation, different individuals take it in different doses, and some take longer to adapt than others, but a one-size-fits-all austerity like that can do a lot of harm. "I can't take the cold of the Minnesota Winter without the heat on, so I don't have a vocation." Really? Father Iscara, who clearly had a vocation, and was mentioned a lot in the video, famously sometimes went on strike and would not come out of his room to teach until they turned the heat on. So he too had no vocation? Well, not a few seminarians were sent packing because their reponse to similar conditions was construed as lack of vocation. What utter hogwash. Just because you can't adjust well to shivering indoors in the cold when you're trying to focus on your studies (there can be other times for you to learn to adapt to col) ... this does not mean you could not have made a terrific priest with a heart of gold and love for souls. St. Pius X went out of his way to make sure his seminarians were taken care of, well fed, had proper clothing, etc. ... so they could focus on their studies, and did not unilaterally impose penances on them all. Each individual should work with his spiritual director to develop specific virtues related to austerity and self-denial, as it fits with their current state of spiritual development. There were many such in my class that were shown the door for all the wrong reasons. Others are show the door because they disagree, whether to the right or to the left, of the current mainstream SSPX thinking. That too is ridicilous, but if you weren't a complete mindless yes-man, you were labeled "proud" and "disobedient" ... even though the entire raison d'etre of SSPX was rooted in disobedience to the many they claim is the Vicar of Christ.
There was imposed not only a one-size-fits-all austerity, but a one-size-fits-all austerity, a one-size-fits-all spirituality, a one-size-fits-all notion of the priesthood, a one-size-fits-all position on the Crisis ... and that was the problem, where the SSPX had a lot of hubris (which is ironically mentioned in the video about some young priests) thinking they had it all figure out and know what was best for everyone, and if that didn't match with your personality, your spirituality, and your temperament, it wasn't just that you weren't compatible with typical SSPX life, but you had "no vocation". You could disagree with something SSPX held in all humility, but be labeled proud merely for disagreeing ... even if the "current thing" you had to assent to might vary from year to year depending on the political climate.
-
To Elwin's point that it was a propaganda (and likely fundraising) piece for the new building. They're still mightily in the hole there and are probably trying to inspire new donations.
They could have done much more to depict what life was like in the seminary, and that might have inspired some, oh, vocations ... rather than donations. In fact all the time spent on the seminarians' manual labor might in fact have deterred some vocations. Well, if I wanted to spend 12 hours a day doing construction work, I don't need to go to seminary for that.
But that was during construction that the seminarians worked manual labor. That don't do that NOW.
-
But that was during construction that the seminarians worked manual labor. That don't do that NOW.
Oh, they do it on a regular basis ... it was just more intense at that time. I'm referring to the impression the video might leave some young man with ... where there was an over-emphasis on manual labor and very little mention of spirituality, formation, doctrine / theology, pastoral zeal, etc.
While I guess this wasn't meant to be a seminary "recruitment" video, nevertheless, as others have pointed out, even as a historical treatment there was excessive emphasis on the manual labor aspect, and in particular at the new seminary building.
I think Elwin sniffed it out best when he characterized it as mostly a propaganda piece to promote the new building and to solicit additional donations for it.
I mean, they spent more time on the manual labor in Virginia than on the episcopal consecrations and the impact they had on the life of the seminary ... even from a historical perspective. They gloss over a Father Iscara with two sentences, but brag about the building and how wonderful it is for many minutes. Who cares about the building? Seminary was all about the people, the priests His Excellency Bishop Williamson, and early on Fr. Sanborn et al.
Docuмentary should have emphasized the people, with the buildings being just side issue, or footnotes, if you will ... since that's all it really was. At one point they say, "Well, Winona was good, but the new build, well, that's a real seminary." No ... Winona was amazing, while the building and grounds were beautiful and peaceful (whereas VA seems rather sterile) ... but more than anything it was about the Bishop and the priests, and many of the best priests US SSPX ever produced came out of Winona, where, to be perfectly blunt, the ones who have come out since the new building and the newer rectors have been rather lackluster.
-
Oh, on another point ... there was often a bit excessive / forced austerity that is not suitable for everyone, such as how they did not turn on the heat until at least November, and there were many days / weeks where (in Minnesota anyway) we were wearing coats and struggling to write notes as our hands shivered, or where the food was garbage, lacking in nutrition. When seminarians went home, their families often remarked about how sickly and pale they appeared. While priests should be able to adapt to some privation, different individuals take it in different doses, and some take longer to adapt than others, but a one-size-fits-all austerity like that can do a lot of harm. "I can't take the cold of the Minnesota Winter without the heat on, so I don't have a vocation." Really? Father Iscara, who clearly had a vocation, and was mentioned a lot in the video, famously sometimes went on strike and would not come out of his room to teach until they turned the heat on. So he too had no vocation? Well, not a few seminarians were sent packing because their reponse to similar conditions was construed as lack of vocation. What utter hogwash. Just because you can't adjust well to shivering indoors in the cold when you're trying to focus on your studies (there can be other times for you to learn to adapt to col) ... this does not mean you could not have made a terrific priest with a heart of gold and love for souls. St. Pius X went out of his way to make sure his seminarians were taken care of, well fed, had proper clothing, etc. ... so they could focus on their studies, and did not unilaterally impose penances on them all. Each individual should work with his spiritual director to develop specific virtues related to austerity and self-denial, as it fits with their current state of spiritual development. There were many such in my class that were shown the door for all the wrong reasons. Others are show the door because they disagree, whether to the right or to the left, of the current mainstream SSPX thinking. That too is ridicilous, but if you weren't a complete mindless yes-man, you were labeled "proud" and "disobedient" ... even though the entire raison d'etre of SSPX was rooted in disobedience to the many they claim is the Vicar of Christ.
There was imposed not only a one-size-fits-all austerity, but a one-size-fits-all austerity, a one-size-fits-all spirituality, a one-size-fits-all notion of the priesthood, a one-size-fits-all position on the Crisis ... and that was the problem, where the SSPX had a lot of hubris (which is ironically mentioned in the video about some young priests) thinking they had it all figure out and know what was best for everyone, and if that didn't match with your personality, your spirituality, and your temperament, it wasn't just that you weren't compatible with typical SSPX life, but you had "no vocation". You could disagree with something SSPX held in all humility, but be labeled proud merely for disagreeing ... even if the "current thing" you had to assent to might vary from year to year depending on the political climate.
Sed contra -- maybe Bp W was trying to flush out any effeminate seminarians of the lavender persuasion. Everyone loved to criticize the bishop for allowing the "Society of St. John" Uruttigoity group to happen, but then you will criticize him trying to weed out the effeminate ones? Sounds like he was doing a smart thing.
Your time at the seminary was the same time as the Johnnies, right?
Anyhow, a priest does need to be able to "deal" with involuntary penances thrown his way. If he can't deal, he wouldn't be able to make it as a priest. Again, I see the wisdom in it.