Author Topic: Video about new SSPX seminary (Read 8598 times)

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:20:39 AM »

Didn't Our Lady of Fatima say something about the remnant of the Church always surviving in Portugal until the end of the world? I would think then, they would want a priory there. :scratchchin:

Telesphorus · « **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:29:43 AM »

They interview these priests at the seminary as though they were in charge of the decision-making.

It's an ad campaign.

edit:

As others have said, a new dormitory could easily be built in Winona for a tiny fraction of the cost.

This new seminary is intended to raise the profile of the society politically.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #17 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:45:52 AM »

There is something quite comical in claiming that they are spending tens of millions of dollars so the seminarians can have peace and quiet.

I recall a paper being sent around showing how much was spent each year per seminarian on food and lodging. A very paltry amount.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #18 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:48:22 AM »

In no way do I intend to denigrate the generosity of those who have contributed to the project.

As Zorayda pointed out, it's not the buildings that matter. Nearly all the buildings were lost to the conciliarists.

If the SSPX were about buildings, regularization would quickly solve that problem.

The SSPX wasnt founded for impressive buildings, or "culture" (like being close to DC), warm weather, or impressing people from DC.

Incredulous · « **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:51:37 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

It's amazing that they have so many seminarians, particularly when one of the qualifications nowadays is being a Phlegmatic. :wink:

Fr. Wood certainly seems like a Phlegmatic temperament.

If you don't know the 4 Temperaments, go ahead and Google it. Among other things, Phlegmatic usually entails "passive" and "not a fighter".

He is a classic example of what I speak of when I say, "The new type of Priest the SSPX is looking for".

I kind of feel sorry for his students...we had some really interesting professors when I was there, but I honestly couldn't imagine Fr. Wood keeping the students awake very easily...

One anecdote to the claim that the new seminarians (After Bp. Fellay removed +W as the Rector) are different than the older say, 2000 ~ 2005 seminary classes:

1. Around the summer of 2005, a group of Winona seminarians came and ran the SSPX boys camp, in my town, for two weeks.

A. 90 boys... most of them undisciplined, acting silly and goofing around the first days, even in Mass. During the following 2-weeks, they were rigously exercised and disciplined. Any trouble, the seminarians or their aids came up and said:"Hey young man... get down and give me 10 push-ups, now!".

B. By the end of the 2-weeks, the boys behaved like a military unit.
They walked in, straight single file into Church. Almost all of them looked straight ahead and followed the Mass with their missals.
They were pious when returning from the Communion rail to their pews.
The improvement in behavior was startling.

2. Around the summer of 2009, another group of Winona seminarians came and ran the boys camp, for two weeks.

A. Approximately 85 boys... undisciplined, acting silly and goofing-off the first days, even in Mass. During the following 12 days, they were not rigously disciplined.

B. The kids lacked piety at Mass from day one to the last day. I attended Mass with them and was shocked the see the seminarians not disciplining them?

I noticed one of the older seminarians, a deacon had "fixed" his hair and was using a cell-phone at the camp.
This didn't seem right. I thought these guys weren't as masculine in their supervisory duties as the 2005 seminarians.

To cross-check myself, to see if I was imagining things, I had a chance
to talk to the visiting older priest in charge of the camp and I commented
about the boys' demeanor at Mass.
The priest confirmed my comments by saying they had many problems at
that camp. He was dissatisfied with both the boys & seminarians.

Conclusion:

The newer camp seminarians were basically light-weights and reflected the new men coming out of the post +Williamson era seminary.
Their relaxed discipline wasn't by accident.

Matthew · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:53:54 AM »

You know, the more I think about this, the more ridiculous it seems.

It's not like they're in the middle of the city right now or anything. I WAS THERE. I know how beautiful and vast their current plot of land is. You feel completely isolated from the world, though if you get in a car you can take a short drive to town for necessities. A perfect mix.

The existing seminary is VERY, VERY conducive to a good formation. All other things being equal of course! (In other words, they might have OTHER problems now, but seminary location isn't one of them)

The current seminary has their own WOODS you can hike in and everything. The grounds and surrounding (country) land are quite beautiful.

