Seminarian Attire

  • Thread starter Thread starter Relyas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
PASCENDI:
More drivel from Deal Hudson. That magazine is no where near as good as it was when the pages weren’t so glossy.

New Oxford Review has address every attack on him from the pages of Crisis. I’ve found the experience of reading Crisis akin to sticking my hand in a jar of warm spit.

As for excellent writing, I try to restrict myself to stuff published at least 50 years ago: Chesterbelloc etc. It’s just too damn easy to get published today. And with the internet and on demand publishing, there’s no reason why you should have an unpublished thought.

After baptism, the Faith doesn’t require any more watering down like the faith peddled in the pages of Crisis.
Click to expand...
Yet you praise Michael Rose (LOL!)

Somehow I cannot imagine you reading Chesterton or Belloc…

As for Deal Hudson, accomplish what he has done for the faith and THEN pop-off…

Then again, who cares. You must be some sort of anti-Catholic attempting to make a parody of the faith.
 
40.png
Crusader:
Yet you praise Michael Rose (LOL!)

Somehow I cannot imagine you reading Chesterton or Belloc…

As for Deal Hudson, accomplish what he has done for the faith and THEN pop-off…

Then again, who cares. You must be some sort of anti-Catholic attempting to make a parody of the faith.
Click to expand...
It’s not just I who praises Rose. And Michael is one of the few people of my generation whom I can converse with on subjests like distributivism (a la Chesterbelloc)
 
Detroit Sue:
Goodbye, Good Men is very accurate. Michael S. Rose did his homework very carefully. Why do you think seminarians are not weighing in on this thread?
Click to expand...
hey now, i resent that! well…not that much. but to stay in the middle here i think alot of Goodbye Good Men is good but like Crusader said there is a ton in there that is not sound either. My seminary is very orthodox in faith and morals, though it is a college seminary so we don’t wear cassocks except for sunday masses or solemnities. we do have Marian processions in public, pray the office etc. Our rector is awesome, completely in line with the Church. a lot of the new deacons and priests ordained wear cassocks. I’d like to wear them personally, but i think the chance for scandal to occur with just a few people is enough for prudence to say no to the entire seminary wearing them.

Dan
 
40.png
Crusader:
Then again, who cares. You must be some sort of anti-Catholic attempting to make a parody of the faith.
Click to expand...
Parody? I wasn’t the one who said the schimatic SSPX doesn’t have valid orders or sacraments. How can they be in schism if they don’t have valid orders?
 
40.png
PASCENDI:
Parody? I wasn’t the one who said the schimatic SSPX doesn’t have valid orders or sacraments. How can they be in schism if they don’t have valid orders?
Click to expand...
…and this would make a good private message
 
Crusader said:
"Rose’s book is under fire—and from an unexpected source…While Rose’s defenders have fallen over themselves claiming that Culture Wars, National Catholic Register, and Our Sunday Visitor are denying the problem of homosexuals in the priesthood, they’ve missed the point completely. The debate here isn’t whether or not there’s a gay subculture in the priesthood—there is, and all those publications acknowledge the problem. The real issue is one of journalistic integrity. "

Deal Hudson
Crisis Magazine
Click to expand...

First, it was written by Brian Saint-Paul, not Deal Hudson.

As I read the messages above, there are people who seem to say the Rose book is groundless and poorly written. But that isn’t quite what the review you linked said. I read the review to say there are poorly researched facts and errors, but there is also a lot of truth. The problem is they are mixed together. Here is an interesting quote from the conclusion of the same article:
In short, Rose failed to do his research, and that failure has cast suspicion on his entire book. Undoubtedly, many of the stories in Goodbye, Good Men are true. But which ones? How can we trust and promote a book so grievously flawed in some sections, even if the central thesis is one we believe to be true? (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
…I have a proposal for Michael Rose—an olive branch, if you will. The Church needs a book like Goodbye, Good Men. But it needs that book to be unassailable. Rose should rework the book—remove the sections that are either doubtful or, as in the case of Louvain, almost certainly untrue. Yes, the book may be a bit shorter, but it’ll be stronger for having the wheat separated from the chaff.
Click to expand...
If Rose chooses this course, Crisis will happily and enthusiastically support him. All of us would benefit from a strong and heavily researched exposé of the problems in our seminaries—especially in this time of Church crisis…
Click to expand...
BTW, I am also under the impression that many seminaries have been significantly cleaned up in the last 5-10 years. I have been uniformly impressed by young seminarians I have met from Mt. Saint Marys Seminary, in Emmittsburg, MD and the Pontifical College Josephinum, in Columbus, OH.
 
40.png
Crusader:
While entertaining and well worth $4.99 as a remainder book, I wouldn’t take anything Mike Rose wrote too seriously. .
Click to expand...
Not funny. Not even amusing. After the many years of pain we have endured and continue to endure in our hope for the teaching and living of true Cathlic faith and morals on the part of our clergy, and after the agony of the Long Lent, most of us will not be put off by detractors of Michael Rose. Where else were we able to identify the real poison in the seminaries? Many people have remarked on the loathsome conditions which, if true even in one, single case, is inexcusable.

