Traditional Seminarian vs Novus Ordo Seminarian

[TrentCath]

I agree with you for once

We probably agree on a lot of things.

Ha, true enough 

[TrentCath]

Yes, we can see that thats a very logical argument 'I dont like the way such and such posts, therefore I'm going to post in an annoying way and trash anyone who supports his position'

Keep your pants on, pal. I make one snarky comment in jest and out come the hysterics. 

Where are they going to get their traditional formation from? How are they going to avoid being in some way influenced by the modernist rubbish that is taught there? What if they lose their vocation? What if they have to say the new mass or attend it? How will they avoid being cooperators in sin? etc...

Ask Fr. Rodriguez.

In other words, you have no idea.

In other words: have I ever been through a diocesan seminary and am now a traditional Catholic Priest akin to Fr. Rodriguez? No I haven't. Common sense, as opposed to combativeness, should've informed you of that. As I told Crusader Philly, all I've stated was that there are Priests that have endured a diocesan seminary and remained orthodox and fighting for tradition. You're arguing for the sake of arguing now, TrentCath.

Not at all but if you're going to oppose others who say that going to an NO seminary is an awful idea, you should have some facts to back up your case, I don't think thats unreasonable, do you?

[GloriaPatri]

I don't think Joshua is saying it's a goof idea. Rather that there are those who have gone through diocesan seminaries and by the Grace of God didn't end up as modernists, similar to Fr. Rodriguez. It may not be typical, but it does admittedly happen.

[Joshua]

Not at all but if you're going to oppose others who say that going to an NO seminary is an awful idea, you should have some facts to back up your case, I don't think thats unreasonable, do you?

Again, you're addressing positions I have never stated and arguing against straw-men. I never encouraged others to join an NO seminary, nor did I ever extol the virtues of these seminaries. If you were to have read my posts you would've seen me simply addressing (1) Stubborn's sweeping generalization that all seminarians in diocesan seminaries end up as Modernists and (2) that I personally know Priests who endured a diocesan seminary and remained traditional in spite of their seminary and not because of it.

If that's not clear enough for you, then there isn't much more I can tell you.

[Revixit]

What is the difference between these seminarians if both are orthodox?

Not sure I understand what you are asking here but if both are orthodox (meaning traditional) when they enter the seminary, the one who goes through the NO seminary won't exit it that way after +4 years of modernist indoctrination.

That isn't necessarily true.  There are quite a few priests coming out of NO seminaries now who say their first Masses -- and sometimes even some of their private Masses -- in the EF.

That certainly is not a good thing - for a modernist to train a trad that is.

Next time you come across one from a NO seminary, try to get a straight answer out of him as to why the TLM is the EF.

i'm not from a seminary of any kind but the straight answer is that Pope Benedict XVI, in making it somewhat easier for the 'TLM' to be celebrated more often, stated that there is only one Mass with two forms, Ordinary and Extraordinary.  The OF is the one most Catholics attend -- and prefer, at least at this point in time.  It's the Mass they know.

The 'TLM' is called the EF because it is rare, in comparison to the OF.  It may be that His Holiness called it 'Extraordinary' because he believes it is special, outstanding, out of the ordinary, exceptional, stupendous, marvelous, rare, remarkable, unique; all those words are synonyms for "Extraordinary". 

"Ordinary" is an antonym for "Extraordinary", which should make you happy.
 

[Stubborn]

Not at all but if you're going to oppose others who say that going to an NO seminary is an awful idea, you should have some facts to back up your case, I don't think thats unreasonable, do you?

Again, you're addressing positions I have never stated and arguing against straw-men. I never encouraged others to join an NO seminary, nor did I ever extol the virtues of these seminaries. If you were to have read my posts you would've seen me simply addressing (1) Stubborn's sweeping generalization that all seminarians in diocesan seminaries end up as Modernists and (2) that I personally know Priests who endured a diocesan seminary and remained traditional in spite of their seminary and not because of it.

If that's not clear enough for you, then there isn't much more I can tell you.

As I said, you think that a trad priest remaining in a diocese, saying the NO while "preaching tradition" is some sort of an accomplishment, as though in spite of his modernist indoctrination, in spite of him saying the wrong mass and in spite of all that goes along with it, he beat the system or something - so you're idea of what a trad even is, is not right.

