Why Are Seminaries Afraid of the Extraordinary Form?

[prettiefly]

Why Are Seminaries Afraid of the Extraordinary Form?
by Revd Fr Christopher Smith

I had just entered the seminary when Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, came out. I had an English copy expressed to me and brought it with me into the chapel as my spiritual reading during our daily community Holy Hour. One of the older men knelt next to me as I was engrossed in Ratzinger’s chapter on Rite and whispered, “Do you want to get kicked out of the seminary? Change the book cover now.” All of my attempts to not publicize the fact that I actually knew the Old Latin Mass had apparently been blown out of the water by this defiant act of wanton schism. Suddenly seminarians began to knock on my door and counsel me how to survive the seminary, and so I exchanged Ignatius Press’ book cover for one entitled “The Pastoral Letters of Paul VI.”
Apparently it was too late. I was a marked man. Not surprisingly, the superiors were made aware of my “problem,” but for the most part, they left me alone. I refused to be duplicitous about my love for the Latin Mass, and I also went along with the liturgical customs of the house without trying to reform or denounce them. I did from to time steal away from the house to go to a Latin Mass, carefully folding my cassock up into my overcoat and hiding my collar with a scarf, feeling all the while a little bit like Superman waiting for a small cubiculum where I could transform into my true self. Only once was I ever “discovered” as I was serving a Low Mass for a Curial prelate in the private chapel of a Roman noble family that was having an annual open house, as it were. Nothing was ever said.

The rest of the article:

chantcafe.com/2011/08/why-are-seminaries-afraid-of.html

 

[JReducation]

This is an excellent article. I like the way that he shows the richness of the Roman Rite and the relationship between the two forms instead of pitting them against it other. I especially liked the story of how he celebrated the EF next to someone else who celebrated the OF and how they seemed to trade off. That was very rich.

There are two points that I would add for clarity.

First:

Father is a secular priest. He’s writing from that perspective. We must remember that priests who belong to religious orders and those who belong to religious congregations are rarely trained in seminaries. They are usually trained in their own houses or at universities. The context is different. There are some religious who do send their men to seminaries, but that’s not common. SP and UE are very clear that these rules apply to secular priests. Regular priests have permission to celebrate the EF in private, but may never celebrate it in public without the permission of their superiors. Some superiors are not allowed to authorize the EF. When the General Chapter votes against it, the superior may not athorize it. It’s not quite accurate to expect that every man who is going to be a priest has to be trained in the EF. A religious community may choose not to do so by writing it into its constitution. Then it becomes law and is binding.

Second:

Part of the problem that keeps secular seminaries from integrating both the EF and OF is that many are still trying to imitate religious life, which is inappropriate. If a man wanted to be a religious, he’d join a congregation or an order. You can see their effort to imitate relligious life in their preocupation with “community” and preserving the unity. This is kind of artificial, because most secular priests are going to be become diocesan priests. They are not going to live in community. Even when there are several assigned to a parish, they don’t have to do anything in common. They don’t even have to like each other or even speak to each other. Often that’s the case. Each one comes and goes. The pastor is the President of the company who assigns the work for the day or month. Maybe, if they let go of that attachment to the conventual life, their concern aboiut common unity would subside and allow for diversity in the seminary. They don’t have to keep uniformity. That’s a religious rule. In a religious house you may never have this and that form. You can only have one or the other, because the community must worship in a uniform way. But that’s not the reality of secular life. They should focus more on the priesthood and less on community. Leave community to regulars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

I was told the FSSP live in “community”. By that I mean there will be at least two living in a rectory.

Look at one of the poster commentsto that article:

Better that seminarians learn the Tridentine liturgy in the vernacular or the Anglican Mass. The Tridentine Mass in contemporary and in hieratic English with the optional use of these Cranmerisms: the collect of purity, the “Comfortable Words”, and the Prayer of Humble Access could replace the OF form in time as well.

It would be far more acceptable to a wider audience of Latin-rite Catholics than trying to force Pius V’s latin/1962 liturgy down reluctant throats. It is infinitely preferable to Paul VI’s liturgy of 1970 with this horror of missal about to go into effect in Advent. It is without a doubt, the finest liturgy in the English-speaking world bar none and should serve as model for replacing the 1962 and the 1970 liturgy. Just get rid of those ugly framed cards (que cards) which always clutter up the altar and detract from its beauty.
**
Once Benedict XVI is gone, his motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” will most probably be put up on the shelf to collect dust and given continuing lip service by his successor. **

Emphasis mine.

