Who, if anybody, supervises SSPX Seminaries?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aurelio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aurelio

Guest
🙂 'Lo!

Out of curiousity, as much as anything, given all the sensational news from priests on EWTN to this forum on the frequently sorry state of seminary life these days, why is the SSPX exempt from any oversight in their seminaries?

At least one anthropologist pointed out years ago in a case relating to criticism of Marxist revoutionaries in Central America, that frequently such people shrewdly maneuver themselves into a sort of status of perpetual “victimhood” that exempts them from accountability of any kind.

Why all this?

Well, here’s an example or two:

(A) A certain father and prior of the SSPX matter of factly shares with us his listeners his personal memories of a certain “Dorm Father” at his SSPX seminary, who subsequently fell into some Gnostic illusion and became “Pope Pius XIII,” a case discussed in great detail last year on this forum.

No, this priest was not an SSPX priest, but so what, inasmuch as he was clearly, and for some time, part of the SSPX seminary team? What was the caliber of his spiritual direction?

(B) This same SSPX father wryly commented on how a seminary faculty member was so inthralled by the Lord of The Rings, that he literally begin teaching from it as a sort of mainstream “Theology course.”

(C) At least two(2) well-organized “secret” cliques breezed through their SSPX seminary days all the way to ordination, and then simply walked off, in search of some fantasy world of their own devising.

C1. Was in the early 1980’s.
C2. Was in the late 1990’s.

(D) Another typical story told us by this prior, so far as I know himself still loyal and faithful to his brand, concerns how he was anxiously cramming with some fellow students for a philosophy exam, when he noticed another classmate outside, casually leaning up against the wall.

"Joe, " he asked, “why aren’t you studying with us?”

*Joe’s *answer: “Nope! Not me. I just got a fantastic job offer from California, so I don’t have to this ‘stuff’ anymore. 'Bye, suckers!”

(E) By no later than the late 1970s we were hearing uneasy murmurings by Religious Order prists devoted 100% to the Tridentine Latin Mass, to the effect that the SSPX seminary in Econe appeared to have no adequate screening procedures in place, (a sensational suicide case, among other signs) and that as one old Benedictine monk warned us, this was “most disturbing.”

So: **“Who watches the SSPX seminaries, while the SSPX watches Rome?”:**D

Aurelio:thumbsup:
 
I noticed there is a contact link at the bottom of the page. Perhaps you can send these questions to the SSPX and receive a response from the horses mouth? I think this would be the best course of action to take. 🙂

sspx.ca/index.htm
 
🙂 Yo, Marymonde!

For Aurelio to do so would be plain laugh out loud funny, but hey!

Any takers out there who really think they *might get *a straight-forward answer?

Then, by golly, why not?

Thanks for the link, Marymonde, and by gosh, if that doesn’t show 'em, most likely nothing will!

Gentle hint: These good people, like the religious sect of Montaillou 700 years ago, are literally a law unto themselves, not even* bonified current lay members *of the SSPX are worthy of an answer, like maybe 9 times out of the 10.

Don’t buy it? Ask any “SSPX parish coordinator” – assuming you, too, are a current member in *good standing *of the palace guard – and listen to what he tells you.

Good luck!😉

Aurelio:thumbsup:
 
I am neutral on the SSPX situation. I attend a Institute of Christ the King parish and have sympathy for them in a way, and am confused about their status in another. It’s not an issue for me since I don’t go to their masses.

I have read about Archbishop Lefebvre. I think he was a good, holy priest that was devastated by what was happening in the Church. I truly believe reconciling the Society is close to the Holy Father’s heart and I pray he does so quickly, so all the bitterness the situation creates comes to a end.
 
Aurelio said:
Who watches the SSPX seminaries, while the SSPX watches Rome?
Click to expand...
This isn’t a redirection of the topic, but merely a query so as to compare apples to apples: what are the oversight policies and procedures for non-SSPX seminaries, such as ICRSS, FSSP, “regular” ordered seminaries (eg: Dominicans, Franciscans, etc), and your basic diocesan seminary? It might be useful to assemble a set of guidelines and then compare to see if the SSPX has any oversight going on, even if it’s only an in-house oversight system (which, while not as good as an outside, independent review, would certainly be better than nothing).