Since V2, seminaries have been the place where the true faith is lost, replaced with the NO faith. It is not a place any real trad would ever even consider entering for any reason whatsoever for fear of losing his faith as all the others before him have.

Like Fr. Rodriguez, some make it through - I know more than a few personally myself - but unlike the ones you know - and unlike Fr. Rodriguez, they never entered a NO seminary with the intention of flying under the radar, on the contrary, they entered seminary to learn how to be a priest and ended up NO when they left like the +1000s of others do all over the world since V2 - it was only some years later when, for whatever reason, they overcame their NO formation and were able to "turn trad", as is the case with Fr. Rodriguez - and when they did turn trad, one way or another, they left the NO because they knew they no longer belonged there. Or, like Fr. Rodriguez, they were first slandered then banished or kicked out by their own superior for being a trad.

You seem to think Fr. Rodriguez emerged from the NO seminary a trad - which couldn't be further from the truth. After ordination, Fr. Rodriguez spent 9 years saying the NO Liturgy before he even "discovered Catholic theology and the TLM" - *that* is the truth, otherwise, Fr. Rodriguez got himself just as brainwashed as every other seminarian who enters NO seminary, let his own words serve as witness to convince you...............

Father Rodriguez interview from 2011:
Liturgically, I'm 100% behind the Traditional Latin Mass, which is without question the true Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. Theology, liturgy, Catholic spirituality and asceticism, and history itself all point to the obvious superiority of the Classical Roman Rite. Unfortunately, all of my seminary formation was in the Novus Ordo, and I only "discovered" the Latin Mass about six years ago, so I still have a lot to learn in terms of "real Catholicism," i.e. "traditional Catholicism."

As the weeks passed, I began to study the prayers and theology of the Traditional Latin Mass. The more I studied, the more my awe and amazement grew. I was "discovering" not only the true Catholic theology of the Mass, but also the true Catholic theology of the priesthood, and so much more! Throughout my first nine years of priesthood, I had struggled to make sense of the very serious problems which exist in the Church. At this point, it was obvious that an extreme crisis pervaded the Church and her hierarchy, but why? I just couldn't quite understand how all of this "diabolical disorientation" had come to pass . . . until the brilliant light of the true Catholic Mass ("Emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam . . .") began to penetrate my priestly soul. This "discovery" of the Traditional Latin Mass has been, by far, the greatest gift of God to my poor priesthood. 

[Stubborn]

What is the difference between these seminarians if both are orthodox?

Not sure I understand what you are asking here but if both are orthodox (meaning traditional) when they enter the seminary, the one who goes through the NO seminary won't exit it that way after +4 years of modernist indoctrination.

That isn't necessarily true.  There are quite a few priests coming out of NO seminaries now who say their first Masses -- and sometimes even some of their private Masses -- in the EF.

That certainly is not a good thing - for a modernist to train a trad that is.

Next time you come across one from a NO seminary, try to get a straight answer out of him as to why the TLM is the EF.

i'm not from a seminary of any kind but the straight answer is that Pope Benedict XVI, in making it somewhat easier for the 'TLM' to be celebrated more often, stated that there is only one Mass with two forms, Ordinary and Extraordinary.  The OF is the one most Catholics attend -- and prefer, at least at this point in time.  It's the Mass they know.

It can be stated there is only one mass with two forms till the cows come home - all anyone has to do is open their eyeballs and they cannot possibly help but see two completely different masses with two completely different forms. Nothing anyone, or any pope  says to the contrary will have the ability to change that fact. It's like in Man for all seasons: "If the pope says the earth is flat, does that make it so?"

The 'TLM' is called the EF because it is rare, in comparison to the OF.  It may be that His Holiness called it 'Extraordinary' because he believes it is special, outstanding, out of the ordinary, exceptional, stupendous, marvelous, rare, remarkable, unique; all those words are synonyms for "Extraordinary". 

"Ordinary" is an antonym for "Extraordinary", which should make you happy.

You just proved my point perfectly. If the word means it's definition, and the pope is calling it that because he believes it is special, outstanding, out of the ordinary, exceptional, stupendous, marvelous, rare, remarkable, unique, then why is it that an inferior form of worshiping God is the law of the Church?

