Seminaries: Liberal or conservative?

[manualman]

It is a false dilemma to state that I must either be obedient to the bishop of one’s diocese and if I believe I have a priestly vocation go off to whatever seminary he chooses, or be a defiant and difficult candidate who will soon be “weeded out.”

Let’s be honest and frank. We’ve had a lot of weak (at best) bishops in the USA in the last 40 years (I’m not naming names!). We’ve had some horrific things going on in seminaries (i.e. the Michael Rose book). Laymen are simply not the property of their bishop. Do your homework (like you are now, but moreso), get a basically sound education in catholic teaching, look into dioceses with excellent bishops and MOVE there while you are a layman, pick a college based on this criteria if necessary for your undergrad work. Now you can go to your bishop and be fully obedient to his instructions and STILL be assured that you will receive a catholic seminary formation instead of a new age moonbeam enlightenment experience.

If everybody did this, the orthodox bishops would burst with vocations and the weak and or heterodox bishops would simply accelerate on the path of vocational withering that they are already on.

False dilemma resolved.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

No I havent read the documents. I plan on doing so. The main issue for me is the novus ordo mass and ecumenism.

The traditional latin mass in my opinion gives a greater emphasis of us being in spiritual warfare- like the priest facing the altar.

I also think that the Vatican II impression of ecumenism says that the holy spirit is found in other Christian dominations. The danger with that is that people will be less likely to convert if the Vatican tells them they are ok where they are. This is evident in the numbers of conversion pre vatican ii compared to post vatican ii. Patrick Buchanan has written about this.

I hope that one day there is a Vatican III that scraps the novus ordo mass altogether. I am sure there are some traditional priests within the church (FSSP, ICK, etc.) who feel the same way.

Do you mean the Novus Ordo Mass or what you’ve been lead to believe the Novus Ordo Mass is? Because there is most likely a very big difference. Again, proper ecumenism vs “spirit of Vatican II” ecumenism needs to be taken into consideration. You clearly have zeal for the truth but your constant rants and raves seem over the top and way too black and white. The fact that you haven’t read the documents is very telling. You cite two congregations that may want an abolition of the NO. Those 2 congregations are not the magesterium, as much as you make want them to be.

 

[Pregustator]

No I havent read the documents. I plan on doing so. The main issue for me is the novus ordo mass and ecumenism.

The traditional latin mass in my opinion gives a greater emphasis of us being in spiritual warfare- like the priest facing the altar.

But in the opinion of Pope Paul VI, all the bishops of the world at the Council, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and most every cardinal, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, primate, prelate, priest, and the overwhelming majority of the faithful, the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council were a positive thing that, when implemented properly, enrich the liturgy.

Whose opinions count for more?

Perhaps “warfare” is not the central theme of liturgy. At any rate, that is a purely subjective notion; I experience no sense of “warfare” when I attend a Tridentine Mass.

 

[notredame_999]

But in the opinion of Pope Paul VI, all the bishops of the world at the Council, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and most every cardinal, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, primate, prelate, priest, and the overwhelming majority of the faithful, the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council were a positive thing that, when implemented properly, enrich the liturgy.

Whose opinions count for more?

Perhaps “warfare” is not the central theme of liturgy. At any rate, that is a purely subjective notion; I experience no sense of “warfare” when I attend a Tridentine Mass.

Actually warfare is a central theme of the liturgy- Christ conquering death over sin and satan. As far as all the supposed “general consensus” that the novus ordo enriches the liturgy, you will find some serious opposition if you read books like “The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber” and “Vatican II: The Great Facade” by Christopher Ferrara.

Let me ask all of you who think Vatican II has been a good thing for the church: Do you ever read the National Catholic Reporter? Because I do and almost all of it is liberal heresey. The problem is a lot of priests and sisters in this country ascribre to that form of catholicism- which is pro-contraception, pro women priests, questions the divinity of Christ, doubts sin, wants to get rid of confession, introduce modern music, no mention of Fatima, etc. And you know what all these liberals say at the end of their columns? Something like "we had hoped Vatican II did _X but you conservatives like Ratzinger (notice they don’t even say Benedict XIV) are turning back the clock to do _. Every column is like this.