I actually do have a fear that Pope Benedict’s predecessor will have a different viewpoint regarding the EF.

Also, what do you all think about the poster’s comments about the Tridentine in English?

 

[JReducation]

I was told the FSSP live in “community”. By that I mean there will be at least two living in a rectory.

To live in community is one thing, to be a community is another.

Societies of Apostolic Life, such as the FSSP are very old. The first one is the Vincentians founded by St. Vincent de Paul. To live in community, means to share a common table. They have no obligation to each other. They share material resources. These men do not make a vow of chastity.

To be a community is part of the vow of chastity. This means that your fist moral obligation is to your brothers and then to the world. Therefore, you must conform to the rules and way of worship of the community. Part of that is worshipping as one. When you enter a religious community, be it an order or a congregation, you enter to be one with your brothers, be they ordained or not. The unity of the fraternity is expressed in the liturgical life of the community. For that reason, you cannot have two forms side by side.

I feel that we need another statement from Rome to explain this to the faithful. The faithful don’t really understand the difference between a secular and a regular priest. Most Catholics hear the word “community” and they think that it’s the same a religiuos life. That’s not true. FSSP are secular priests who share a common table. They are not consecrated men.

They were founded this way deliberately. Originally, they were diocesan men who attached themselves to the SSPX and then detached and were in limbo until Pope John Paul rescued them. The only way that they could be secular priests and not be attached to a diocese was to erect them as an autonomous Society of Apostolic Life. The down side is that they must obey the bishop of the diocese in which they work. Religious have greater independence. Unless they are paid by the bishop, the relationship is cordial but deliberately distant to avoid stepping all over each other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

For those who may not understand the concept of seminary, if you watched the mass for seminarians at WYD, there were thousands of seminarians at the mass. But one saw very few habits.

That is because very few religious train their priests in seminaries. These men who are studying to be priests were not invited to this mass.

A seminarian is a student at a seminary. You can become a priest if your community chooses to form you separately. There was a very small group of religious seminarians, probably less than 200 out of 4000 seminarians who attended. In fact there are over 2,000 religious men studying to be priests and they were present at WYD too, but not at this mass. Because they are trained inside their community or at a college of theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

To live in community is one thing, to be a community is another.

Societies of Apostolic Life, such as the FSSP are very old. The first one is the Vincentians founded by St. Vincent de Paul. To live in community, means to share a common table. They have no obligation to each other. They share material resources. These men do not make a vow of chastity.

To be a community is part of the vow of chastity. This means that your fist moral obligation is to your brothers and then to the world. Therefore, you must conform to the rules and way of worship of the community. Part of that is worshipping as one. When you enter a religious community, be it an order or a congregation, you enter to be one with your brothers, be they ordained or not. The unity of the fraternity is expressed in the liturgical life of the community. For that reason, you cannot have two forms side by side.

I feel that we need another statement from Rome to explain this to the faithful. The faithful don’t really understand the difference between a secular and a regular priest. Most Catholics hear the word “community” and they think that it’s the same a religiuos life. That’s not true. FSSP are secular priests who share a common table. They are not consecrated men.

They were founded this way deliberately. Originally, they were diocesan men who attached themselves to the SSPX and then detached and were in limbo until Pope John Paul rescued them. The only way that they could be secular priests and not be attached to a diocese was to erect them as an autonomous Society of Apostolic Life. The down side is that they must obey the bishop of the diocese in which they work. Religious have greater independence. Unless they are paid by the bishop, the relationship is cordial but deliberately distant to avoid stepping all over each other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Okay gotcha.

I was responding to your comment that most are not going to live in community. I had heard a comment that the FSSP do live in community (at least two). Not to say that means they’re consecrated men.

 

[JReducation]

Okay gotcha.

I was responding to your comment that most are not going to live in community. I had heard a comment that the FSSP do live in community (at least two). Not to say that means they’re consecrated men.

This means that they live in the same house. They don’t have to do anything together. I believe that the FSSP do try to pray together at least once a day. That’s not required of them. They certainly don’t share their finances. Each one is paid a salary and that’s his money. Their priority is the parish, not their community.