[TrentCath]

Not at all but if you're going to oppose others who say that going to an NO seminary is an awful idea, you should have some facts to back up your case, I don't think thats unreasonable, do you?

Again, you're addressing positions I have never stated and arguing against straw-men. I never encouraged others to join an NO seminary, nor did I ever extol the virtues of these seminaries. If you were to have read my posts you would've seen me simply addressing (1) Stubborn's sweeping generalization that all seminarians in diocesan seminaries end up as Modernists and (2) that I personally know Priests who endured a diocesan seminary and remained traditional in spite of their seminary and not because of it.

If that's not clear enough for you, then there isn't much more I can tell you.

Then we can all agree its prudent not to agree an NO seminary, can't we?

[Joshua]

Stubborn, you're rambling again. Don't lecture me on Fr. Rodriguez, who I count as a dear and personal friend and spiritual father, based on your internet-assembled factoids.

I never stated Fr. Rodriguez emerged a trad, only that his orthodoxy hadn't been destroyed and it is through the orthodoxy that he preserved that allowed him to see the merits of what was hidden from him. Had he been an indoctrinated Modernist upon ordination, he would've been programmed to see tradition with revulsion and disgust. Not so. This all goes back to your original statement that all diocesan seminarians emerge as Modernists. Both you and everyone here should realize that this is utterly false.

[Stubborn]

Stubborn, you're rambling again. Don't lecture me on Fr. Rodriguez, who I count as a dear and personal friend and spiritual father, based on your internet-assembled factoids.

You may consider him a close friend, but you certainly don't speak for him.

I never stated Fr. Rodriguez emerged a trad, only that his orthodoxy hadn't been destroyed and it is through the orthodoxy that he preserved that allowed him to see the merits of what was hidden from him.

Seems you don't know what you've been saying so lets review........lets look at your first post on this thread where you said:

 Ever hear of Fr. Michael Rodriguez? He endured the seminary here in El Paso in addition to the PNAC and emerged into what he is today. Well, what is he today - NO or Trad? (refer to your quote above)

And again in the post after that:
You are correct. This isn't a matter of opinion. I know of Priests who have emerged from diocesan seminaries as traditional Catholics. It was not because of their formation, it was in spite of it. They were trads before they entered and they were trads when they left, and the time they spent in those diocesan seminaries was spent bringing other seminarians to the TLM and to traditional Catholic doctrine.

And on and on:

As I stated previously, the men who have remained traditional even after enduring an NO seminary did not remain traditional because of their formation, but in spite of it.

I stopped after the first few posts of yours, but rest assured, the hits kept coming. But for the sake of brevity, Fr. Rodriguez said in the interview that I linked above:

Since I began my new assignment (Sept. 24, 2011) out in the rural, isolated missions of the El Paso Diocese, I've offered the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. I consider this to be a marvelous and unexpected blessing from Providence in the midst of a very difficult trial. I hope to continue offering the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. If it were strictly up to me, I would never celebrate the Novus Ordo Missæ again. However, the sad reality of having to "obey" in the Novus Ordo Church that has largely lost the Faith, and the need to reach out patiently to Novus Ordo faithful who have been so misled, means that I will probably be "forced" to celebrate the Novus Ordo occasionally.

If he keeps on his current courageous path, the NO will certainly end up giving him the boot - probably trump up some other charge to add to the other bs charge - that's what happens to good priests in the NO - that fact hasn't changed in 50 years.

Had he been an indoctrinated Modernist upon ordination, he would've been programmed to see tradition with revulsion and disgust. Not so. This all goes back to your original statement that all diocesan seminarians emerge as Modernists. Both you and everyone here should realize that this is utterly false.

Your idea about what modernism is and how it works is wrong. That's why you think a trad can come and go as he pleases through NO seminaries and "emerge a trad" when *no one* has ever done such a thing - not ever. Not even Fr. Rodriguez did - took him 9 years of being a priest after +4 years seminary = +13 years a modernist  - THAT'S the way that he emerged from seminary, that's the way they've all emerged from NO seminaries for the last 50 years. That's why whoever enters a NO seminary should expect to leave as a modernist no matter how much you believe otherwise - all you need do is accept reality and put the NO ghetto behind you.