Maybe if the documents of Vatican II allow for so much liberal dissent they should just be revised completely.

 

[manualman]

Maybe if the documents of Vatican II allow for so much liberal dissent they should just be revised completely.

Well if you’d read them, you’d find out that they don’t. The much ballyhooed ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ is simply not present in the actual documents that make up the official teaching of the council.

It’s the 60’s rebels that seized control AFTER the council that lied to us and made up an entire fictional facade about what Vatican II was all about, making sure that as few people as possible actually read the darn things (except for select quotes, edited out of context).

 

[Pregustator]

Actually warfare is a central theme of the liturgy- Christ conquering death over sin and satan. As far as all the supposed “general consensus” that the novus ordo enriches the liturgy, you will find some serious opposition if you read books like “The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber” and “Vatican II: The Great Facade” by Christopher Ferrara.

Let me ask all of you who think Vatican II has been a good thing for the church: Do you ever read the National Catholic Reporter? Because I do and almost all of it is liberal heresey. The problem is a lot of priests and sisters in this country ascribre to that form of catholicism- which is pro-contraception, pro women priests, questions the divinity of Christ, doubts sin, wants to get rid of confession, introduce modern music, no mention of Fatima, etc. And you know what all these liberals say at the end of their columns? Something like "we had hoped Vatican II did _X but you conservatives like Ratzinger (notice they don’t even say Benedict XIV) are turning back the clock to do _. Every column is like this.

Maybe if the documents of Vatican II allow for so much liberal dissent they should just be revised completely.

You’re combing the fringe, I see, to discern what’s on the carpet. Well, good luck with that approach.

 

[Young_Thinker]

It is a false dilemma to state that I must either be obedient to the bishop of one’s diocese and if I believe I have a priestly vocation go off to whatever seminary he chooses, or be a defiant and difficult candidate who will soon be “weeded out.”

Let’s be honest and frank. We’ve had a lot of weak (at best) bishops in the USA in the last 40 years (I’m not naming names!). We’ve had some horrific things going on in seminaries (i.e. the Michael Rose book). Laymen are simply not the property of their bishop. Do your homework (like you are now, but moreso), get a basically sound education in catholic teaching, look into dioceses with excellent bishops and MOVE there while you are a layman, pick a college based on this criteria if necessary for your undergrad work. Now you can go to your bishop and be fully obedient to his instructions and STILL be assured that you will receive a catholic seminary formation instead of a new age moonbeam enlightenment experience.

If everybody did this, the orthodox bishops would burst with vocations and the weak and or heterodox bishops would simply accelerate on the path of vocational withering that they are already on.

False dilemma resolved.

Please keep in mind that not every young man can or wants to move far away from home. In addition, by supporting your native diocese, you are potentially parishioners. They need enough priests(and ones of quality, if possible), irrespective of their bishop’s attitudes or policies.

 

[Romanova]

Actually warfare is a central theme of the liturgy- Christ conquering death over sin and satan. As far as all the supposed “general consensus” that the novus ordo enriches the liturgy, you will find some serious opposition if you read books like “The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber” and “Vatican II: The Great Facade” by Christopher Ferrara.

Let me ask all of you who think Vatican II has been a good thing for the church: Do you ever read the National Catholic Reporter? Because I do and almost all of it is liberal heresey. The problem is a lot of priests and sisters in this country ascribre to that form of catholicism- which is pro-contraception, pro women priests, questions the divinity of Christ, doubts sin, wants to get rid of confession, introduce modern music, no mention of Fatima, etc. And you know what all these liberals say at the end of their columns? Something like "we had hoped Vatican II did _X but you conservatives like Ratzinger (notice they don’t even say Benedict XIV) are turning back the clock to do _. Every column is like this.

Maybe if the documents of Vatican II allow for so much liberal dissent they should just be revised completely.

Well, there is an easy solution for your dislike of the National Catholic Reporter – stop reading it if you don’t like it.

