Traditional Seminarian

[AJV]

But after September 14th, even diocesan priests can say the traditional liturgy.

I say, bring a copy of the Motu Proprio and insist upon your new right to say the old mass without indult.

I say, wait till you finish seminary lest you get kicked out.

Depending which seminary of course.

 

[lizaanne]

It is a shame that a seminarian cannot come into this forum and ask questions without being drug into an ongoing forum dispute.

I agree as well. Sheesh.

Anyway - Matt, I don’t have a suggestion for you, only my prayers for your continued discernment. My God bless you in your calling.

~Liza

 

[estesbob]

But after September 14th, even diocesan priests can say the traditional liturgy.

I say, bring a copy of the Motu Proprio and insist upon your new right to say the old mass without indult.

Having been in the seminary myself I can guarantee you the last thing you want to do is start insisting upon what you perceive your rights to be, .

 

[jrabs]

Having been in the seminary myself I can guarantee you the last thing you want to do is start insisting upon what you perceive your rights to be, .

Like any new place of employment, one does not go in and start throwing their weight around lest they realize very soon they had no weight to begin with. Find themselves tossed out on there buttocks.

Matt, follow your heart and the Spirit and you will do well.

 

[Genesis315]

Having been in the seminary myself I can guarantee you the last thing you want to do is start insisting upon what you perceive your rights to be, .

That’s right. Humility and obedience to superiors is something they look for. As a seminarian you are subject to your superiors, you have no choice as to what Mass to offer yet. If they do not offer the proper training in the extradordinary form, there are other ways of learning it. If you develop a bitter and prideful zeal instead of one tempered with mildness and charity, you probably will not last long.

 

[batteddy]

Of course. But if these superiors are disobeying the directives of THEIR superior, the Pope…something must be done. In all humility and charity, of course. But if their intentions and agenda are not in line with Benedict’s…there is a real problem that must be addressed. And the best thing to do is perhaps not so much to confront the superiors or be belligerent…but to strengthen and inspire your brethren. The superiors can kick out one seminarian whose traditionalism rubs them the wrong way…but they can’t kick out a whole class of seminarians. They need to simply see how much the new generation is fed up with their agenda and won’t have it forced on them.

 

[bilop]

Having been in the seminary myself I can guarantee you the last thing you want to do is start insisting upon what you perceive your rights to be, .

I agree with this unless it is an issue of orthodoxy. That one can not compromise on. If you are persecuted or tossed out of one seminary for insisting on orthodoxy, there are many other dioceses and orders who would be happy to have you.

May God Bless your vocation

 

[estesbob]

Of course. But if these superiors are disobeying the directives of THEIR superior, the Pope…something must be done. In all humility and charity, of course. But if their intentions and agenda are not in line with Benedict’s…there is a real problem that must be addressed. And the best thing to do is perhaps not so much to confront the superiors or be belligerent…but to strengthen and inspire your brethren. The superiors can kick out one seminarian whose traditionalism rubs them the wrong way…but they can’t kick out a whole class of seminarians. They need to simply see how much the new generation is fed up with their agenda and won’t have it forced on them.

And people wonder why we have a problem with vocations. Rather than praising the Lord for this young man entering the seminary you are more concerned that he promotes your personal agenda regardless of the cost to him

 

[batteddy]

My agenda is not my personal agenda.

It was the agenda of the Church from the year 300 to the year 1970.

Traditionalism is more than just a preference.

This young man (and yes, praise God for his vocation) asked what he could do to be “traditional” in a diocesan seminary.

Traditional doesn’t just mean conservative or orthodox. It means traditional.

We need young men to be leaders. We need the new generation of priests to make a clear statement, based on their choices, of how the old generation and its agenda is passing, how tradition is ascendent, and how they are the future of the Church and what their vision for that is. Ruffle some feathers. Strong. Idealistic. Principled.

Not “keep your head down and toe the current (and only 40 year old) party line” bureaucrats.

 

[jrabs]

Of course. But if these superiors are disobeying the directives of THEIR superior, the Pope…something must be done. In all humility and charity, of course. But if their intentions and agenda are not in line with Benedict’s…there is a real problem that must be addressed. And the best thing to do is perhaps not so much to confront the superiors or be belligerent…but to strengthen and inspire your brethren. The superiors can kick out one seminarian whose traditionalism rubs them the wrong way…but they can’t kick out a whole class of seminarians. They need to simply see how much the new generation is fed up with their agenda and won’t have it forced on them.

The superiors also will be looking about for those who learn with obedience. There is much wisdom in obedience, young buck.

One doesn’t march into the seminary and demand to go over your teachers head to his boss. That is not prudent.

One also learns not to demand of his boss or he will be without a boss soon enough.

We have to be careful when we say a generation is fed up with such and such and want the church to change to accommodate our needs and desires. Many a folk would love to see female priests also…or how about married priests. Ohhh the church’s agenda is keeping woman from their proper place in the church…and on it goes.

 

[jrabs]

My agenda is not my personal agenda.