How is it that you find the subject worthy of a “clever” jibe? Hmmmmmm?

Anna :mad:
 
40.png
Relyas:
Dear Catholic Answers Forum,

I may soon be entering the seminary, and I was wondering what my fellow forum…ites… consider proper attire for a seminarian?

Of course, being an orthodox Catholic (which clearly means 100% Authentic) I would be willing to wear a cassock, but I’m afraid that’s not allowed for anyone below the deaconate.

The seminary that I would attend is not the most authentic in the country, and I’m not sure what they would think about such attire.

And, of course, the question follows that if I *do *wear a cassock, and my superiors tell me not to, should I be obedient and comply?
Click to expand...
You will be informed on what the dress policy is, and I would highly recommend that you do as you are told. After all, one of the promises you take as a diocesan priest is obdience to the bishop and his successors. If you can’t be obedient to your seminary superiors, it will be an automatic red flag that you can not be obedient to your Bishop.

In my experience it isn’t so much about so called flying under the radar, but being respectful and obedient. The seminary can be a very odd place, and takes some getting used to. What is important, however, is that you go there with the willingness to be formed in the person of Christ and further discern your call. The best or the worst seminary offers its lessons.

The best advice I could give to anyone entering the seminary is just be highly prudent and pray often.

As I have so often heard, “Your day in the sun will come”.
 
I am in the process of becoming a seminarian for my diocese. While I would love to wear a cassock as well, I think most seminarians are required to wear civil clothes until they are at a Major Seminary(Theology). The way I look at it, it is good formartion for your obedience and keeps you humble. Wear a nice pair of black slacks and a button down shirt. I am trying to say this in a charitable way but if God has called you to His Priesthood then you can wear a cassock for the rest of your life… just have to wait a couple years. You should be able to wear it at Mass though… I hope that helps but again I think every seminary has different dress code.
 
40.png
Ham1:
My cousin was recently in a not-very conservative seminary. He reported that there were a couple of strange guys but overwhelmingly the seminarians were normal, orthodox Catholics. Another very close friend of mine is one year from ordination and he claims his seminary is the same - filled with enthusiastic faithful young men. Both of them have said that they did not feel inclined to stay “under the radar” in any way.
Click to expand...
As one preparing to enter the seminary myself, I’ll second this after having spent a good amount of time with my diocese’s current seminarians. I live with three others who are extremely orthodox in their views on the priesthood and moral issues.

If you look at the trend concerning younger priests (and especially seminarians), you will find that they are overwhelmingly orthodox. Andrew Greeley (in all of his false-spirit-of-Vatican-II-zeal) has lamented about this fact in a couple articles recently. It turns out that my generation of priests - i.e. under 40 - tend to be more faithful to Church teaching. If you want to read a good book on the issue, check out Colleen Carroll’s The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy.

As for Goodbye, Good Men, I don’t doubt that a lot of what is contained therein did occur and was a problem. But like everything Scandal-related, it strikes me as more of a report on the past than anything currently plagueing our seminaries.

In answer to the original poster wondering about the cassock issue, I’d say it’s important not to get hung up on the exteriors. Formation - especially during seminary - is about the interior, not the exterior. Getting dressed in the morning is the easiest thing a priest does all day long. The real battles have nothing to do with clothes.
 
40.png
Relyas:
And, of course, the question follows that if I *do *wear a cassock, and my superiors tell me not to, should I be obedient and comply?
Click to expand...
People go to a seminary to be helped to discern whether they have a calling to the priesthood, not because they are sure that they have one. Any seminary would consider disobedience in dress code as something that could reflect someone’s unsuitability for the priesthood. While it is a great privilege to wear clerical garb, it would be inappropriate to don a cassock when it is not the norm for the seminary in question. Most people charged with formation would be reluctant to promote a student who placed an overemphasis on dress as a seminarian. Believe me, as one who spent 1996 to 2002 in the seminary, I know that it is a place of formation and discernment, so don’t stress if you can’t wear a cassock on your first day.

As a priest, I don’t wear the cassock in public as it has never been the custorm or the norm here in Australia. I do, however, wear a collar as a reflection of priestly identity.

Cheers,
Fr Matt
 
I studied in two seminaries Michael rose wrote about, was a participant in the national bishops investigations of catholic seminaries and things only appear to change perspectively. You will only see what the bishops and priests want you to see but once you live in the system you will find enough prove that rose speaks about. This being said, seminaries require mentally stable men who will not let the scandals or corruption of the church destroy them. These things are not going to go away, they may not be done as public as in the 70s or 80s but they will still happen. The men inside the seminaries are no differs from those outside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top