Yes, there has been a lot of liberal dissent over the past decades. When you look at Church history, though, it typically took more than a few decades for a Council to be fully implemented in the universal Church. (The Council of Nicea, for instance, didn’t immediately stamp out Arianism. Organized forms of Arianism persisted for another couple hundred years in parts of Europe!) Many individuals, including some clergy, overreacted to Vatican II, that is true. But what we are seeing lately in many parts of the world is what has often been called a “reform of the reform,” a push to accurately interpret what VII was and was not and to fully and faithfully implement the teachings of the Council.

If all you’re relying on to interpret Vatican II is the opinions of the liberals you mentioned in the post quoted above, I do think you’re missing out. Go read the Council documents for yourself – don’t rely on those who dissent from Church teachings to tell you what they say.

 

[manualman]

Please keep in mind that not every young man can or wants to move far away from home. In addition, by supporting your native diocese, you are potentially parishioners. They need enough priests(and ones of quality, if possible), irrespective of their bishop’s attitudes or policies.

Purely my opinion, mind you, but if a boy isn’t mature enough yet to live life cut from momma’s apron strings he isn’t ready for the seminary either. Take such a tender youth and entrust him to the spiritual brutality of a heterodox seminary faculty and you simply don’t GET priests “of quality.”

While I have not personally experienced this myself, I saw what happened to a VERY close (and formerly orthodox) family member who went and received a priest’s Masters of Divinity degree at the (now blessedly closed) seminary at the time operated by bishop Weakland of Milwaukee. This person before and after is not doctrinally recognizable as the same person (and not in a good way). A bad seminary is worse than none.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Purely my opinion, mind you, but if a boy isn’t mature enough yet to live life cut from momma’s apron strings he isn’t ready for the seminary either. Take such a tender youth and entrust him to the spiritual brutality of a heterodox seminary faculty and you simply don’t GET priests “of quality.”

While I have not personally experienced this myself, I saw what happened to a VERY close (and formerly orthodox) family member who went and received a priest’s Masters of Divinity degree at the (now blessedly closed) seminary at the time operated by bishop Weakland of Milwaukee. This person before and after is not doctrinally recognizable as the same person (and not in a good way). A bad seminary is worse than none.

If you say so.

 

[elts1956]

I know from personal experience that St. Meinrad Seminary is a very liberal seminary. They put up a good show but once you get beyond the appearances you see what is really going on. Traditional thinking is passive aggressively put down. Orthodox men are sent packing. So a lot of the guys there have to keep a low profile so they won’t get blasted.

I wondered about that “whole person” instruction. Should have been a red flag.

 

[AndrewRaZ]

On the original topic, Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit is neither liberal nor conservative. We follow Church teaching here, and I’ve not heard a single complaint otherwise.

If you want to go to a seminary that doesn’t have anyone who is attracted to men at it I think you might just be out of luck. Most surveys of seminary students seem to indicate it is relatively common thing, more so than in the normal population anyway.

The men who teach at seminaries generally aren’t chosen based on their opinions of things like government tax structures and spending so there is a good chance you will have to deal with some ideas that are of a politically liberal nature. It is also worth noting that many seminaries partner with universities and have their students take some classes there as well, and those professors might not even be Catholic at times.

Patrick, I’m quoting you alone, but I’m speaking to all of you who voice similar accusations:

I, and all my brothers here, would appreciate it if you would stop making generalizations about “all” or “most” or “many” seminaries being full of “liberals gays and heretics.” We’re very proud of our faculty and seminarians at Sacred Heart in Detroit. We have brothers who hold the whole gamut of lines of thought, from those who are “conservative,” to those who are “liberal.” We have men who attend TLM whenever they have a chance. We have men who are charismatic. We have men who are from all spectrums of the Church. And not a single one of my brothers here is obstinately heretical. Not one of them is homosexual that I know of. In fact, being homosexually oriented is a specific formation issue here, and if one is, he will not be recommended for ordination. This is part of the Program of Priestly Formation, and is required of all seminaries nationwide now. It’s that simple.