It was the agenda of the Church from the year 300 to the year 1970.

Traditionalism is more than just a preference.

This young man (and yes, praise God for his vocation) asked what he could do to be “traditional” in a diocesan seminary.

Traditional doesn’t just mean conservative or orthodox. It means traditional.

We need young men to be leaders. We need the new generation of priests to make a clear statement, based on their choices, of how the old generation and its agenda is passing, how tradition is ascendant, and how they are the future of the Church and what their vision for that is. Ruffle some feathers. Strong. Idealistic. Principled.

Not “keep your head down and toe the current (and only 40 year old) party line” bureaucrats.

And you already know this seminary is not going to turn out a solid traditional priest?

Fire is nice but needs to be tempered with prudence.

 

[batteddy]

There are plenty of tactful, subtle ways that accomplish the purpose. Including voting with your feet and not attending untraditional seminaries. There are plenty of even merely diocesan seminaries (like Lincoln) favorable to tradition.

The generation in power now ignored 1500 years of tradition.

Why should they expect to not be ignored themselves?

Their hypocrisy is like that of the communists, or french revolutionaries. They fought in the name of more freedom, more openness, more equality, more liberal principles…and yet act just as totalitarian when it comes to enforcing their authority and agenda.

 

[jrabs]

.

The generation in power now ignored 1500 years of tradition.

Their hypocrisy is like that of the communists, or french revolutionaries. They fought in the name of more freedom, more openness, more equality, more liberal principles…and yet act just as totalitarian when it comes to enforcing their authority and agenda.

See, to me this says the Vatican has been wrong.
The church is being ruled by hypocrites comparable to communists?

It is not. You are talking about the Catholic church, right?

 

[estesbob]

Can we please get back to the OP questions? This squabbling over who is more Catholic than the other adds nothing to the discussion,

 

[batteddy]

See, to me this says the Vatican has been wrong.

Hasnt it?

I can think of pleny of times in its history (in the middle ages, in the Renaissance) when the Vatican has acted downright scandalously. Never taught heresy of course, but acted entirely inappropriately and imprudently in it’s policy.

Why is it okay, in fact almost assumed, that we will concede that about times in the past…but saying it about the present is absolutely unnacceptable??

Why must we toe the current party line, especially when it is so out of line with tradition?

Why is there this assumption that the current agenda is the right one just because it happens to be the current one?

“We know better now”…pretty much sums up Modernism.

 

[Andy_K]

I am starting seminary in just two weeks. I have a cassock, Christian Prayer (the one volume LOTH book), and a handful of Catholic books in addition to standard college supplies. What else would you recommend I obtain since I seek to live as a traditional college seminarian at a diocesan seminary?

Try to track down one of them ol’ 1962 missals, although it’s probably safe to assume you already have one - I just got one as a surprise gift from my grandma today!

Also, as a fellow seminarian (although I’m only starting at the college level right now), you are in my prayers!

 

[batteddy]

A sort of positivistic “magisterialism” is very dangerous. This is a quote from an article that I think gives a pretty good summary of the difference between traditional vs. merely conservative Catholics.

I didnt write it, so please forgive any use of the term “neoconservative” which is apparently forbidden on CAF: I’m not meaning it as an insult, I just think people should have a good understanding of what is meant by it and how the two mindsets are different in the Church today:

This type of behavior, coupled with the modern philosophical encroachment into the intellectual life of the Church and the bad theology resulting therefrom, has led to a type of “magisterialism.” Magisterialism is a fixation on the teachings that pertain only to the current Magisterium. Since extrinsic tradition has been subverted and since the Vatican tends to promulgate documents exhibiting a lack of concern regarding some previous magisterial acts, many have begun ignoring the previous magisterial acts and now listen only to the current Magisterium.

This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.

Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives.

Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?

Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles.

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html

 

[cue]

Can we please get back to the OP questions? This squabbling over who is more Catholic than the other adds nothing to the discussion,

Well said. However, Bob, you opened this can of worms.

Seminarian Matt,
I would suggest getting (or at least reading) “The Priest is not His Own” and “Those Mysterious Priests” by Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Also, “The Priest in Union with Christ” by Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, if you can find a copy. Your Christian Prayer will be good for community prayer, but I would get either the four-volume Liturgy of the Hours (the actual Latin one, not a translation) or a 1961 or prior Breviarium Romanum for your private prayer. If your Latin is not too good yet, try to spend time to familiarize yourself with the Psalms. By the way, word in the seminary hallways is that the English translation of the Liturgy of the Hours will be changing in the near future, so I would definitely not bother buying a translated set unless you want something that you cannot use officially. Ditto on the “Conversations with God.” I commend you for having the courage to enter seminary. You will be in my prayers.

 

[batteddy]

“Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”

Bingo!

 

[Catholig]

I wasn’t trying to start an argument or anything - I just wanted to know if the diocese would allow him to learn the TLM. I mean - if he feels called to be a diocesan priest that’s great. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong w/ that. In fact diocesan priests can say the TLM. He doesn’t have to belong to any order.

Catholig