Author Topic: Testimony from a 90s SSPX Winona Seminarian (Read 3319 times)

Matthew · « **on:** July 01, 2016, 12:18:11 AM »

He used to be a member of CathInfo -- don't know if he still is. He posted this almost exactly 1 year ago. Anyhow, this is very good, and needs to be read and understood by all.

Quote

I am a former seminarian of the SSPX who was in Winona during the 90's. I am very much a supporter of His Excellency Bishop Williamson. I have witnessed for years members of the SSPX say incredibly disparaging things about the person of Bishop Williamson.

I am inclined to think given my own knowledge of things behind the scenes since 2008, that his former religious superior simply has a personal dislike of him. Prudence as well as the dictates of the Holy Commandments does not permit the public revelation of those facts, but this unfortunate reality was being nurtured for almost 20+ years.

I have lost virtually any hope that the current leadership of the SSPX will abandon its current 'deal or bust' with Rome stance anytime soon. We can all find sophisticated arguments made by several well meaning clerics about 'resistance to what' or 'nothing has changed' positions, but the facts are the facts. The superiors really think that the SSPX will be lost if they do not get back in with current Rome--which is eternal Rome. And it is precisely for this reason that they have silenced or will silence anyone who says anything inconvenient to this slow, methodical march.

Because money is needed for legitimacy in the minds of these corporate clerics, they must continue to invent themselves for their audience. They so love the SSPX, they can not suffer the idea that it might be a band-aid until such time as the wound caused by the modernist inspired apostasy we are all witnessing worsen with every passing day, actually is healed by God. Band-aids are not meant to remain on wounds forever. They really see only human solutions to this crisis and for this reason they have their Napoleon...and they label the most educated among their former ranks, the most elder in WISDOM an inconvenient and disobedient wretch. And he is called unconverted from his Anglican past! I was never taught more about the voice of Rome than from Bishop Richard Williamson, and I know that Matthew would agree 100%. Let the clerics with stones worthy of their sacerdotal characters stand up and at least spread the greatest work of the faithful son of the Archbishop--his outlines of the great Papal Encyclicals. But they won't, because the author is an anti-sem*te ! ! !
I have known a priest of the SSPX who I suspect re-created one schema when delivering to the faithful in an adult catechism so as to avoid the allusion he was reproducing a work of Bishop Williamson. All references to the author were removed by not photocopying the originally handwritten and painstakingly clear work of Bishop Williamson. How pathetic and effeminate.
I am afraid even lay editors of SSPX publications have long ago labelled the Bishop as bad for business. Fiftiesism is alive and well in the SSPX and the false prudence argument will slowly choke the softer and softer SSPX priests who more and more shun any sort of confrontation for fear of being fellay-ed. It is frightening the megalomania which now flows from top to bottom. Clerics have even suggested that the faithful must obey the Superior General of the SSPX! They aren't even members! These poor priests are blind to their own arguments of jurisdiction!

It is unfathomable that true men are wanting in His remnant, but it seems that we will all do well clinging to the Mass from whomever we can receive it.

I have laid silent since the death of Ignis Ardens at the bullying of the SSPX leadership, but I will no longer remain silent and have decided to join this site after having read here for nearly 2 years.

Please support the official website of Bishop Williamson at http://stmarcelinitiative.com/ . Get his talks downloaded and put them in the hands of the next generation of catholic men with the stones to stand up of the truth for surely our days are numbered.

wallflower · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2016, 09:55:44 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote
I have witnessed for years members of the SSPX say incredibly disparaging things about the person of Bishop Williamson.

I have as well. Gratuitous, crude, personal insults of +W by SSPX priest(s)that I happened to hear by being in the right place at the right time. The worst was not recent but long before any of the current politics. I can tell you that the shock of what was said by whom and to whom made me start paying attention. I agree that this personal dislike/hatred/mockery towards him has been nurtured for a long time. It's sickening and very telling. There is a chasm between +W and those who are very concerned with appearances.

Wessex · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2016, 01:25:29 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

Quote from: Matthew

Quote
I have witnessed for years members of the SSPX say incredibly disparaging things about the person of Bishop Williamson.

I have as well. Gratuitous, crude, personal insults of +W by SSPX priest(s)that I happened to hear by being in the right place at the right time. The worst was not recent but long before any of the current politics. I can tell you that the shock of what was said by whom and to whom made me start paying attention. I agree that this personal dislike/hatred/mockery towards him has been nurtured for a long time. It's sickening and very telling. There is a chasm between +W and those who are very concerned with appearances.