Our faculty and priests here are top notch too. We have faculty who are internationally known Pro-life advocates. We have great philosophy professors who have a Catholic synthesis of faith and reason. We have brilliant theology professors, including two Jesuits who are on staff, and quite orthodox, thank you. We *are *the Church, not a slice of it, so we are liberal. We are conservative. We *are *intellectual. We *are *charismatic. We *are *pastoral. And we are human.

So before you go off with your half-cocked accusations, please show some restraint. This is my family you have insulted, and you have no idea how much I am saddened and angered by that.

I asked a priest I trusted in our archdiocese about St. Meinrad in Indiana. He said it was a very good seminary. It focuses on developing the “whole” person. I’ve been very impressed with the priests being ordained from there in the last five years.

I wondered about that “whole person” instruction. Should have been a red flag.

The “whole person” is an aspect of priestly formation outlined in the Program For Priestly Formation laid out by the USCCB, in response to the Vatican’s requirements. It outlines the four pillars, including human, intellectual, spiritual, and pastoral. It simply means a priest cannot be an intellectual with no pastoral ability–he must grow, and be a man of communion. Similarly, with any imbalance. A priest must be a well-balanced man, not a man of one area, or a man for himself. He is expected to always give himself completely, to spend himself entirely for the Church.

And he is expected to be obedient to the Bishop and his successors.

God bless you all.

Caritas,

Andrew

 

[PatrickSebast]

Patrick, I’m quoting you alone, but I’m speaking to all of you who voice similar accusations:

I, and all my brothers here, would appreciate it if you would stop making generalizations about “all” or “most” or “many” seminaries being full of “liberals gays and heretics.” We’re very proud of our faculty and seminarians at Sacred Heart in Detroit. We have brothers who hold the whole gamut of lines of thought, from those who are “conservative,” to those who are “liberal.” We have men who attend TLM whenever they have a chance. We have men who are charismatic. We have men who are from all spectrums of the Church. And not a single one of my brothers here is obstinately heretical. Not one of them is homosexual that I know of. In fact, being homosexually oriented is a specific formation issue here, and if one is, he will not be recommended for ordination. This is part of the Program of Priestly Formation, and is required of all seminaries nationwide now. It’s that simple.

Our faculty and priests here are top notch too. We have faculty who are internationally known Pro-life advocates. We have great philosophy professors who have a Catholic synthesis of faith and reason. We have brilliant theology professors, including two Jesuits who are on staff, and quite orthodox, thank you. We *are *the Church, not a slice of it, so we are liberal. We are conservative. We *are *intellectual. We *are *charismatic. We *are *pastoral. And we are human.

So before you go off with your half-cocked accusations, please show some restraint. This is my family you have insulted, and you have no idea how much I am saddened and angered by that.

I don’t know about the others, but I think you are seeing something in my post that simply isn’t there. All I said was that people with liberal views and same sex attractions can be in seminaries and that often you may find yourself being taught by a non-catholic at some point in your formation. I didn’t mean for any of that to be taken negatively or shed seminaries in a bad light, it just is what it is. The post can really only be offensive if you view being liberal or homosexually oriented as curse words, I just view them as other people. If the question had been on orthodoxy then I simply would have said that most seminaries should be fine, however being in seminary you must certainly recognize that having to deal with people who have different opinions on things is part of the deal.

 

[AcolyteLector]

I’m glad you got in on this Brother lol I knew you would. With all due respect as a consecrated religious, you are not the magisterium.

**Brother is not the magisterium, and neither are you. Pointing this out, condescendingly, when Brother never made this claim makes you look like you have a bone to pick with him. Or, that you’re simply a troll.

Having read your posts, I wouldn’t be too hesitant to assume the latter.**

You say my games are getting tiring but I have every right to post on this internet website as you do.

**Uh, ya, you do–by civil law–but your posts are often lacking any orientation or sense as to what Catholicism or the priesthood are about… according to the magisterium, at least.

Discernment works in a way that is very traditional and time-tested. The person who feels he has a vocation seeks out a spiritual director, and begins his discernment in earnest.

Hopping on the internet so you can saturate our Vocations Forum with your hollow phrases about a ‘tradition’ that you manifestly know nothing about will not get you closer to God or the priesthood (if this is even your aim, at all).

