SSPX may be involved with diocesan seminaries

[Ridgerunner]

May I ask what you mean by this? As a diocesan seminarian who is receiving excellent formation from a good number of very solid priests at a very reputable seminary, I take exception to this broad generalization.

-ACEGC

Ease up there, pardner. I never said your formation is bad, or that anyone else’s is either. I do think we all know priests who have said that theirs was not good, and possibly some have remained unreformed. That’s not to say none were excellent all along.

Am I not permitted to imagine SSPX priest educators to be praiseworthy without it being taken as a condemnation of others?

 

[Walking_Home]

edward_george:

May I ask what you mean by this? As a diocesan seminarian who is receiving excellent formation from a good number of very solid priests at a very reputable seminary, I take exception to this broad generalization.

wasserfall:

Well none of us really have a way to compare. Maybe your formation would be even better if it came from the SSPX. Who knows?

Yes none of use can know. Maybe it would be worse.

The SSPX is not some magical cure for all the one may percieve as wrong with the Church. The have had issues within their seminary. I won’t say anything more on that just feelbthe need to point out that they are not perfect.

The SSPX is a small group. Their return to the Church is not going to have that much of an impact. My order has over twice the number of priests and there are many places in the world that have never heard of the Carmelites.

Also the SSPX are so

---

I agree Bro. David. It needs to be taken into account – just what kind of “formation” the SSPX clergy have received.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/05/card-ranjith-reported-to-be-open-to-the-sspx-running-his-seminary/#comment-340791

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Perhaps, Brother. But the billion or so Catholics who live out their faith in the Latin Rite may feel more impact from a group that focuses on their spirituality than they would from a very special spirituality like the Carmelites.

The Carmelites are a Latin Rite order. The are many charisms with the Latin Rite.

So you are saying that there are a billion catholics with a preference for the EF?

Even so that would work out to about 1 SSPX priest for every 2 million Catholics in rhat group.

I would also suggest that a spirituality that includes a preference for the EF is a “special” spirituality by the very definition of “extraordinary”.

 

[TimothyH]

Perhaps, Brother. But the billion or so Catholics who live out their faith in the Latin Rite may feel more impact from a group that focuses on their spirituality than they would from a very special spirituality like the Carmelites.

Spirituality is how one lives the Gospel in their personal and prayer life. Spirituality is how one expresses the truth of the Gospel in how they live and behave as they interact with people in their families, work, parish and community on a daily basis, and how they see and approach God in prayer and devotion.

In spite of some gross generalizations, the wikipedia article on Catholic Spirituality actually does an OK job.

***Dominican spirituality is characterized by poverty, love of preaching and devotion to truth.

Benedictine spirituality is characterized by life in community, order, and obedience to superiors.

Opus Dei’s spirituality is based on life lived in the secular world.***

I’m not saying that the SSPX doesn’t have a spirituality, but keep in mind that a form of the Mass is not a form of spirituality. If the SSPX does have a spiritualty - which I am not denying - it can hardly be the spirituality of a billion Roman Catholics who never heard of it.

I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of the billion or so Roman Catholics out there in diocese’ never heard of the SSPX. Most don’t even know that the Latin Mass is still offered or that it even still exists.

-Tim-

 

[curlycool89]

Only in how to celebrate the EF.

Well yes, they could absolutely teach how to celebrate the EF (they’d be great teachers at that. Just in case there’s confusion, I’m not being sarcastic), but you can’t force someone to learn the EF or celebrate the EF (as Br. JR has said before), so the seminarians will have to learn the OF (since in’s Ordinary).

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well yes, they could absolutely teach how to celebrate the EF (they’d be great teachers at that. Just in case there’s confusion, I’m not being sarcastic), but you can’t force someone to learn the EF or celebrate the EF (as Br. JR has said before), so the seminarians will have to learn the OF (since in’s Ordinary).

And that is exactly why I have some reservations about whether they would teach the OF. I am quite certain they would unilaterally refuse.

 

[ProVobis]

Well yes, they could absolutely teach how to celebrate the EF (they’d be great teachers at that. Just in case there’s confusion, I’m not being sarcastic), but you can’t force someone to learn the EF or celebrate the EF (as Br. JR has said before), so the seminarians will have to learn the OF (since in’s Ordinary).

OF, EF. What about studying philosophy or theology or the Latin Vulgate or all the documents of all the councils in the Church, including Trent? It seems that reading texts out loud in the vernacular can be taught in grade school.

 

[YoungTradCath]

OF, EF. What about studying philosophy or theology or the Latin Vulgate or all the documents of all the councils in the Church, including Trent? It seems that reading texts out loud in the vernacular can be taught in grade school.

AHA! This would be a wonderful field for the SSPX to get into. I’ve never understood why in seminaries:

1. Council documents (from any of the 21 Councils) are studied in the vernacular.
2. Any part of any liturgy at all is allowed in the vernacular, including the readings.
3. Why theology isn’t studied only in Latin on a mandatory basis.

