“NICENESS” – HERESY ?

“Niceness” must often be left well behind.
When men are soft, being cruel can be kind.

Thanks be to God for all the good that the Society of St Pius X has done and is still doing for souls, but it has changed from what it was under Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991). Here is an interesting testimony from somebody who knows the Society –

Over a certain number of years I have noticed a change of approach to formation and to the ideal priestly candidate which is currently fostered in an SSPX seminary. For instance, am I right in distinguishing between sound doctrine (which the SSPX still manifests) and a “niceness” that has developed in its presentation, which seemingly pervades, yet handcuffs, the SSPX’s ability to combat errors and preach the doctrine uninhibited by human respect? The “nice” presentation of sound doctrine can get one out of many a tight spot, because if one is accused of compromising, one can always answer that the doctrine is not being changed, it is only that the situation demands a more gentle approach. This answer smacks of liberalism, but if it is veiled by faithfulness to the doctrine, then a man can think that there is no compromise. However, is there not a loss of that simplicity by which souls know exactly what needs to be said or done? I feel as though I cannot quite put my finger on exactly what this new mindset is. Do you think there is any merit in my concern that the orthodoxy may eventually be undermined?

And here is a second question not unconnected with the first. In seminary formation for the priesthood, should not seminarians be appreciated and encouraged if they want to go beneath the surface of things to penetrate to all the consequences of the truth? In recent years, SSPX priests or seminarians seem to have become suspect if they ask questions or seek to understand the reasoning behind decisions. Even if one shows the utmost prudence and respect, the simple fact of questioning something is met with concern on the part of the SSPX authorities. Thus stronger personalities are the more closely scrutinized, and even if they have vocations, they seem to experience a more trying time in the apostolate.
So do you think it is naive of me to wonder if good men who seek to preach Christ the King effectively, without political correctness, will still be able to bear fruit in the apostolate, given that the focus (at least on the surface of the SSPX) is more on the image of Tradition than on the fight for souls? I want to offer my life for God, but might someone in my position experience difficulty, given the current SSPX approach? Of course God can do with us what He wants, and we do not know the future, nor should we, but I do ask you if you think the warrior type is being neutralized by a spirit that practically avoids confrontation and dissuades any independent analysis.

Applying principles of the Faith to the secular realm is surely linked intimately with the reign of Christ over the whole of society, and not just with one’s personal spiritual life.
Kyrie eleison

If the Society has done so much good, why doesn't +Williamson seek to be reinstated in it?  The answer is one of two- He doesn't want to, or, SSPX leadership would not permit it.

Your assertion is not logical.

"If something WAS good, then it must BE good."

YES the Society has done much good, and as a train doesn't stop on a dime, it continues to do some good today. But the SSPX has fallen from grace! Not just a bad or worldly priest here or there (that would be nothing to complain about; the Church has always had such priests!) but from THE VERY TOP. The very organization has totally lost what it means to be Traditional. They have totally lost the plot, and become salt that has lost its savor. Like the bishops at Vatican II, they have gone off after the siren song of "appealing more to the modern world". Sad.

The Titanic has struck an iceberg, and it's going down. Time to abandon ship. I see NO evidence the iceberg's mortal blow has been reversed or repaired.

You could apply your same words to any Traditional Catholic vs. the Conciliar Church.

The visible, official, institutional, hierarchy of the Catholic Church has done much good. Not anymore of course!
Do I "not want" to be under the authority of Catholic Church prelates, on principle? God forbid! 
Would the NewChurch prelates accept me back tomorrow if I showed up at my local Novus Ordo parish? Of course they would!

So there is obviously a third option -- in both cases.

In seminary formation for the priesthood, should not seminarians be appreciated and encouraged if they want to go beneath the surface of things to penetrate to all the consequences of the truth? In recent years, SSPX priests or seminarians seem to have become suspect if they ask questions or seek to understand the reasoning behind decisions. Even if one shows the utmost prudence and respect, the simple fact of questioning something is met with concern on the part of the SSPX authorities. Thus stronger personalities are the more closely scrutinized, and even if they have vocations, they seem to experience a more trying time in the apostolate.

This has always been true of SSPX.  If you had any indepedent thoughts, you were held under suspicion and often dismissed from the seminary.

Lads is correct, and it is not just seminarians but the laity. Anyone who dares question the SSPX priests or God Forbid the leadership is automatically branded as a troublemaker.

I say amen to that from personal experience.  My wife and I were sspx laity, who were shown the door.  SSPX, alas, is very cult-like.  Even a senior bishop better not get out of line.  +W obviously did and paid for it.  He offended the "Red Sea pedestrians," who, I believe, have a vested interest in the organization, and have had one for decades.