SSPX may be involved with diocesan seminaries - Page 2

Melchior_ · #16 May 17, '12, 5:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

Whew, the good Cardinal might have a really tough time getting the SSPX to teach at his seminary if that was a stipulation.

The SSPX will simply need to learn that, yes, there are two Forms within the Roman Rite. And yes, one happens to be ordinary. I'm sure they won't object if someone else comes in to teach that.

I wouldn't be shocked if they get asked to come in and teach theology, Latin, and how to celebrate the EF. But the diocesan seminarians *will* have to learn how to celebrate what is Ordinary within their diocese.

Megan7 · #17 May 17, '12, 6:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by giuseppeTO

The Archbishop of Colombo, Albert Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith Patabedinge would be ready to entrust the management and training of the seminarians of his Archdiocese to the SSPX. Such a step, according to the Cardinal would be possible if the SSPX is accepted and canonically erected. The Cardinal expects this project to improve training of future priests. The reports come from the Roman Rite website Messa in latino.

The District Superior of the SSPX in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, Father Benoît Waillez made this known in a sermon last Sunday. He stressed that the motives, concerns and arguments of tradition begin to spread in the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Ranjith Patabedinge was appointed by the Pope as Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments of the Roman Curia. Since June 2009 he is the Archbishop of Colombo in Sri Lanka and was made Cardinal in November 2010.

I pray its positive for all!

PAX

**ProVobis** · #18 May 17, '12, 7:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melchior_

Do the FSSP and ICRSS train Diocesan priests? If they do then that would be a good litmus test and comparison.

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

Now whether they require them to get an "A" in the course is another matter.

**Friar David, O.Carm** · #19 May 17, '12, 7:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

-ACEGC

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Rich C · #20 May 17, '12, 7:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByzCath

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.

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.

**Ridgerunner** · #21 May 17, '12, 8:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

-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 · #22 May 17, '12, 8:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/05/card-...comment-340791

**Friar David, O.Carm** · #23 May 17, '12, 8:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich C

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 · #24 May 17, '12, 8:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich C

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 · #25 May 17, '12, 10:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

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 · #26 May 17, '12, 10:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlycool89

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** · #27 May 17, '12, 10:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlycool89

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 · #28 May 17, '12, 10:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProVobis

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 · #29 May 17, '12, 11:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProVobis

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 · #30 May 17, '12, 11:02 am

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.