Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2021, 03:08:06 PM
-
Only 3 to be ordained by the SSPX in VA this year. That’s about as small a group as I can recall in the last 30 years.
And the Resistance has 0 Americans In formation.
:(
-
They're all with Pablo and Father Pfeiffer. But about them only ordaining three, I thought the SSPX had a reputation of dismissing most of their seminarians without explaining why, but merely saying they don't have a vocation.
-
Only 3 to be ordained by the SSPX in VA this year. That’s about as small a group as I can recall in the last 30 years.
And the Resistance has 0 Americans In formation.
:(
I think Avrillé has a number of American seminarians attached to them? I'm aware of at least three who are enrolled with formation there.
-
I think Avrillé has a number of American seminarians attached to them? I'm aware of at least three who are enrolled with formation there.
Oh? That’s (good) news to me.
-
I don't know enough about either of those groups to answer, but vocations tend to be a very small percentage of the population. So depending on how many people there are going to the Resistance chapels, if it's a fairly small number, that could be the reason.
.
But I agree with you that a complete lack of vocations in any group of reasonable size indicates some sort of problem, but I have no idea what it could be.
-
In the end, vocations are still a miracle, as +ABL said decades ago.
...only the World is that much further downhill now. So if vocations were miraculous before, they're super-miraculous now.
I know a young man who was super interested in serving Mass. He was basically a Liturgy Nerd. He was not only a serious Catholic, but showed a lot of promise for having a vocation. As he approached 18, however, he was scandalized by the young lady(ies) at his chapel (I believe there was some romantic interest and/or courtship -- I don't know if it was mutual) and he eventually left to help the Indult with their liturgy, serving, and rubrics. Apparently he changed his mind at some point about trying out his vocation.
The thing is, I don't know what I would do if I were a young man today. The Resistance, for example, only has a seminary in Asia and France. Not exactly places I want to be. I specifically remember taking it as "God's will" that I not join the I.C.K.S.P. seminary, since they required first going over to Europe to learn French.
And I'll come right out and say it -- young men who are highly obedient to God/parents, attached to family, loving their mother (and parents, siblings) -- even going so far as "Momma's Boy" -- that's precisely the type of man likely to try out a vocation. Wouldn't you say? In the same way that a choleric person who thinks for himself, willing to argue, stand out, and speak up for himself is MORE LIKELY THAN MOST to become a Traditionalist. What Momma's Boy or good boy is going to want to go overseas and never see his family, when he grew up homeschooled and highly attached to his family?
Not saying the number is 0, but it's going to be a lot less than 100% of the original pool, if you know what I mean.
-
I wouldn't be lying if I said that this isn't a tad worrying. 3 ordinations in the US and 3 bishops, none of whom are exactly spring chickens. `
Find any new priests from overseas and shove them in an English program if they don't speak it already. Bribe someone to expedite the visa paperwork if you have to. But if they want to expand and build more chapels, 3 ordinations/year is not enough.
-
It is my understanding that Most Holy Trinity Seminary (Bishop Sanborn) currently has 14 seminarians in various steps along the way to the priesthood and expecting a couple of more. Mater Dei (CMRI) has 7 seminarians perhaps more.
-
It is my understanding that Most Holy Trinity Seminary (Bishop Sanborn) currently has 14 seminarians in various steps along the way to the priesthood and expecting a couple of more. Mater Dei (CMRI) has 7 seminarians perhaps more.
Sure but that’s just total seminarians. Most never make it.
-
Sure but that’s just total seminarians. Most never make it.
Yes, but it seems like other posts are presenting seminarians as possible vocations as well.
-
St. John Bosco said every 3rd boy has a priestly or religious vocation.
But I don’t see the fruits today.
-
I wonder if most seminarians in the pre-crisis Church were also dismissed.
For some reason, I tend to think that most of the boys who are dismissed from traditionalist seminaries are so because of politics and not because they would be bad priests.
If you have sedevacantist tendencies, chances are you will be expelled from a SSPX seminary.
If you think for yourself, chances are you will be expelled from a SSPX seminary.