It seems extremely silly to me, almost arrogantly presumptuous in a way, for the Church to expect her priests to know Latin “well” or whatever, when the language is barely used in the seminary. It really is not a conducive atmosphere.

So much for Veterum Sapientia, Vatican II, and the CIC, right?

 

[TimothyH]

OF, EF. What about studying philosophy or theology or the Latin Vulgate or all the documents of all the councils in the Church, including Trent? It seems that reading texts out loud in the vernacular can be taught in grade school.

Is that all the OF Mass is to you, reading texts out loud in the vernacular?

Or do you truly believe that the EF has theology and the teaching of the councils of the Church (including Trent) behind while the OF does not? How would you react if I asserted that the EF is nothing more than reading texts out loud in Latin?

I’m really shaking my head here, hoping that this is not your belief. Please tell me that I have taken your comments the wrong way. Please tell me that I have overreacted.

-Tim-

 

[PaulinVA]

I think it would be dangerous to let a bunch of priests who have flouted the Church for so long have anything to do with priestly formation.

I’m sorry if that offends some of you, but come on, be realistic. These guys went through rogue seminaries and were ordained by excommunicated Bishops (unless they were recently ordained) and were immediately suspended after ordination. What sort of example is that? They attempted marriages and confessions without faculties.

I’m sorry, these men will always be suspect. They might be very holy, and I’m sure many of you will defend them, but it is what it is.

 

[wasserfall]

And that is exactly why I have some reservations about whether they would teach the OF. I am quite certain they would unilaterally refuse.

Come on guys. This is not difficult.

There is no way that the SSPX would ever teach anyone’s seminarians how to celebrate the OF. It is impossible.

However, that doesn’t mean that the seminarians wouldn’t learn from someone else.

 

[wasserfall]

I think it would be dangerous to let a bunch of priests who have flouted the Church for so long have anything to do with priestly formation.

You are welcome to implement this policy in your seminary.

 

[wasserfall]

Is that all the OF Mass is to you, reading texts out loud in the vernacular?

Or do you truly believe that the EF has theology and the teaching of the councils of the Church (including Trent) behind while the OF does not? How would you react if I asserted that the EF is nothing more than reading texts out loud in Latin?

Isn’t this exactly the accusation of the Ottaviani intervention?
That the OF largely abandoned the fundamental sacrificial theology of the mass in it’s texts and rubrics?

Does anyone know of a written rebuttal to the Ottaviani intervention?

 

[ProVobis]

Is that all the OF Mass is to you, reading texts out loud in the vernacular?

Okay, fair question and I deserved that.

But I heard from several priests back in the 60’s that they were given three to six weeks to learn how to say the New Mass. Far cry from having to spend years of Latin training and rubrics and reasons for those rubrics in the older Mass. So do you see where I’m coming from?

 

[TrueLight]

Never.

The SSPX can help a lot in terms of orthodox teaching, I’d say.

 

[TrueLight]

I believe they teach the OF (in the Latin) and require to keep current with the GRIM/GIRM.

I’m curious about that. I might reach out to a seminarian to find out.

 

[TrueLight]

I think it would be dangerous to let a bunch of priests who have flouted the Church for so long have anything to do with priestly formation.

I’m sorry if that offends some of you, but come on, be realistic. These guys went through rogue seminaries and were ordained by excommunicated Bishops (unless they were recently ordained) and were immediately suspended after ordination. What sort of example is that? They attempted marriages and confessions without faculties.

I’m sorry, these men will always be suspect. They might be very holy, and I’m sure many of you will defend them, but it is what it is.

More dangerous than being taught by liberal priests who flout the teachings of the Church - openly?

Now I’m not saying that is the case in all seminaries, but surely it is the case in some?

 

[TimothyH]

Okay, fair question and I deserved that.

But I heard from several priests back in the 60’s that they were given three to six weeks to learn how to say the New Mass. Far cry from having to spend years of Latin training and rubrics and reasons for those rubrics in the older Mass. So do you see where I’m coming from?

Fair enough, yes. I can see your point.

I purchased a book on altar serving written in 1936. Maybe I was naive, but I was impressed at the level of complexity in serving the OF and actually have adapted some of what learned in that book to my own altar serving ministry - basic things like how to sit, different types of bows, etc. - things which have no rubrics and really no instruction exists, either now or for the Tridentine Mass. For the record, the author of this book states that he wrote it for exactly that reason; because no rubrics or common source of instruction existed at the time.

But OK, yea, I see your point. I hope you see mine.

-Tim-

 

[PaulinVA]

More dangerous than being taught by liberal priests who flout the teachings of the Church - openly?

Now I’m not saying that is the case in all seminaries, but surely it is the case in some?

Both are flouting the teachings of the Church and both are equally dangerous.

 

[wasserfall]

Both are flouting the teachings of the Church and both are equally dangerous.

Name one Church doctrine flouted by the SSPX.

Edit: Granted, they have been disobedient to the wishes of the Pope in the past, so when I say “name a doctrine”, consider obedience already covered.