Where we religious would abandon a parish, in order to preserve community, the FSSP would not be required to do that. In fact, they would be in the wrong to do so. They are priests frist, FSSP second.

I’m glad that you brought up that observation. It’s good to clarify the difference between living in community and being a community. This is a point that Father’s article keeps bringing up. The rectors are too focussed on preserving community. Unity and fraternal charity are good, but for a man who is a secular seminarian, it’s an overkill to stress community to the point that you don’t allow for diversity. They have no need for such uniformity. We in religious life do need uniformity, diocesan clergy do not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

This means that they live in the same house. They don’t have to do anything together. I believe that the FSSP do try to pray together at least once a day. That’s not required of them. They certainly don’t share their finances. Each one is paid a salary and that’s his money. Their priority is the parish, not their community.

Where we religious would abandon a parish, in order to preserve community, the FSSP would not be required to do that. In fact, they would be in the wrong to do so. They are priests frist, FSSP second.

I’m glad that you brought up that observation. It’s good to clarify the difference between living in community and being a community.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The reason I’m up is that I woke up from a nightmare.

I was attending an FSSP mass and some crazy person walked in and started stabbing people and I was looking for my daughter who was also attending and someone found me and told me the crazy person had gouged out her eyes.

Fun, fun.

 

[JReducation]

The reason I’m up is that I woke up from a nightmare.

I was attending an FSSP mass and some crazy person walked in and started stabbing people and I was looking for my daughter who was also attending and someone found me and told me the crazy person had gouged out her eyes.

Fun, fun.

That sounds unpleasant. Turn on your TV and watch the seminarian’s mass. It’s beautiful.

I was told the FSSP live in “community”. By that I mean there will be at least two living in a rectory.

Look at one of the poster commentsto that article:

Emphasis mine.

I actually do have a fear that Pope Benedict’s predecessor will have a different viewpoint regarding the EF.

Also, what do you all think about the poster’s comments about the Tridentine in English?

I think the comments are ignorant. Observe that the poster doesn’t know grammar. Ignorance is no surprise there.

To predict what will happen to SP and UE is silly. No one can anticipate the future. If a future pope tables them, we obey, end of story.

I highly doubt that will happen. The rules of the use may change, but that can happen next week. People have to understand that Pope Benedict simply declared that diocesan priests can celebrate the form, if they choose to do so. He also made a commitment to the Ordinary Form and to keep that as the official form for the Latin Church. He did not commit himself to the EF. People would like to read that into SP, but it’s not there. What is there is a very clear sentence that says that the OF is the norm in the Latin Church.

Next week, he can wake up and decide that the EF will no longer be EF but will become the norm, then it trades places and becomes the OF. He can also wake up and decide that the EF is no longer allowed and abrogates it. He can abrogate the OF. The beauty about being pope is that there is very little that you cannot change. He has to preserve the faith. That means preserve the doctrine and the moral teachings handed down to us.

A future pope can do almost anything with the form of the mass. It’s silly to try to anticipate what future popes will do. We have too many “Wannabe popes”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

That sounds unpleasant. Turn on your TV and watch the seminarian’s mass. It’s beautiful.

Watching it now. When I turned it on, it was somehow on the Protestant channel. Since I rarely watch TV, I couldn’t find the remote. Fortunately, I found the remote behind my bed.

Next week, he can wake up and decide that the EF will no longer be EF but will become the norm, then it trades places and becomes the OF. He can also wake up and decide that the EF is no longer allowed and abrogates it. He can abrogate the OF. The beauty about being pope is that there is very little that you cannot change. He has to preserve the faith. That means preserve the doctrine and the moral teachings handed down to us.

A future pope can do almost anything with the form of the mass.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Watching it now. When I turned it on, it was somehow on the Protestant channel. Since I rarely watch TV, I couldn’t find the remote. Fortunately, I found the remote behind my bed.

It’s a beautiful mass. By the way, was it you who asked me what Franciscan chant sounded like? If you just heard the Alleluia and the Gospel chant, that’s Franciscan chant. It’s much simpler than Gregorian chant. It can be chanted with an organ or without it. It’s very popular, because very few people have the voice to do Gregorian Chant. This is much simpler and more austere.

