Seminary training
  • tdunbar
    Posts: 120
    From http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/03/10/seminarians-to-learn-latin-and-the-old-mass/

    which cites
    http://blog.ilgiornale.it/tornielli/2011/03/08/unistruzione-per-i-fedeli-e-per-la-messa-antica/


    The Vatican will soon direct bishops around the world to ensure that all seminarians are taught Latin and, even more importantly, that they are trained to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. The provisions are evidently part of a new instruction that is to be issued next month by the Ecclesia Dei Commission. At least, that’s according to Andrea Tornielli of the conservative Italian daily Il Giornale.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    Quod est valde bonus novus magis et medium traffic to Google translate.
  • tdunbar
    Posts: 120
    One hopes that the more Google translate gets used the better it becomes. However, I've not read anything about that..have you?
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 468
    As I've written over there, the Vatican has always insisted on seminarians learning Latin. It's in the post-Vatican II documents on priestly formation, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 2006 Norms of Priestly Formation for the U.S. and on and on.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    I always appreciate being slapped personally by Fr. Anthony over at PT, it reminds me of my confirmation in Oakland when the late Bishop Floyd Begin gave me a good one at Easter Vigil at St. Francis Cathedral.
    I don't understand why the whole tone over there seems taken right out of the script for "Chicken Little."
    It doesn't really matter which side of the Liturgy Wars one is conscripted to, the sky is not falling, so is it such a bad thing to wish our PT confreres would just "chill" for a while. (That was for you, IanW)
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    Any chance that you can post a video of the slapping?

    (Ha!)

    I love the statement:


    Charles…I would not refer to the Tridentine Rite as a “weak sister” as you put it, but I would say that this rite is contrary to the ecclesiology and vision of the council.

    I'd change one word - vision to short-sightedness.

    There is a real split in the RC coming. And worse than the one in the Anglican church. They split over the gay Bishop. This one will be over the popular Mass and the real Mass - which may be offered in the EF or OF....


    I once worked with a priest who was fond of saying the Bishop often turned to him and said, "We really shouldn't have ordained you."

    Bishop may have been right.

    I rarely go over to PT...there are already too many reasons not to attend Mass.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,183
    I gave up PT a long time ago. Got tired of all the whining.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Ditto, Kevin.
    At least people admit the problems center around ecclesiology. Now, if we can only get authentic ecclesiology to stand up...

    Charles, the chicken little reference almost made me blurt my tea. You summed it up so well.

    What's the beef about sems learning Latin and the EF? There's a pastoral need, after all...
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    I know I'm generally regarded at PT and occasionally elsewhere as a misanthrope at best, slack-jawed, local yokel mouth breather at worst, but it might be worth a look for some of you to check out Tom P's post of the EF/Seminarians thread at March 11, 9:11PM and my take on it.
    Did I miss something, or should I have not taken his quoted premise at face value?
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    What you are missing is that (a certain type of) progressives want lay control of all the institutions of the church. ("Corporations to administer church institutions and organizations can be managed by laity or even hired non-believers.") When that happens, then the laity will control the purse-strings, the locks on the doors, and everything else. The hope is that this would ultimately allow them to remake church by shutting out anyone who was not, ahem, pastoral.

    I'm not the type of person to generally compare things to Communism (or Nazism), but what they want is the ecclesiastical equivalent of proletarian control of the means of production, resulting in the abolition of wage labor, the elimination of the bourgeoisie and an end to all class conflict, and the withering away of the state. I don't know if that's what Tom P wants, but that's what people who are keen on lay-dominated control of ecclesial resources want.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,183
    Good analysis Mark.

    I have a dear friend who argues, and I think, rightly, that all the battles about the liturgy are about unarticulated ecclesiologies in the guise of all sorts of things.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Yes, Mark, I got that part which was sandwiched between Tom's quoted statements. However, I read his words in which he described what he wanted accomplished as proper seminary training for "pastoral" priests absolutely in concert with what "we" want, celebrants who are thoroughly competent in effective liturgy. That seemed to edify the argument for a thorough education in both forms of the rite to me, hence my reference to Hillenbrand's efforts to have the nexus of parish life be liturgy.
    I haven't gone over to PT to see if he "got that."
Add a Comment