There was always a problem reconciling the modern and national tendencies of the members with the integrism of the early Society. Religious and political life was supposed to go hand in hand then and ABL's French background would set the tone. But those who thought that his traditionalism could be imported into any society would be in for a rude awakening. It is quite remarkable that Bp. W travels the world and can still reads the same script regardless of the prevailing social conditions. That is why some have taken exception to his opinions and positions and consider them inappropriate or not obligatory. However, he would say you cannot have one without the other.

Of course, the modern Society is happy to accommodate today's secular world. This great change is a logical development allied to how it now sees Newchurch. The new generation of priests no longer want to stand out although a little old-fashioned in dress and liturgical taste!

hollingsworth · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2016, 05:30:36 PM »

Wessex:

Quote

It is quite remarkable that Bp. W travels the world and can still reads (sic) the same script regardless of the prevailing social conditions. That is why some have taken exception to his opinions and positions and consider them inappropriate or not obligatory. However, he would say you cannot have one without the other.

What is quite remarkable to me, Wessex, is that you can get away with making these kinds of ambiguous statements over and over again with seeming impunity. I, for one, am not afraid of taking exception to some of the bishop's opinions and positions. The problem is, you will probably not state specifically what opinions and positions of his we ought to take exception with. You will go on couching your remarks in glittering generalities, refusing to engage in any pointed discussion, preferring, rather, to let the reader puzzle through what you actually mean. That has always been your MO.

Wessex · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2016, 07:30:47 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Wessex:
Quote
It is quite remarkable that Bp. W travels the world and can still reads (sic) the same script regardless of the prevailing social conditions. That is why some have taken exception to his opinions and positions and consider them inappropriate or not obligatory. However, he would say you cannot have one without the other.

What is quite remarkable to me, Wessex, is that you can get away with making these kinds of ambiguous statements over and over again with seeming impunity. I, for one, am not afraid of taking exception to some of the bishop's opinions and positions. The problem is, you will probably not state specifically what opinions and positions of his we ought to take exception with. You will go on couching your remarks in glittering generalities, refusing to engage in any pointed discussion, preferring, rather, to let the reader puzzle through what you actually mean. That has always been your MO.

It is pretty common knowledge that what the bishop said about the world was not always shared by his fellow priests and he continues in this vein long after the Society dumped its political character in favour of a more mainstream one. This is so obvious and does not need repeating. It could be that his quarrel with Menzingen is more to do with this than the exact nature of its relationship with Rome. He does like to sex up his sermons with apocalyptic prediction; something his adversaries frown upon, desperate as they are to fit in with society. His success with seminarians is going to be therefore mixed. Some will see the crisis in the Church is linked to the crisis in the world while others are uncomfortable making that connection.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #5 on:** July 01, 2016, 07:56:19 PM »

+W is a great man, in that he doesn't let public opinion (or should I say "peer pressure" to use a high school term, because most people nowadays act like emotional adolescents, which is why traditionalism is crumbling) affect his beliefs. He's well educated and follows the facts where they lead, which is contrary to the current world view the establishment has created. I don't agree with everything he says (mostly I do) but I admire his passion. In matters of the Faith, the only thing that 'tolerance' and 'compromise' gets you is hellfire, and Fellay & co are blazing that trail nicely.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2016, 10:22:10 PM »

I'm just reading this now, and I'd like to say that I have seen everything described herein, but I have only now seen it all compiled into one concise place like this.

I think it's important for Catholic men today to recognize and understand what has been going on in regards to the curiously conspicuous treatment of Bishop Williamson by the neo-SSPX at large.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that of the 4 bishops originally consecrated by ABL and AdCM, ONLY ONE OF THEM has fulfilled the prophetic words engraved on ABL's tombstone, and has passed on that which has been handed down to him, because only +W has consecrated successor bishops. The other 3 have not, and by all indications there is practically zero chance that they ever will DARE to do so. They won't dare because that would constitute an offense against Newrome, right when they're hell-bent on making a "deal" with them. Consequently, the legacy of ABL is going to continue into the future only through +W and not through the other 3.

Quote from: Matthew

He used to be a member of CathInfo -- don't know if he still is. He posted this almost exactly 1 year ago. Anyhow, this is very good, and needs to be read and understood by all.