There would be frowns if he woke up and deciced that the Tridentine Form is the OF from now on. Either way, someone is going to be upset.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

It’s a beautiful mass. By the way, was it you who asked me what Franciscan chant sounded like? If you just heard the Alleluia and the Gospel chant, that’s Franciscan chant. It’s much simpler than Gregorian chant. It can be chanted with an organ or without it. It’s very popular, because very few people have the voice to do Gregorian Chant. This is much simpler and more austere.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, I did ask about the chant. But isn’t the Alleluia chant the same chant that is on the regular EWTN masses? Probably because the EWTN mass is run by Franciscans.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, I did ask about the chant. But isn’t the Alleluia chant the same chant that is on the regular EWTN masses? Probably because the EWTN mass is run by Franciscans.

BINGO!

Now, if you listen to the Sanctus and Agnus Dei, that’s Gregorian Chant. You have all those notes going up and down, left and right. We don’t do that. That was banned by our founders, Francis and Clare.

Whereas, the chant that they used for the Gospel and the Alleluia are so easy that many clergyman adopted it when the changes were instituted with the liturgical reform. You don’t have to study sacred music to do it and the best part is that you don’t need a good voice to hit the notes as you do in Gregorian Chant.

That’s why Francis banned it, because not everyone can chant it. It has been a custom of the monastic orders that if you can’t chant you can’t join. Francis wanted to open his brotherhood to the wider population, including secular priests and married people. Not everyone can chant. It’s very hard to do.

That’s why many places had scholas or choirs. They didn’t call them choir, because choir meant the place where you sit to pray the LOTH. The schola would chant and the laity would listen.

Francis wanted an interactive mass, where everyone responded. Therefore, we did not subvocalize and we did not use Gregorian Chant. If you watch a Franciscan celebrate the EF, he will do so aloud and he may use a microphone. The laity is expected to respond. The purpose of the server is to serve at the altar as acolyte, not to respond for the faithful.

At this mass, they are using Gregorian Chant, Franciscan Chant and Poliphony. I like what they’re doing, because they’re showing the diversity of liturgical tradition in one mass. I’m waiting to see if they use any of the Carmelite hymns.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PiousTemplar]

The conversation that is going on is hilarious. I can’t stop laughing. TrueLight, please tell your dream to your parish priest. I’m sure he will find it hilarious.

Br, do you wear a brown habit? With a huge rosary on it?

 

[JReducation]

The conversation that is going on is hilarious. I can’t stop laughing. TrueLight, please tell your dream to your parish priest. I’m sure he will find it hilarious.

Br, do you wear a brown habit? With a huge rosary on it?

No. I wear a grey habit with a Tau over the chest. I had a side rosary but it broke. I no longer have one. They cost $50. I can just as easily carry a little one in my pocket that I received as a gift and the $50 can go toward paying bills.

In the Franciscan family, rosaries and crucifixes are optional. They’re not not actually part of the original habit. Some communities wear it and some do not. When Francis was alive the habit was a simple tunic with a cowl and a chord. There is no prescribed color in the rule. They didn’t wear crucifixes in those days and the rosary did not exist. That would not come for another 100 years. I believe that the Dominicans may have been the first to wear it. No one knows for sure.

There is an old legend that Our Lady gave the rosary to St. Dominic; but the Dominican Order says that this never happened. No one really knows where that story came from. The first rosary was made by a Dominican Friar. We know that. No one knows who started the custom of wearing it on the sidee. It is believed that it was simply that the ancient habits did not have side pockets, so friars would hang it from their waist instead of walking around with it in their hand. We know that it was no earlier than the 14th century, because it’s never mentioned before then.

The Franciscans were directed to wear a tunic and cowl like that of the peasant farmers. There was no defined color. A group of Franciscans that began to live in convents and later became known as Conventual Franciscans adopted the Augustinian habit which is black, instead of a belt, they wore a chord, because the rule says a tunic, with a hood and a chord. The brown habit sort of snuck in there, because it was a common color in the cold countries. In the 19th century, Pope Leo XII reorganized the Franciscans Order, because there were many little groups that were autonomous. They had no chance of survival. He organized them into one order and renamed them. From Friars Minor, they came to be known as Franciscans. He gave them a brown habit. When these little groups were merged, they became the largest branch of the family and the brown habit became very familiar.

It appears that the earliest friars wore grey more than brown. This we know because the college at they founded at Oxford University was named Grey Friars College.