Why don’t you try reading a certain thread that was posted recently by a clearly bewildered religious, addressing the problem of people apparently interested in serving the Church, but uninterested in listening to those who have ‘been there, done that’.**

As far as the quote you provided, I appreciate it and will meditate on it.

Evidently, not before posting the following…

At the same time, humility doesn’t mean we surrender our traditions. Unfortunately we almost did that with the suppression of the latin mass in most dioceses. Humility also doesn’t mean that we become blind to our enemies- both external and within the church itself going back to Judas. Remember, we are engaged in spiritual warfare against ourselves and satan.

(1) Who is asking you to surrender your tradition?
(2) I would agree and sympathize with your being disturbed by certain developments in the Church between 1940-1980. But these this… how shall I say… ecclesiastical pathology was not at all endemic to the Council of Vatican II. No. Just look at the ‘worker-priest’ movement which fell firmly before the Council.

Thus, it is idiotic to say that Vatican II marked the downfall of ‘traditional Catholicism’, as Vatican II was actually, in some places, the Church’s response to a changing/changed culture. Vatican II was a response–it wasn’t just the episcopate deciding, willy nilly, whatever it wanted.

What you object to, and you should clarify this, to make your argument actually appear sane, is that the Vatican II documents were distorted and taken as a ‘free pass’ to make… in some cases… the ‘Church’ whatever individual pastors and bishops wanted.

These days are over, the Church is getting the situation in hand, and the experiments with suppressing the EO are yesterday’s nightmare. However, the Ecclesia Dei organizations agree with me, not with you–all of their websites are quick to emphasize their allegiance to the post-Conciliar Church, and all of them endorse the Council.

And if you’re the die-hard defender of tradition that you claim to be, let me ask you this: how about Trent? Yes, that’s right: the Council of Trent? Would you defend the Council of Trent’s attempts to stamp out extremely traditional pre-Tridentine practices in places like, oh say, Ireland? Would you endorse its attempt to set all liturgies across the face of Western Europe to the same rubric?

If you won’t let the Church decide–according to the will of God and with the intervention of the Holy Spirit–how best to shepherd its peoples, you can’t call yourself a Catholic. Not even the SSPX would call you a Catholic.

/B]

For whatever reason, and I do not know why, a new type of mass was created at Vatican II. I do not like it, to me it comes dangerously close to a protestant service. With that said, I accept its validity if done properly.

Well, you’ve admitted this is just your personal opinion, so–given that you write it in every post—I think you can stop telling us this opinion.

Have you ever read the Rhine Flows Into the Tiber?

 

[Joannm]

On the original topic, Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit is neither liberal nor conservative. We follow Church teaching here, and I’ve not heard a single complaint otherwise.

Patrick, I’m quoting you alone, but I’m speaking to all of you who voice similar accusations:

I, and all my brothers here, would appreciate it if you would stop making generalizations about “all” or “most” or “many” seminaries being full of “liberals gays and heretics.” We’re very proud of our faculty and seminarians at Sacred Heart in Detroit. We have brothers who hold the whole gamut of lines of thought, from those who are “conservative,” to those who are “liberal.” We have men who attend TLM whenever they have a chance. We have men who are charismatic. We have men who are from all spectrums of the Church. And not a single one of my brothers here is obstinately heretical. Not one of them is homosexual that I know of. In fact, being homosexually oriented is a specific formation issue here, and if one is, he will not be recommended for ordination. This is part of the Program of Priestly Formation, and is required of all seminaries nationwide now. It’s that simple.

Our faculty and priests here are top notch too. We have faculty who are internationally known Pro-life advocates. We have great philosophy professors who have a Catholic synthesis of faith and reason. We have brilliant theology professors, including two Jesuits who are on staff, and quite orthodox, thank you. We *are *the Church, not a slice of it, so we are liberal. We are conservative. We *are *intellectual. We *are *charismatic. We *are *pastoral. And we are human.

So before you go off with your half-cocked accusations, please show some restraint. This is my family you have insulted, and you have no idea how much I am saddened and angered by that.