Quote
I am a former seminarian of the SSPX who was in Winona during the 90's. I am very much a supporter of His Excellency Bishop Williamson. I have witnessed for years members of the SSPX say incredibly disparaging things about the person of Bishop Williamson.

I am inclined to think given my own knowledge of things behind the scenes since 2008, that his former religious superior simply has a personal dislike of him. Prudence as well as the dictates of the Holy Commandments does not permit the public revelation of those facts, but this unfortunate reality was being nurtured for almost 20+ years.

I have lost virtually any hope that the current leadership of the SSPX will abandon its current 'deal or bust' with Rome stance anytime soon. We can all find sophisticated arguments made by several well meaning clerics about 'resistance to what' or 'nothing has changed' positions, but the facts are the facts. The superiors really think that the SSPX will be lost if they do not get back in with current Rome--which is eternal Rome. And it is precisely for this reason that they have silenced or will silence anyone who says anything inconvenient to this slow, methodical march.

Because money is needed for legitimacy in the minds of these corporate clerics, they must continue to invent themselves for their audience. They so love the SSPX, they can not suffer the idea that it might be a band-aid until such time as the wound caused by the modernist inspired apostasy we are all witnessing worsen with every passing day, actually is healed by God. Band-aids are not meant to remain on wounds forever. They really see only human solutions to this crisis and for this reason they have their Napoleon...and they label the most educated among their former ranks, the most elder in WISDOM an inconvenient and disobedient wretch. And he is called unconverted from his Anglican past! I was never taught more about the voice of Rome than from Bishop Richard Williamson, and I know that Matthew would agree 100%. Let the clerics with stones worthy of their sacerdotal characters stand up and at least spread the greatest work of the faithful son of the Archbishop--his outlines of the great Papal Encyclicals. But they won't, because the author is an anti-sem*te ! ! !
I have known a priest of the SSPX who I suspect re-created one schema when delivering to the faithful in an adult catechism so as to avoid the allusion he was reproducing a work of Bishop Williamson. All references to the author were removed by not photocopying the originally handwritten and painstakingly clear work of Bishop Williamson. How pathetic and effeminate.
I am afraid even lay editors of SSPX publications have long ago labelled the Bishop as bad for business. Fiftiesism is alive and well in the SSPX and the false prudence argument will slowly choke the softer and softer SSPX priests who more and more shun any sort of confrontation for fear of being fellay-ed. It is frightening the megalomania which now flows from top to bottom. Clerics have even suggested that the faithful must obey the Superior General of the SSPX! They aren't even members! These poor priests are blind to their own arguments of jurisdiction!

It is unfathomable that true men are wanting in His remnant, but it seems that we will all do well clinging to the Mass from whomever we can receive it.

I have laid silent since the death of Ignis Ardens at the bullying of the SSPX leadership, but I will no longer remain silent and have decided to join this site after having read here for nearly 2 years.

Please support the official website of Bishop Williamson at http://stmarcelinitiative.com/ . Get his talks downloaded and put them in the hands of the next generation of catholic men with the stones to stand up of the truth for surely our days are numbered.

Franciscan Solitary · « **Reply #7 on:** July 07, 2016, 02:18:29 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: hollingsworth
Wessex:
Quote
It is quite remarkable that Bp. W travels the world and can still reads (sic) the same script regardless of the prevailing social conditions. That is why some have taken exception to his opinions and positions and consider them inappropriate or not obligatory. However, he would say you cannot have one without the other.

What is quite remarkable to me, Wessex, is that you can get away with making these kinds of ambiguous statements over and over again with seeming impunity. I, for one, am not afraid of taking exception to some of the bishop's opinions and positions. The problem is, you will probably not state specifically what opinions and positions of his we ought to take exception with. You will go on couching your remarks in glittering generalities, refusing to engage in any pointed discussion, preferring, rather, to let the reader puzzle through what you actually mean. That has always been your MO.

It is pretty common knowledge that what the bishop said about the world was not always shared by his fellow priests and he continues in this vein long after the Society dumped its political character in favour of a more mainstream one. This is so obvious and does not need repeating. It could be that his quarrel with Menzingen is more to do with this than the exact nature of its relationship with Rome. He does like to sex up his sermons with apocalyptic prediction; something his adversaries frown upon, desperate as they are to fit in with society. His success with seminarians is going to be therefore mixed. Some will see the crisis in the Church is linked to the crisis in the world while others are uncomfortable making that connection.