Today, brown is the most common color worn by Franciscans, then grey, black, blue and white. White is very rare. Very few communities of men wear white. It’s more common among Franciscan women in the tropics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I found the blogpost really interesting. What never ceases to amaze me is the opposition towards our liturgical heritage. It is truly terrifying how radically things can change in a very short period of time. I wonder what the next pope will do about this question.

 

[ProVobis]

Better that seminarians learn the Tridentine liturgy in the vernacular or the Anglican Mass. The Tridentine Mass in contemporary and in hieratic English with the optional use of these Cranmerisms: the collect of purity, the “Comfortable Words”, and the Prayer of Humble Access could replace the OF form in time as well.

What I always thought was strange was any Catholic embracing a form of the liturgy that resembles in language, heretical at that, of a national Church of a country which had confiscated virtually all Church property and, as one posted noted, “rigorously repressed the Catholic Church” all that time. For this reason alone, I favor the ICEL language which differed from those Cranmer et al translations, even if the reason given was a “dynamic translation.” But that’s me, who could more easily be sold on a Polish translation of the Tridentine, though I definitely would prefer and support the integrity of Latin to remain in both forms.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

What I always thought was strange was any Catholic embracing a form of the liturgy that resembles in language, heretical at that, of a national Church of a country which had confiscated virtually all Church property and, as one posted noted, “rigorously repressed the Catholic Church” all that time. For this reason alone, I favor the ICEL language which differed from those Cranmer translations, even if the reason given was a “dynamic translation.” But that’s me, who could more easily be sold on a Polish translation of the Tridentine, though I definitely would prefer the integrity of Latin to remain.

Good point. Most people on the forum are native English speakers and perhaps don’t really think about the universality of the church. Latin is such a good solution for having a set standard for language.

 

[ANNE_2]

My question about Seminaries is:
Why don’t ALL Catholic Seminaries use the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” as one of their text books ?

If Priests don’t know what is in the CCC from cover to cover, they can’t teach it properly.
Also by not using the CCC, Seminarians can fall pray to teacher’s error, and even purposeful error.

" The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I have approved…and the publication of which I order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic Doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.
I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the Faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." - Pope John Paul II

 

[PiousTemplar]

No. I wear a grey habit with a Tau over the chest. I had a side rosary but it broke. I no longer have one. They cost $50. I can just as easily carry a little one in my pocket that I received as a gift and the $50 can go toward paying bills.

In the Franciscan family, rosaries and crucifixes are optional. They’re not not actually part of the original habit. Some communities wear it and some do not. When Francis was alive the habit was a simple tunic with a cowl and a chord. There is no prescribed color in the rule. They didn’t wear crucifixes in those days and the rosary did not exist. That would not come for another 100 years. I believe that the Dominicans may have been the first to wear it. No one knows for sure.

There is an old legend that Our Lady gave the rosary to St. Dominic; but the Dominican Order says that this never happened. No one really knows where that story came from. The first rosary was made by a Dominican Friar. We know that. No one knows who started the custom of wearing it on the sidee. It is believed that it was simply that the ancient habits did not have side pockets, so friars would hang it from their waist instead of walking around with it in their hand. We know that it was no earlier than the 14th century, because it’s never mentioned before then.

The Franciscans were directed to wear a tunic and cowl like that of the peasant farmers. There was no defined color. A group of Franciscans that began to live in convents and later became known as Conventual Franciscans adopted the Augustinian habit which is black, instead of a belt, they wore a chord, because the rule says a tunic, with a hood and a chord. The brown habit sort of snuck in there, because it was a common color in the cold countries. In the 19th century, Pope Leo XII reorganized the Franciscans Order, because there were many little groups that were autonomous. They had no chance of survival. He organized them into one order and renamed them. From Friars Minor, they came to be known as Franciscans. He gave them a brown habit. When these little groups were merged, they became the largest branch of the family and the brown habit became very familiar.

It appears that the earliest friars wore grey more than brown. This we know because the college at they founded at Oxford University was named Grey Friars College.

Today, brown is the most common color worn by Franciscans, then grey, black, blue and white. White is very rare. Very few communities of men wear white. It’s more common among Franciscan women in the tropics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

How do you know so much? Every time you speak it’s history lesson 101!

Sp you look like the monks in this film at 0:42? Well, close enough ?
youtube.com/watch?v=azvANfe_vEk

It’s from some Elizabeth movie which according to Catholic review sites is anti-catholic. I love the monks though, they are so awesome and spooky!