A sane solution would be to build more living quarters on the existing land.

I think they're trying to get international attention with this monument they're trying to build.

And remember my other thread about "success" -- how many young women will have to be encouraged to go to college to help pay for this $60 million dollar behemoth? How many young men will be encouraged to join the US Military?

Matthew · « **Reply #21 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:58:48 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: Matthew
It's amazing that they have so many seminarians, particularly when one of the qualifications nowadays is being a Phlegmatic. :wink:

Fr. Wood certainly seems like a Phlegmatic temperament.

If you don't know the 4 Temperaments, go ahead and Google it. Among other things, Phlegmatic usually entails "passive" and "not a fighter".

He is a classic example of what I speak of when I say, "The new type of Priest the SSPX is looking for".

I kind of feel sorry for his students...we had some really interesting professors when I was there, but I honestly couldn't imagine Fr. Wood keeping the students awake very easily...

One anecdote to the claim that the new seminarians (After Bp. Fellay removed +W as the Rector) are different than the older say, 2000 ~ 2005 seminary classes:

1. Around the summer of 2005, a group of Winona seminarians came and ran the SSPX boys camp, in my town, for two weeks.

A. 90 boys... most of them undisciplined, acting silly and goofing around the first days, even in Mass. During the following 2-weeks, they were rigously exercised and disciplined. Any trouble, the seminarians or their aids came up and said:"Hey young man... get down and give me 10 push-ups, now!".

B. By the end of the 2-weeks, the boys behaved like a military unit.
They walked in, straight single file into Church. Almost all of them looked straight ahead and followed the Mass with their missals. They were pious when returning from the Communion rail to their pews.
The improvement in behavior was startling.

2. Around the summer of 2009, another group of Winona seminarians came and ran the boys camp, for two weeks.

A. Approximately 85 boys... undisciplined, acting silly and goofing-off the first days, even in Mass. During the following 12 days, they were not rigously disciplined.

B. The kids lacked piety at Mass from day one to the last day. I attended Mass with them and was shocked the see the seminarians not disciplining them?

I noticed one of the older seminarians, a deacon had "fixed" his hair and was using a cell-phone at the camp.
This didn't seem right. I thought these guys weren't as masculine in their supervisory duties as the 2005 seminarians.

To cross-check myself, to see if I was imagining things, I had a chance
to talk to the visiting older priest in charge of the camp and I commented
about the boys' demeanor at Mass.
The priest confirmed my comments by saying they had many problems at
that camp. He was dissatisfied with both the boys & seminarians.

Conclusion:

The newer camp seminarians were basically light-weights and reflected the new men coming out of the post +Williamson era seminary.
Their relaxed discipline wasn't by accident.

It's hard to argue with facts!

Indeed -- it takes a man to make MEN. Bishop Williamson is a real man as well as a faithful Bishop of the Catholic Church. He knows the way to manhood, being as he is presently there himself.

In fact, +W often taught us how women, no matter how well-intentioned, CANNOT raise boys and turn them into men. A MAN is needed to help a boy into manhood. No exceptions.

A cursory glance at +W's words and actions over the past years show the kind of virile man that he is. No wonder his seminarians knew how to be men -- and train other young boys to be men as well.

Manliness is passed on.

One of my favorite sayings, which I learned from the good Bishop:

Nemo dat quod non habet

No one gives what he doesn't have.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #22 on:** October 23, 2012, 01:01:02 AM »

If the Communist leadership of the Society were really interested in forming
good priests, they wouldn't be Communist. They wouldn't be expelling
their best seminary rector. I knew something was amiss when they sent
+Williamson packing to Argentina years ago.

Winona isn't politically expedient in its very location. And, top it off with the
fact that priestly formation is way low on the list of priorities, and there you have it.

When a CTLM independent community sends their young men to an SSPX
seminary they are categorically downtrodden because they're not from an SSPX
chapel, but from an independent chapel. They say 'independent' with a
French sneer in their voice, and hearing this day in and day out, the men under
suspicion end up abandoning the quest for their vocation.

This happens again and again.