The “whole person” is an aspect of priestly formation outlined in the Program For Priestly Formation laid out by the USCCB, in response to the Vatican’s requirements. It outlines the four pillars, including human, intellectual, spiritual, and pastoral. It simply means a priest cannot be an intellectual with no pastoral ability–he must grow, and be a man of communion. Similarly, with any imbalance. A priest must be a well-balanced man, not a man of one area, or a man for himself. He is expected to always give himself completely, to spend himself entirely for the Church.

And he is expected to be obedient to the Bishop and his successors.

God bless you all.

Caritas,

Andrew

Excellent post. I received two degrees from a Catholic seminary, as a lay person. I also know many seminarians and priests educated at the seminary I attended. I had the same professors they had and I even taught in the diaconate program. I wanted to post a reply but thought it best to see if one came from someone actually in a seminary. You said it 100% better than I would have.

 

[AcolyteLector]

No I havent read the documents. I plan on doing so. The main issue for me is the novus ordo mass and ecumenism.

The traditional latin mass in my opinion gives a greater emphasis of us being in spiritual warfare- like the priest facing the altar.

I also think that the Vatican II impression of ecumenism says that the holy spirit is found in other Christian dominations. The danger with that is that people will be less likely to convert if the Vatican tells them they are ok where they are. This is evident in the numbers of conversion pre vatican ii compared to post vatican ii. Patrick Buchanan has written about this.

**Pat Buchanan is not the magisterium.

Is the bureaucratic ‘conversion’ (that is, pro forma registry in a parish as a baptized Catholic), though, actually what we’re after, or is it the salvation of souls? Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m not), but I believe its the salvation of souls–coincidentally, most of the Church agrees with me.

For a theologically ‘better’ explanation of conversion than the one that you’re obviously using, cf. Pope Benedict XVI’s book, ‘Introduction to Christianity’.

I see what you’re doing, and I have to say that I agree with some of your claims. Its just that you don’t understand your own arguments, and you’re not going about it delicately or in a way that’s compelling. In fact, its boring and annoying. You’re pretty much a ‘Catholic nationalist’ who doesn’t yet realize that the Church isn’t his personal paramilitary. Sorry, again.

Finally, our current policies of mutual recognition and ecumenism seem to be going quite well. We’re absorbing Anglicans/Episcopalians left and right, and making use of the ‘good, sound material’ still left in those churches… bringing them back home. Everyone else, who converts so that they can marry a Catholic in the Church–this will naturally suffer decline as marriage as a civil institution nationwide loses social currency.

Its sacramental character has no bearing on its decline (i.e., not in the sociological way that we’re talking about it), and making it easy for Christians to marry Christians will not impact conversions negatively. It is more important–in view of the aim to boost conversions–to internally promote the sacraments, rather than try to do it externally, by shutting our doors on Christians marrying Catholics. Catholics who understand the significance of marriage will want to do it in the Church, not in some ceremony by some lesbian witch from the Quaking Spiritual Baptism Method church.
In fact, in the scenario where a Catholic marries another Christian, when their children grow up and they feel God’s call, they will be more likely to follow in the steps of the parent who has a Church and not a drum circle to go to on Sunday morning. And guess which parent that will be. : ) **

I hope that one day there is a Vatican III that scraps the novus ordo mass altogether. I am sure there are some traditional priests within the church (FSSP, ICK, etc.) who feel the same way.

**‘Individual priests’ are not the magisterium… in fact, its due to “individual priests” that many of the greatest post-Conciliar abuses were committed. But, in any case, these ‘Individual priests’ were Christian enough to trust the Catholic Church, trust Her bishops and spiritual directors, and enter into the ranks of Her clergy. **

 

[AcolyteLector]

Actually warfare is a central theme of the liturgy- Christ conquering death over sin and satan. As far as all the supposed “general consensus” that the novus ordo enriches the liturgy, you will find some serious opposition if you read books like “The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber” and “Vatican II: The Great Facade” by Christopher Ferrara.