Or are the guidelines for such oversight published somewhere?
 
parvenu74 said:
This isn’t a redirection of the topic, but merely a query so as to compare apples to apples: what are the oversight policies and procedures for non-SSPX seminaries, such as ICRSS, FSSP, “regular” ordered seminaries (eg: Dominicans, Franciscans, etc), and your basic diocesan seminary? It might be useful to assemble a set of guidelines and then compare to see if the SSPX has any oversight going on, even if it’s only an in-house oversight system (which, while not as good as an outside, independent review, would certainly be better than nothing).

Or are the guidelines for such oversight published somewhere?
Click to expand...
I suspect the guidelines for seminary formation in religious seminaries would be an amalgam of 1) canon law on the topic, 2) other law generated by the Holy See concerning seminary formation in general, 3) the constitutions of the particular society/order, which might include some guidelines, and 4) whatever other documents the society might use to regulate itself according to the scope provided for in 1 and 2. Of course, this makes for lots of documents and many orders, like the FSSP, only post the most general and seminal of documents online (for instance, only the portions of its constitution that show forth its general aims).

Now, since the SSPX is not a Catholic order (i.e., it has no canonical status) its adherence to the universal norms of the Church depends on its willingness to do so, making its own legislation (if it has some) concerning its houses that much more crucial to understanding what is “supposed” to be going on. From their seminary site one can glean general information about the course of a day, the course of studies, and the fact that one bishop and six priests are in residence to care for formation. wwgb.seminaire-econe.com/ Beyond this, who knows.
 
There’s one thing we do know.
It was not the same ones that so faithfully guarded the Conciliar seminaries.
Those that gave us the pink palace and the lavendar mafia, the Goodbye Good Men indictment and the bankruptcy proceedings wherein all that $$$ given by trusting obedient-no-matter-to-what catholics for decades went into the septic tank.

So, if I had to guess, the oversight is not too different than that done in 400, 500, 700AD.
It seemed to work then. Has human nature changed? Is a Bp. less trustworthy today than then?
I would have to say that the kind of candidates they admit in the first place would have a major bearing on the kind of supervision needed.
That’s all.
 
🙂 Yo, friends!

You know, every last one of these posts from you fellow forum-members has been – in my knee-jerk opinion – both well-reasoned and thoughtful.

Thanks a bunch.

As a general observation, and this is a book students like Aurelio have had to battle with for literally years in order to make heads or tails of it, Ellis Sandoz’s The Voegelinian Revolution, goes in to gnosticism, big time!

So does *Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error *-- the English version of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie’s Montaillous, village occitan de 1294 a 1324.

It shows us gnosticim in its raw prestine state as viewed through the eyes of the Fornier Register, named after that same Bishop Jacques Fournier who became Pope Benedict XII and the author of Bendictus Deus, I THINK it’s called, still being quoted as recently as it is in the 1997 edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Oh, yeah, let’s not forget that devasting tell-all book that Pope St.Pius X himself described as “my favorite bedside book” *The Soul of *the Apostolate, pages 214 to 220.

“Let’s remember, everybody, that this Pope’s favorite book is not talking about anything but the Tridentine Latin Mass.”

To me, that makes these passages even more devastating!

Thanks again, you all!

Aurelio:thumbsup:
 
If the clergy allow many of these liberal & pink mansions to continue to opperate, perhaps it’s somewhat of a good thing they haven’t hit the Society’s seminaries.
 
🙂 Yo, EddieArent et al!

Gosh, good people, you don’t have to go to “liberal and pink mansions” to find psycho-sexual perversities.

Much less do you really have to be either a professional-level cultural and religious anthropologist or a Freudian psychologist to understand Satanic and/or militant homosexual symbolism when it is thrown in your face, month after month.

I mean, c’mon, we’re talking a major SSPX enclave of both priests and brothers, right?

And here is where Brother Artsy puts his 4-year fine arts college diploma to work by putting a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the public rest room, used by both sexes, directly facing the open toilet.

Cute, huh?

Because, you see, the Aztecs had a special goddess who was both the patroness of latrines, and STD’s, her name?

“Eater of Filth.”

Not fazed by this, Brother Artsy goes on to boast that he has set a portrait of The Last Supper in exactly the same way, in the brothers’ dormitory mens’ room.

One or two resident priests and at least one senior brother, who claim to be appalled by all this, can do nothing.

Thus, just who does run this articular priory of the SSPX?😉

I know, for all of you who have studied satanic sects, it shouldn’t be a real head-breaker to figure out the answer to this one, right?: 😃

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Eddie!

Aurelio:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top