The following is a reply I was going to post on the Explosive Growth Forecast for SSPX USA thread in the General Discussion sub-forum. However, what I wrote is inappropriate for that particular section of CathInfo according to the bylaws thereof.

So here it is.

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Interesting note: The author(s) of the Pristina Liturgica Blog recommended the SSPX Seminaries to a sedevacantist inquirer who was seeking a Seminary wherein to matriculate. Whatever a sedevacantist might opine regarding this, it is refreshing to see individuals "think outside of the box."

That would be a less than stellar way to begin one's priestly vocation.

It does seem that there aren't many strong options when one wishes to study for the priesthood.

Well, these are "less than stellar" times...

The fact is that a young man who has a vocation to the Sacred Priesthood has the responsibility of prudently choosing a good Seminary.

I don't know exactly how to word the following (which is why I have not hitherto responded to this), but I shall try my best...

In the case cited in my reply, the advice of choosing an SSPX Seminary seemed at first a bit odd to me [since the blog focuses on present day controversies of the sedevacantist world, I had assumed that the author(s) of the blog to be sedevacantist(s)], but it actually makes a lot of sense now that my mind is a bit clearer on the pertinent issues: in the case of the sedevacantists in particular, their clergy have no authority to publicly bind consciences to attend their Chapels or Seminaries; and if they act as if they do, things suddenly become painfully complicated and quite perilous (as has been shewn time and time again). If the SSPX has better Seminaries, then it would be better theoretically for young men who have a sacred vocation to attend those seminaries, ecclesiological disagreements notwithstanding. In the practical order, if a sedevacantist aspirant to Holy Orders freely chooses for some reason or another to attend an SSPX Seminary, such a decision should be respected (or at least spared from naive anathemas). The question of whether the SSPX Seminaries would allow such young men to matriculate into their institutions, and under what conditions said matriculation is to take place, is another issue.

Although I may be criticized by my sedevacantist fellows for having written this, I truly believe that in the practical order no one can impute absolute casuist judgments in the present day, when no traditionalist clergyman can be said to posses jurisdiction in the external forum and thereby publicly and officially bind consciences in virtue of a Canonical mission.

Clergymen who have attained to Holy Orders without a Papal mandate or consent of the local Ordinary according to the prescriptions of Canon Law do not have the inherent right to command the assent of the faithful in virtue of their possession of valid Holy Orders alone, their excellent and salutary intentions of preserving the traditional practice and profession of the faith notwithstanding. A traditionalist cleric must demonstrate that he is possessed of the competence, learning, and sanctity that are demanded by his sacred state (his whole self must be a living sermon, the eloquence thereof being that of the Holy Ghost rather than that of his own finite efforts) in order to efficaciously draw the faithful to his ministry. He truly ought to be a servant to the souls that have been committed to his pastoral care by the inscrutable designs of Divine Providence, and exercise meekness and humility before the terrifyingly unnerving reality that he is in a very strange Canonical predicament. This is especially true for the Bishops! They above all must be servants of both clerics and layfolk: no one forced them to take on the Episcopacy, and they did so, despite the problematic Canonical issues, in order to serve the faithful. Normally, the Bishops and Priests would be given unquestionable credibility and authority, but, because the Roman Pontiff is out of the equation, such can no longer be the case.
 
It's not the 1950's anymore!

I would hope, at least, that anyone studying at an SSPX seminary with no intention of serving them as a priest would be paying their own way.

You bring up an important point. According to the principles of commutative justice, a young man of the sedevacantist persuasion who chooses to attend an SSPX Seminary would have to pay all the costs of their Seminary education, since they would not have the intention to serve the SSPX faithful as Priests.

The CMRI Seminary in Omaha, Nebraska seems a reasonable choice for young men who hold the papal office to be vacant.  I have only heard good things about this seminary.  http://www.cmri.org/

If a young Catholic man holding this position wishes to follow his vocation in the SSPX for the priesthood, that is a very uncertain course.  If they discover that this young man is a "sedevacantist," it may lead to complications.  

If I knew of any young man who is a "sedevacantist" I would send him to the CMRI. Not only do they have an excellent seminary, but they have chapels all over the country and around the world, which would give the young man many opportunities for pastoral work and supervision after ordination.

I see some serious issues with the simple catechism and the application of same to daily life. Lack of a solid formation and good education leads to craziness in many cases where priests cannot give proper advice because they do not have proper education. Here is Pope St. Pius X:

26. We do not, however, wish to give the impression that this studied simplicity in imparting instruction does not require labor and meditation-on the contrary, it demands both more than any other kind of preaching. It is much easier to find a preacher capable of delivering an eloquent and elaborate discourse than a catechist who can impart a catechetical instruction which is praiseworthy in every detail. No matter what natural facility a person may have in ideas and language, let him always remember that he will never be able to teach Christian doctrine to children or to adults without first giving himself to very careful study and preparation. They are mistaken who think that because of inexperience and lack of training of the people the work of catechizing can be performed in a slipshod fashion. On the contrary, the less educated the hearers, the more zeal and diligence must be used to adapt the sublime truths to their untrained minds; these truths, indeed, far surpass the natural understanding of the people, yet must be known by all -- the uneducated and the cultured -- in order that they may arrive at eternal happiness.

This is something I have considered. When it comes to the pope issue, I essentially hold the SSPV's position, that it may or not be the possibility. However, I do not pursue a vocation with the SSPV due to their position not on the Thuc bishops, but on the refusal of communion to those who frequent said clergy for sacraments. That said, there is also those of the 9 who split from Bp Kelly. However, there is Gladius' and others accusations against them, which if true, are very grave indeed. Either Gladius is correct and the charges are true, or Fr. Cekada is right and Gladius is lying. So these charges kinda scare me. I am very much on the fence regarding sedevacantism. I went from FSSPer sympathetic to the SSPX to moderate sede basically because of scruples with the new sacraments and sacramental intention.