If you are not a dogmatic sedevancantist, but mere a "speculative sedevacantist", chances are you will be expelled from Bp. Sanborn's seminary.
Most never make it, but is it really because they would be bad priests?
-
I wonder if most seminarians in the pre-crisis Church were also dismissed.
For some reason, I tend to think that most of the boys who are dismissed from traditionalist seminaries are so because of politics and not because they would be bad priests.
If you have sedevacantist tendencies, chances are you will be expelled from a SSPX seminary.
If you think for yourself, chances are you will be expelled from a SSPX seminary.
If you are not a dogmatic sedevancantist, but mere a "speculative sedevacantist", chances are you will be expelled from Bp. Sanborn's seminary.
Most never make it, but is it really because they would be bad priests?
I think you're right in highlighting the role of politics. It goes to show the complete disarray of the so-called traditionalist "movement" these days. They prop up their politics right along with the Catholic Faith and gauge their seminarians off of it. It's very disheartening to see.
-
I don't think politics is the explanation.
Obviously, if you go to someone's seminary, it is a foregone conclusion that you share their positions, or what the hell are you doing there? Using them for ordination? Of course such seminarians who disagree with the official positions of the group whose seminary they attend should be dismissed! If they aren't, you will have many repeat performances of the two sede priests who were ordained for the Society one day, and left with the 9 the next.
Or should the Resistance seminaries accept seminarians who are all for rallying to unconverted Rome?
-
The female Religious Orders that are affiliated with the SSPX are growing like wildfire. The Carmelites in the U.S., the Benedictine Sisters in Silver City, NM, and the Consoling Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus are all seeing record numbers of vocations. The Consoling Sisters are having 11 postulants taking the habit next Friday on the Feast of the Sacred Heart (of which 10 are Americans) and the Silver City convent of the Benedictine Nuns which is still new here in the U.S. already has a waiting list!
-
I don't think politics is the explanation.
Obviously, if you go to someone's seminary, it is a foregone conclusion that you share their positions, or what the hell are you doing there? Using them for ordination? Of course such seminarians who disagree with the official positions of the group whose seminary they attend should be dismissed! If they aren't, you will have many repeat performances of the two sede priests who were ordained for the Society one day, and left with the 9 the next.
Or should the Resistance seminaries accept seminarians who are all for rallying to unconverted Rome?
I'm not saying I know what the answer is, but I can definitely foresee situations where someone changes their mind on one of these controversial issues while they're in seminary. Then what?
-
I suppose the fact that the Resistance never encourages vocations is certainly a factor.
I have yet to see an Eleison Comments encouraging young men to try a vocation, though there are several explaining why seminaries are passe; there are no worthy candidates; the end is near; hunker down and forget about an SSPX2B; etc.
Certainly that is cold water on the fire.
-
I'm not saying I know what the answer is, but I can definitely foresee situations where someone changes their mind on one of these controversial issues while they're in seminary. Then what?
If it is an enduring, persistent change, then they should leave (obviously).
-
I don't think politics is the explanation.
Obviously, if you go to someone's seminary, it is a foregone conclusion that you share their positions, or what the hell are you doing there? Using them for ordination? Of course such seminarians who disagree with the official positions of the group whose seminary they attend should be dismissed! If they aren't, you will have many repeat performances of the two sede priests who were ordained for the Society one day, and left with the 9 the next.
Or should the Resistance seminaries accept seminarians who are all for rallying to unconverted Rome?
Working inside the Conciliar Church is a matter of faith. If you work officially under the Pope's authority, you are accepting that error and truth can coexist. I see it as a matter of faith.
Sedevacantism vs. Sedeplenism vs. R & R vs. Sededoubtism vs. whatever is a case of speculative theology.
It is like if before Vatican I Bishops expelled seminarians because they didn't believe that the Pope was infallible. You simply can't treat speculative matters as if they were estabilished dogmas.
That is exactly what Traditionalists groups do. For the SSPX, sedevacantists are worse than the Devil. For sedevacantists, R & R is not Catholic. And so on.