Have you considered reading something that cannot be categorized as ‘acerbic conservative invective’. These people are not holy men, they’re people who have something to gain by making an argument eloquently, because they know there are people out there (ex: you) who agree with it and will buy their book.

Let me ask all of you who think Vatican II has been a good thing for the church: Do you ever read the National Catholic Reporter? Because I do and almost all of it is liberal heresey.

So? Yeah, the NCR is critical of the Church. Sometimes they have good stuff, but most of it is self-hating trash. It is not a positive thing to sit there fuming over it–you think you’re going to be a priest, so do you think that your chief mission will be to write rebuttals to the NCR journalists in every homily? No, your job is to save souls and offer the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Moreover, let me just point out that the NCR has nothing whatsoever to do with what we’re talking about.

If you hate Catholics so much–or at least the ones you disagree with, which seems to be just about all of us–why not convert to something else? Howabout Islam, I hear they’re not too fond of us…

The problem is a lot of priests and sisters in this country ascribre to that form of catholicism- which is pro-contraception, pro women priests, questions the divinity of Christ, doubts sin, wants to get rid of confession, introduce modern music, no mention of Fatima, etc.

**Statistics? No, ya don’t have any. That’s the beauty of the parish system–its local. You’ve heard of parish schools being called ‘parochial schools’? That’s why they’re called that: they’re connected with the local or neighborhood church. If there’s a problem with this church, it only represents a problem in microcosm. If you don’t like it–assuming you don’t live in the Archdiocese of Anchorage or the Eparchy of Antartica–you should be able to find a replacement weekly Mass swiftly.

My entire diocese is almost completely “center-right to right” on the liturgy and tradition. I love it. If you don’t, and you actually have a call to the priesthood, find a SD and get to work as a diocesan priest. One day your diocese will be on board, too.

Therefore, peddle this anti-Everythingexceptthelatinmass-ism somewhere else.**

And you know what all these liberals say at the end of their columns? Something like "we had hoped Vatican II did _X but you conservatives like Ratzinger (notice they don’t even say Benedict XIV) are turning back the clock to do _. Every column is like this.

Maybe if the documents of Vatican II allow for so much liberal dissent they should just be revised completely.

 

[AcolyteLector]

yes he also said that in order to enter heaven we must be as righteous as the pharisees. I dont think its unreasonable for those discerning the priethood (like the poster and myself) to expect a seminary that is free of liberals, homosexuals, and heretics.

[forget about the gelgameks!?

 

[ignisdei]

A question for those much more knowledgable than myself:

I often read or hear of conservative and liberal seminaries. The problem is, I don’t know which would be which! Can anybody give their opinions on which are perceived to be more liberal and which are perceived to be more conservative? For instance, my diocese currently sends seminarians to Theological College in Washington, D.C.; the Pontifical North American College in Rome; St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein, Illinois and the American College in Leuven, Belgium. Does anyone know anything about these seminaries?

Thanks!

Alberich

JMJT

The following article may be of help:

Life in a Traditional Catholic Seminary: "The Clerical Tonsure"
[A general view of the essential difference between the Traditional Roman Catholic Clergy and the New “Catholic” Clergy of the New “Catholic" Order (the Novus Ordo) - inaugurated at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) - of which the Crucified is the crucial test and point of departure. The reason for our “great reversal”. Excerpted from a letter of our confrere who received this sacred rite in one of the International Seminaries of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.]

Please click the link below for the full text.
ignis-dei.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

In Christ Our Lord Crucified,

Friar Elias, C.D.
Discalced religious of the Order of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mt. Carmel

 

[AndrewRaZ]

Friar Elias,

Thank you for your post. It was interesting to read. I did not notice, however, much discussion of any of the differences beyond the tonsure and the Tridentine form of the Mass, and it barely discusses seminaries, which are the the topic of this discussion.

We are *One *Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, not two. Please be careful insinuating that there is Catholic, and “Catholic” only in name. The Magisterium has spoken in union with the Popes. We trust that the Holy Spirit guides her bride the Church. Remember there are a number of rites throughout the world, but we are one Church. Please don’t try to divide us.

Caritas,

Andrew