I have been recommended to look into the CMRI, and I have heard Bp. Pivarunas speak. However, I do not 100% believe that the Thuc line is valid. I don't know why. So, I have considered pursuing the vocation with Abp Lefebvre's Society, to be unquestionably validly ordained, and to be a trad priest. Even with sedevacantist leanings.

It is up to you if you want to go to SSPX, but be aware that the arguments against the validity of most of the Thuc lines are false and uncatholic.  The lines that were passed from Archbishop Thuc to Carmona, Zamora and Guerard des Lauriers were docuмented and certainly valid.  These three were pre-Vatican II trained and ordained priests.  Guerard des Lauriers was a theologian, and Carmona and Zamora were diocesan priests and seminary professors.  All would have been watching that the correct rite was used by the Archbishop.

To sort through this issue scholarly and carefully I would highly recommend the Open Letter Bishop Kelly (SSPV) written by Mario Derksen:  http://www.thucbishops.com/

I agree with you about your concern about Catholic priests denying Sacraments to Catholics who have a right to those Sacraments.  I will not approach any priest who does this, even if I am not personally denied the Sacrament myself.  The SSPV unlawfully denies Holy Communion against Catholics who have the right to receive sacraments from other priests.  Their non-binding view cannot bind the conscience of a Catholic.  They are not the Hierarchy.

The same goes for Bishop Dolan, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn.  All three have denied Holy Communion to Catholics for attending SSPX.  This is a rash and unlawful act on their part.  I would not for myself attend either SSPV or these clergy.  They sin against the unity of the Church.

Hobbledehoy, I agree with you.

Thats the plight of us sedes here, sent to the back of the bus and told to shut up when we start yapping truth. I am in now way as eloquent with words as you, as I have mentioned in other posts, but I hope I get my point across clearly when needed.

Another possibility I could explore would be bishops of the Duarte Costa line, but this also scares me.

It should! The Duarte-Costa line should never be an "option." You don't want to be affiliated with that kind of folk.

When SSPX rails against sede's it's for the most part against the Dogmatic Sede's like the one's you described who deny communion to other Catholics, because that in and of itself is a schismatic act and removes one from the Catholic Church.

Most arguments from the society against the Sede's are that they lead to rash condemnations etc. It is the mindset of the Dogmatic Sede's, as you can see from myself and others on here, we do not condemn those who THINK the Pope may not be Pope, it is not a position of the society to condemn someone for thinking that the Pope may not be the Pope, but you will get our Ire if you start condemning people for not agreeing with you.

I hope that makes sense.

An article by Rev. Fr. Cekada was cited in the discussion of this thread.

This was the article that saved me from a lot of charlatans in Roman collars. The article does contain good arguments and information, and does merit the consideration of all serious traditionalists.

However, in light of recent controversies regarding Most Holy Trinity Seminary, the following question may be legitimate: who amongst the sedevacantist clerics is invested with the authority and competence to determine what exactly constitutes "Canonical training" in the present day?

If the reports of the Pristina Liturgica Blog are accurate, it does seem that the rectors and faculty of Most Holy Trinity Seminary are certainly not the ones who can claim such competence and authority. In light of recent controversies, one may legitimately posit the possibility that the arguments as set forth in the above-mentioned article may have been used [and may still be used] in order to aggrandize and exalt certain particular organizations; to place them authoritatively above others as having a sort of "Canonical credibility" (for lack of a better term) in order to assure that these organizations alone will receive the assent of the faithful, to the detriment of other Clerics whose determination of "unfit and untrained" may have been determined arbitrarily and motivated by partisan divisiveness.

As TKGS has pointed out, the sedevacantists should be the last individuals to insist upon such matters in such an absolutist way, because the truth is that there is necessarily (although unfortunately) a certain relativity when it comes to the application of certain prescripts of Canon Law by reason of the fact that the present-day crisis is utterly obfuscating to us all and no central authority is universally recognized (at least in sedevacantist circles). For example, no Catholic, be they clerical or lay, can publish a book regarding faith and morals without the consent of the local Ordinary, yet traditionalists write books and monographs constantly because of their zeal for the purity and integrity of the faith, and to protect the faithful against errors in the spirit of fraternal charity (or at least that should be the ultimate motive).

Again, the article's arguments are excellent, but their application requires a delicate and prudent balance between: on the one hand, an extreme partisanship that betrays a perilous and unwholesome naïveté and an erroneous concept of the Church (and can lead to outright schismatic attitudes or actions); and on the other hand, an uneducated or negligent credulity that invests authority in anyone who happens to wear a biretta or mitre solely by virtue of the fact that they are wearing a biretta or mitre, their lack of some sort of training notwithstanding, (and that can lead to the faithful being misled or outright perverted by these unworthy clerics).

This is why it takes grace to become a traditional Catholic, and an even greater grace to persevere in the practice and profession of the faith, and a still greater grace to find a worthy cleric to administer the Sacraments and give spiritual direction, which are indispensable for the cultivation of the interior life. If you have access to such a Priest, you must be immensely grateful to God for such a great grace, and you have the responsibility to pray for the Priest and do penance for any wrong he may do (because Priests are human, after all) so that he may be given the graces necessary to fulfill worthily and decorously the exigencies of his sacred state. This applies to all of us, not matter which we Chapel we attend.