I remember when Fr. Cardozo, a former Resistance Priest, now independent, allowed a sedevacantist Priest to say Mass in one of his chapels. He said "he is Catholic, he believes all the dogmas. I don't really care if we disagree about the Pope. It is not the most important thing." It sounds like a very reasonable line of thinking to me.
It is a natural, human thing to love your little group and see everyone else as enemies, but in the end, you are depriving the faithful from receiving valid sacraments from Catholic Priests.
I would very much like to see statistics about seminarians before Vatican II. I doubt that the "rate of success was so low.
-
Trad groups always complain that God won’t solve the crisis, yet they argue amongst themselves, which makes the crisis worse.
-
Trad groups always complain that God won’t solve the crisis, yet they argue amongst themselves, which makes the crisis worse.
Because at its core, the Traditional Catholic movement has become Protestantism without the theology. Why? The infighting and the division.
It may actually be worse, especially if/when certain things happen.
-
St. John Bosco said every 3rd boy has a priestly or religious vocation.
But I don’t see the fruits today.
Clearly the grace flowing into the world is down to a trickle. Most of it comes from the Mass and from prayers of the religious. Without the True Mass and with the number of religious having plummeted, this comes as no surprise. So I suspect that the 1 in 3 number is no longer true. Either that or they aren’t receiving the actual grace to follow through.
I know you were promoting the idea that you can receive just as much grace from the NOM because the Mass is the Mass, but I disagreed. Since God is not pleased with this “sacrifice,” little if any grace flows from it ... even if it’s valid. NOM is regarded by God like Cain’s sacrifice was.
-
It would be interesting to know how many started this class of 3. In my year, we started with 21 and ended with 3. My personal judgment was that 15-16 of the vocations were legitimate.
Some of the dismissals were political. It wasn’t enough [Sean] to be a Trad Catholic. If you didn’t think like the regime in power in every way, you were at risk of dismissal. Imagine the how the neo-SSPX might regard someone who thought like the Resistance. He would likely not last long. Or if you were a geo-centrist who objected to Fr. Robinson’s thinking. Back in my day, you were suspect if you believed the Thomistic position that explicit faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation. So, yes, tons of politics regarding questions that might rightly be disputed among Catholics. I could go on for hours. Heck, if you didn’t think like the French, you were considered suspect. Remind me to relate the hilarious “showering” saga.
Also, there’s a real problem with the type of priesthood the men might be called to. In the pre-V2 days you had dozens of choices: secular vs. religious, and then among the religious: Dominican, Benedictine, Jesuit, etc. etc. Church has always known that one style doesn’t fit everyone. But with most Trad groups there’s a single variation in the vocation. I myself did not relish the prospect of the SSPX priestly lifestyle and probably would have felt more suited to being a Benedictine of Dominican ... or a more contemplative order. I thrive in silence and would not have done well with the hustle and bustle of the mission priest lifestyle that nearly all Trad priests end up in.
Yet the attitude of STAS was that if you’re not suited to the SSPX priestly lifestyle, then you have no vocation. There was never any thought of “Maybe you have a vocation to be a Benedictine.” ... but rather, if you don’t relish being an SSPX priest then you have no vocation.
I recall repeatedly thinking and even saying out loud that I wish there were a vocation to be a permanent seminarian ... where you prayed and studied in a quiet state of quasi-contemplation. What I really had in mind without having been able to clarify the thought was a Benedictine or Dominican type of life. I probably should have been steered toward that. But they didn’t think that way at all there.
So, the shower saga. When we got there, we had to read the SSPX seminary rule. There was a rule in there that you were supposed to shower once a week. This was a big sacrifice to most of us, who didn’t feel clean most days without a shower. After a couple months, this got back to Bishop Williamson. So he took a minute to clarify it during his weekly spiritual conference. That rule was for the French and meant that you had to shower AT LEAST once a week, since a lot of them didn’t like to bathe often. You could hear a collective sigh of relief. That evening, the showers ran non-stop in my wing of the seminary for a couple hours. No American would ever believe you had to mandate a weekly shower, that you would specify it in the rule unless it meant ONLY once a week.
