What about donations in the collection basket? And, what if my son had a vocation to the priesthood or religious life? Really, are we just supposed to ignore the una cuм issue and the three baptisms problem?
As for the collection plate, consider that The labourer is worthy of his reward
. Timothy 5:18) and defrauding workers of their wage is one of the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. There is also the Fifth Preceipt of the Church which is You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church"
. Putting aside whether a particular priest should be provided his daily bread, shelter, and transportation, there are requirements for Holy Mass that are provided by workers. Unless it is outdoors or in a donated space, a chapel was built / converted or a space is rented. Linens are purchased and regularly laundered. Hosts, sacramental wine, candles (beeswax, which is more expensive), and incense are made by somebody and are purchased. Utilities (water, sewer, electricity, heating oil or natural gas) need to be paid for and someone supports their family by working in these areas.
If someone attends a chapel or a periodic Mass provided by a traveling priest for the graces provided, they have an obligation to help with the associated temporal costs according to their means, I believe.
To my knowledge, in the United States (and I am uncertain as to if there are any options in Canada) there are 4 seminaries that offer a traditional formation for Holy Orders, not including the FSSP’S Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska. Nor is there a consideration of any self study / apprentice under another priest
situations which may exist out there.
These four are:
- St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary of the SSPX in Dillwyn, Virginia.
- Mater Dei Seminary of the CMRI in Omaha, Nebraska.
- Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brookville, Florida, associated with Bishop Donald Sanborn. It is in the process of moving to Pennsylvania.
- Our Lady of Mount Carmel Seminary in Boston, Kentucky, “affiliated” with the SSPX Marian Corps ~ Fr./Bp. Joseph Pfeiffer.
The first is una cuм
. The next two are non una cuм,
with number 3 being especially “dogmatic” about the issue from my reading. Who knows about number 4.
As far as I know, and I am fairly certain, the first three accept the definition of Baptism as given in the Baltimore Catechism and nearly all other pre VII English language catechisms with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. To my knowledge, and I am fairly certain, the magisterium of the Church has never challenged these catechism. Who knows what number 4 may be thinking.
The first choice most defiantly provides for valid Holy Orders. Almost everyone accepts the validity of the Thuc line consecrations of Bishops Mark Pivarunas, CMRI and Donald Sanborn. Some, while accepting their validity, may question the illicitness of ordinations performed by them, which is another topic. To even consider the situation with number 4 may require a trip to the Twilight Zone.