But did it happen under +Williamson?? I think not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
this could well be one of the main reasons they want +W out, because he would
not foster this elitist cultism of the Fellayites.

Reactions, please??

Telesphorus · « **Reply #23 on:** October 23, 2012, 01:03:48 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

If the Communist leadership of the Society were really interested in forming
good priests, they wouldn't be Communist. They wouldn't be expelling
their best seminary rector. I knew something was amiss when they sent
+Williamson packing to Argentina years ago.

Winona isn't politically expedient in its very location. And, top it off with the
fact that priestly formation is way low on the list of priorities, and there you have it.

When a CTLM independent community sends their young men to an SSPX
seminary they are categorically downtrodden because they're not from an SSPX
chapel, but from an independent chapel. They say 'independent' with a
French sneer in their voice, and hearing this day in and day out, the men under
suspicion end up abandoning the quest for their vocation.

This happens again and again.

But did it happen under +Williamson?? I think not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
this could well be one of the main reasons they want +W out, because he would
not foster this elitist cultism of the Fellayites.

Reactions, please??

You can be absolutely certain the new crop of priests will not have the wherewithal and zeal of men like Fathers Pfeiffer and Chazal. Let's get real, they are a breed apart. This is why despite their small start, the SSPX is afraid of them.

Columba · « **Reply #24 on:** October 23, 2012, 10:14:33 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

You know, the more I think about this, the more ridiculous it seems.

It's not like they're in the middle of the city right now or anything. I WAS THERE. I know how beautiful and vast their current plot of land is. You feel completely isolated from the world, though if you get in a car you can take a short drive to town for necessities. A perfect mix.

The existing seminary is VERY, VERY conducive to a good formation. All other things being equal of course! (In other words, they might have OTHER problems now, but seminary location isn't one of them)

The current seminary has their own WOODS you can hike in and everything. The grounds and surrounding (country) land are quite beautiful.

A sane solution would be to build more living quarters on the existing land.

I think they're trying to get international attention with this monument they're trying to build.

And remember my other thread about "success" -- how many young women will have to be encouraged to go to college to help pay for this $60 million dollar behemoth? How many young men will be encouraged to join the US Military?

This all very true. I visited the seminary myself. They are up in the hills and away from the town. They have plenty of building space but it is in flyover country, away from where the jet set congregates. It is deceptive to say that space is the reason for moving the seminary.

stgobnait · « **Reply #25 on:** October 23, 2012, 10:30:59 AM »

it reminds me of a fairytale... 'the emperor's new clothe's' all style... and no substance.... :sad:

bowler · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2012, 10:35:38 AM »

Excellent observations in this thread. It looks like every person contributed something enlightening, coming from their different experiences and backgrounds.

This thread went from an advertising for the new seminary, to a thorough exposure (shining a light on) of the change in the SSPX's mindest with regard to what a seminary is for, and how a priest is prepared there.

bowler · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2012, 10:38:14 AM »

Quote from: bowler

That new seminary in Virginia that they are contemplating, will cost in my estimation more than the $60 million (how much more who knows. Where do the craftsmen come from to build an 1800's building ?).

Maybe the money will come from Rome, in exchange for an accord?

AntiFellayism · « **Reply #28 on:** October 23, 2012, 10:54:30 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: bowler

That new seminary in Virginia that they are contemplating, will cost in my estimation more than the $60 million (how much more who knows. Where do the craftsmen come from to build an 1800's building ?).

Maybe the money will come from Rome, in exchange for an accord?

Rome was about to file for bankruptcy not long ago and therefore they're broke; however, the people who really govern them since Vatican II have plenty of money and power to play and buy many disgraceful traitors for the bargain of 30 silver coins.

Columba · « **Reply #29 on:** October 23, 2012, 11:24:57 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: bowler

That new seminary in Virginia that they are contemplating, will cost in my estimation more than the $60 million (how much more who knows. Where do the craftsmen come from to build an 1800's building ?).

Maybe the money will come from Rome, in exchange for an accord?

American donors should save their money or send it to the Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp. Williamson.

+Fellay can get funding from Krah's buddies by agreeing to put a h0Ɩ0h0αx memorial on the premises.