-
Clearly the grace flowing into the world is down to a trickle. Most of it comes from the Mass and from prayers of the religious. Without the True Mass and with the number of religious having plummeted, this comes as no surprise. So I suspect that the 1 in 3 number is no longer true. Either that or they aren’t receiving the actual grace to follow through.
I know you were promoting the idea that you can receive just as much grace from the NOM because the Mass is the Mass, but I disagreed. Since God is not pleased with this “sacrifice,” little if any grace flows from it ... even if it’s valid. NOM is regarded by God like Cain’s sacrifice was.
Slight corrections:
1) I said it is infallibly true from Trent that well-disposed communicants receive the transmission of sanctifying grace from the SACRAMENT, not the rites;
Anyone who disputes that is a heretic;
2) This pertains to the ignorant, because the knowing (ie., trads) will likely erect an obex gratiae to the transmission of grace were they to receive Communion at a NOM, knowing that rite to be displeasing to God (though whether that obex would completely block the grace of the sacrament (ie., whether the sin would be venial or mortal), I do not pretend to know.
-
As I said in the other thread, you misread Trent. In any case, let’s not derail. Point is that less grace is entering the world partly in account of the NOM being displeasing to God.
-
It would be interesting to know how many started this class of 3. In my year, we started with 21 and ended with 3. My personal judgment was that 15-16 of the vocations were legitimate.
Some of the dismissals were political. It wasn’t enough [Sean] to be a Trad Catholic. If you didn’t think like the regime in power in every way, you were at risk of dismissal. Imagine the how the neo-SSPX might regard someone who thought like the Resistance. He would likely not last long. Or if you were a geo-centrist who objected to Fr. Robinson’s thinking. Back in my day, you were suspect if you believed the Thomistic position that explicit faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation. So, yes, tons of politics regarding questions that might rightly be disputed among Catholics. I could go on for hours. Heck, if you didn’t think like the French, you were considered suspect. Remind me to relate the hilarious “showering” saga.
Also, there’s a real problem with the type of priesthood the men might be called to. In the pre-V2 days you had dozens of choices: secular vs. religious, and then among the religious: Dominican, Benedictine, Jesuit, etc. etc. Church has always known that one style doesn’t fit everyone. But with most Trad groups there’s a single variation in the vocation. I myself did not relish the prospect of the SSPX priestly lifestyle and probably would have felt more suited to being a Benedictine of Dominican ... or a more contemplative order. I thrive in silence and would not have done well with the hustle and bustle of the mission priest lifestyle that nearly all Trad priests end up in.
Yet the attitude of STAS was that if you’re not suited to the SSPX priestly lifestyle, then you have no vocation. There was never any thought of “Maybe you have a vocation to be a Benedictine.” ... but rather, if you don’t relish being an SSPX priest then you have no vocation.
I recall repeatedly thinking and even saying out loud that I wish there were a vocation to be a permanent seminarian ... where you prayed and studied in a quiet state of quasi-contemplation. What I really had in mind without having been able to clarify the thought was a Benedictine or Dominican type of life. I probably should have been steered toward that. But they didn’t think that way at all there.
So, the shower saga. When we got there, we had to read the SSPX seminary rule. There was a rule in there that you were supposed to shower once a week. This was a big sacrifice to most of us, who didn’t feel clean most days without a shower. After a couple months, this got back to Bishop Williamson. So he took a minute to clarify it during his weekly spiritual conference. That rule was for the French and meant that you had to shower AT LEAST once a week, since a lot of them didn’t like to bathe often. You could hear a collective sigh of relief. That evening, the showers ran non-stop in my wing of the seminary for a couple hours. No American would ever believe you had to mandate a weekly shower, that you would specify it in the rule unless it meant ONLY once a week.
Hmm. Your time a STAS sounds very different than mine. I recall Fr. Iscara (spiritual director) telling me he thought my vocation might be to Dominican life rather than the SSPX.
-
As I said in the other thread, you misread Trent. In any case, let’s not derail. Point is that less grace is entering the world partly in account of the NOM being displeasing to God.
30 pages of objections, but no refutations to back your claims.
I clearly properly understand Trent, and you are a heretic who rejects it for political reasons (sede).
-
The Consoling Sisters are having 11 postulants taking the habit next Friday on the Feast of the Sacred Heart (of which 10 are Americans)
..and out of those 10, 4 are from the same family.
-
30 pages of objections, but no refutations to back your claims.
I clearly properly understand Trent, and you are a heretic who rejects it for political reasons (sede).
Understandng of the NOM has nothing to do with sedevacantism. Pax and Stubborn are R&R, and they have a similar view of the NOM that I do. Why do you insist on conflating things over and over again?
-
Hmm. Your time a STAS sounds very different than mine. I recall Fr. Iscara (spiritual director) telling me he thought my vocation might be to Dominican life rather than the SSPX.
Perhaps Fr. Iscara was different. He was there after my time. But there were a couple guys there in my day who felt inclined toward a monastic setting, and they were told outright that if they didn't have a vocation to be an SSPX priest, then they had no vocation at all.
-
I suppose the fact that the Resistance never encourages vocations is certainly a factor.
From the little SAJM chapel I go to , they encourage vocations every week with prayers for priests, seminarians and for priestly vocations.
-
Understandng of the NOM has nothing to do with sedevacantism. Pax and Stubborn are R&R, and they have a similar view of the NOM that I do. Why do you insist on conflating things over and over again?
It is your/their misunderstanding of Trent and sacramental theology that is off, as well as the NOM.
30 pages of contorted arguments could not dislodge Trent (as though the Church’s dogmas ceased to apply after V2).
All the necessary distinctions missing (sincerity, disposition, obex gratiae, solemn vs essential rite, sacrament incessantly conflated with rite, etc all ignored and passed over in order to protect a desired conclusion).
Add to that a slew of refuted cleverly or ignorantly extracted Lefebvre quotes to support the desired conclusion, and the feeble attempts to explain away Lefebvre’s cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ acknowledgement that grace passes, and his acknowledgment that Catholics satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending an alleged non-Catholic rite, all of which again were erroneously used to conclude Williamson had broken with Lefebvre (but all neglecting to perceive that although Lefebvre’s prudential position regarding attendance at the NOM changed, his THEOLOGY regarding grace passes/does not pass never changed).
Neither did Struthio’s contorted attempts to redefine Trent’s dogmatic pronouncements in his own image prevail (first it was Trent only applies to Catholic rites, and the NOM doesn’t qualify because not “received,” then it was not “handed down,” then the pope had no right to create new rites, etc., all of which was disproven by Mediator Dei, and were it true, would have resulted in graceless sacraments for Pius XII’s new Holy Week rites, etc.
No, my friends, you who opposed the dogma that validly confected sacraments infallibly produce sanctifying grace, and transmit it to all who do not erect an obstacle to said transmission, have, by your own private interpretation, rejected a dogmatic definition, and rendered yourselves at least materially heretics.
-
Yet the attitude of STAS was that if you’re not suited to the SSPX priestly lifestyle, then you have no vocation. There was never any thought of “Maybe you have a vocation to be a Benedictine.” ... but rather, if you don’t relish being an SSPX priest then you have no vocation.
I wonder if the SSPX had doubts about the loyalty of the Religious Orders even back then, which was put to the test in 2012. I learned afterwards (after 2012) from an SSPX priest that said the SSPX is not to encourage male vocations to any of the Religious Orders.
-
I suppose the fact that the Resistance never encourages vocations is certainly a factor.
I can only speak authoritatively about my own chapel.
I know that we have no youths or teens there, at least not close to 18 years old.
Just my family, a few other young families (children are 5 and under), and of course some older parishioners.
Let's put it this way: our chapel literally could not hold a Young Adult Gathering (of single, young people) even if we wanted to. There are ZERO parishioners who qualify, so there is no question as to how many would show up. There MIGHT be a few on the e-mail list, but the e-mail list and the parishioners who show up for most Masses are two completely different things...