Life has winners and losers. Those who can not connect the crisis in the Church with the crisis in the world are the losers and those who can are the winners. Those who are comfortable ignoring the crisis in the world must be increasingly uncomfortable living in that world, a place never known for showing any kindness to losers.

The Counter-Revolution breathes hotter and hotter down our necks as three of the bishops of historic mainstream Catholicism have the intelligence to deal with it and the other three evidently do not and will perish together with the disintegrating Novus Ordo they evidently prefer to life itself. In other words, stupid is as stupid does. As ever.

Meanwhile back among the living those who can appreciate apocalyptic prediction should be able to work well with the leaders of the Counter-Revolution after the deluge and those who can not are in for some very hard knocks. Those now clinging with all their might to the prevailing Red Terror will have clung so desperately for nothing when the White Terror follows, as it inevitably must.

Stupid is as stupid does and every intelligent Catholic is now running for the exits away from the Revolution, not waiting in line to get into the burning inferno.

Better to be among the winners than among the losers, especially when the apostate losers are such obvious damn fools.

JMKViking · « **Reply #8 on:** July 07, 2016, 11:00:39 AM »

I am very much still a member of CathInfo and I stand behind what I wrote.

Degrelle · « **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2016, 10:46:42 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

It is pretty common knowledge that what the bishop said about the world was not always shared by his fellow priests and he continues in this vein long after the Society dumped its political character in favour of a more mainstream one. This is so obvious and does not need repeating. It could be that his quarrel with Menzingen is more to do with this than the exact nature of its relationship with Rome. He does like to sex up his sermons with apocalyptic prediction; something his adversaries frown upon, desperate as they are to fit in with society. His success with seminarians is going to be therefore mixed. Some will see the crisis in the Church is linked to the crisis in the world while others are uncomfortable making that connection.

In my view, the bolded are worth repeating, and are a key aspect to the unravelling of the S.S.P.X that does not get as much attention as (I think) it should. To be sure, a "regularisation" with the Novus Ordo would be devastating, especially for all the decent folk of good will who stick with the S.S.P.X out of ignorance and who will go the way of Catholics in the 60s and 70s who stuck with their parishes after Vatican II.

However, even without regularization, I had already observed for years a steady watering-down in the S.S.P.X of the "cultural" and "political" "stuff" in favour of a more "moderate" and "mainstream" approach. Although there may still be individual priests who give counterrevolutionary sermons it seems that the direction of Menzingen with its high-priced marketing firm, is to present as moderate. Not even just ignoring cultural issues but striving to take a "moderate" and "respectable" position. I think that this is most obviously displayed in the public comments and behaviour of the S.S.P.X's counsel, who has publicly praised miniskirts and referred to Bp. Williamson as crazy because of his outdated views. Some might say the S.S.P.X cannot be held accountable for the actions of their lawyer, but I'd say he's not merely some random lawyer that they hired to handle their affairs. He is a member of one of their chapels and holds a significant amount of influence.

I think a picture speaks a thousand words. Here is a screenshot from 12 June 2016 of what he posted to Facebook which I think shows the sort of "normal guy" "respectable" version of "Traditional Catholic" the S.S.P.X wants (N.B. neither of these women is his wife):

cathman7 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 20, 2016, 11:04:27 AM »

Indeed, a picture is worth a thousand words.

There simply hasn't been this vigilance against the spirit of the world. May we all be vigilant.

Degrelle · « **Reply #11 on:** July 20, 2016, 11:27:03 AM »

Quote from: obscurus

Indeed, a picture is worth a thousand words.

There simply hasn't been this vigilance against the spirit of the world. May we all be vigilant.

Yes, well put.

I don't personally have anything against the gentleman in question. I have actually exchanged emails with him in the past and he seems like a decent enough chap although I did not get to know him well. He did express to me that he thought it was ridiculous that I would suggest he "isn't Catholic enough" because he has had many conversations with various S.S.P.X priests about the issues of culture and the like and they said he's fine.

I didn't post the picture to try defaming him. He posted it publicly for all to see -- I am not his "friend" on Facebook but could still see the picture. The focus should not the lawyer in question but the way the S.S.P.X appears to be purposely lacking in vigilance against the spirit of the world in some misguided attempt to be seen as "respectable" and "not crazy".

In my view, the modern world is so insane that if one is not seen as at least a bit of a crackpot, that should be cause for concern.

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2016, 08:56:51 PM »

Increasingly the SSPX has the same problem as the NO: cowardice, compromise and Jєω butt-kissing... :reporter: