Forming Catholic Priests for a Changing World

'Our goal should be to ensure that all the priests ordained from our seminaries will possess the flexibility and affective maturity to live and thrive as holy shepherds and spiritual guides.'

Fr. John Kartje at Public Discourse. Among his observations,

"Unfortunately, contemporary American culture does not generally encourage young adults to become self-reflective and aware of the impact that their emotions have on their decisions and relationships. Our society seeks instant gratification and rejects anything that is perceived as critical or challenging. The effects of this atmosphere present new challenges for today’s seminaries. So, too, does the high degree of broken family structure in our society. Many young men who are beginning to discern a priestly vocation are dealing (or not dealing) with the impact of parental divorce. Others have never had a healthy paternal role model in their life."
Fr. Kartje, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, has since 2015 served as Rector of Mundelein Seminary, where he also teaches sacred scripture.

7 comments:

  1. At the seminaries in the USA they all interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 as being a rupture with Tradition ( EENS/Syllabus of Errors/ Athanasius Creed/ exclusivist ecclesiology).
    They project unknown cases in 1965 as referenced in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being known non Catholics saved outside the Church without faith and the baptism of water.So Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition for all of them.
    But this is unethical. Since we now know that LG 8 etc are always hypothetical cases, always theoretical cases in 2021, they are always physically invisible for us human beings.
    So if an attorney interprets unknown and invisible cases as being known and visible and so creates a false rupture with Tradition, it would be un-professional?
    Even if the present two popes make the same objective mistake it still is a mistake? May be they do not know that it is an error.
    It would also contradict the popes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus( without any exceptions) over the centuries so this would be schismatic in 2021 ?
    It would be heresy for the popes and missionaries of the 16th century?
    I do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents.
    But the legal teams at the Thomas More Law Centre use the common false premise?!
    -Lionel

    ReplyDelete
  2. JULY 27, 2021
    The traditionalist-liberal division based upon the Latin Mass is an illusion


    Fr.Alfonso Maria Bruno was thanked this month by Brother Joseph( Pierre) one of the seminarians at Casalotti, Boccea Rome of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.He was ordained a priest at the Salesian basilica of the Sacred Heart, Rome.He was one of the four new priests who lived in the parish seminary, before the seminary was transferred last year to Tiburtina, Rome.

    Since I lived in the parish often they could not avoid meeting me and talking to me.I would tell Fra.Joseph, who is from France that the entire text of Unitatis Redintigratio, Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, did not contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.He was surprised initially since this was not his religious formation at the Boccea seminary or the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome.

    I would tell him that his catechesis in the parish,Santa Maria di Nazareth, was inadequate.This was not the teaching of the Church over the centuries.He would not teach the lay parishioners that there was exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. This was unthinkable for him.He would mention St. Peter of Alcantara and I would remind him that the saint taught traditional exclusive salvation, in Jesus as Jesus was known in the Catholic Church.

    Of course Joseph knew that if he taught that there is exclusive salvation in Jesus and only the Catholic Church he could not continue to remain at the seminary or study at the university.The Left would object. He had to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, to create the New Theology.Then he could project false exceptions for EENS and an ecumenism of return. Now as a priest he will continue to teach the error which was obligatory, for all seminarians and priests here.

    This could be a reason why Pope Francis closed the seminary in 2013.He told the seminarians who remained to study only at the pontifical universities.He may have been concerned. They could interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, like him and the SSPX, but reject the conclusion, like the SSPX and then return to traditional sources which supported ecclesiocentrism.So now we know that Pope Francis's liberalism comes with the false interpretation of Vatican Council II and not the rational interpretation of the Council-text. We have found his Achilles heel.
    CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  3. CONTINUED
    Father Joseph may not die as a martyr since he believed and taught that there was salvation outside the Catholic Church.His ecclesiology of course is different from that of the Early Christians(Catholics).

    He will not get into trouble with the police since with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally he is following the Leftist ideology of the state in Italy.

    He would be quick to denounce me since my rational interpretation of Vatican Council II is not politically correct with the Left and his religious superiors.

    Also if he interpreted Vatican Council II rationally without the false premise, Fr. Alfonso Maria Bruno and Fr. Rosario Sammarco would not ordain him or allow him to continue as a priest.

    It is important not to see this as a liberal traditionalist issue.No,no.Joseph could be conservative in many ways.

    He is from an area in France where the traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the same false premise as those who are labelled liberals.It is part of the formation of the SSPX and FSSP priests there.

    Joseph is sincere in his faith. He would make a good pries in so many ways. He can now give people the Sacraments and save them from going to Hell and Satan.But like all priests today, traditionalists, liberals….he has had his formatioin with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. This is a political faith. It is not Catholic.

    Just like Fr. Alphonso Maria Bruno f.i , Una Voce International officials, Roberto dei Mattei,Fr Stefano Maria Manelli f.i and Fr.Gabriel Maria Pellettieri f.i,,Cardinal Braz de Avez, Fr. Sabino Ardito sdb, the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, Dr.Joseph Shaw, theologians John Lamont, Thomas Pink and John Rao,traditionalist Chris Ferrara and the owner of the blog Rorate Caeili - all, like the seminarians at Casalotti, Boccea and Fra Joseph, are interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.

    The traditionalist-liberal division based upon the Latin Mass is an illusion.

    Joseph can offer Mass in Latin or French in France and there would be a rupture with EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc.

    The FSSP priests can offer Mass in Latin or French in Dijon, France and there would still be the same rupture with Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q) etc).

    It is the subtle false premise which creates the division in the Church and not the Latin Mass.The Left does not know this and so they have forced Pope Francis to place restrictions on the Latin Mass with Traditionis Custode.

    Fr. Alfonso Maria Bruno did not know this when he ‘welcomed the apostolic visitation, accusing the sisters of becoming accustomed to using the Extraordinary Form exclusively and that their decision had then been “exploited” by traditionalist groups.’(Wikipedia).

    The issue never really was the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.The immediate issue was Vatican Council II and EENS.The issue is how do you interpret Vatican Council II ? As a rupture or continuation withthe dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology?

    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know this.He thought it was the Mass which created the break with Tradition and he wanted Rome to come back to the traditional faith.

    He was correct.Rome had broken with the traditional faith.But this was done by interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally.Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger could have interpreted Vatican Council II rationally instead of excommunicating him.Pope Paul VI could have interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise and he would have gone back to Tradition.

    Rome, can still come back to the Faith. All that the Vatican has to do is identify the false premise and announce that it should be avoided by all Catholics.They are obligated to interpret Vatican Council II honestly, with the rational premise.

    Then even Father Joseph will have to come back to the Faith.-Lionel Andrades




    https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-traditionalist-liberal-division.html



    ReplyDelete
  4. JULY 28, 2021
    The media when reporting on Traditionis Custode, have made an objective mistake on Vatican Council II, and John Salza, Christine Niles, Terrance Berris, Chris Ferrara and the Thomas More Law Society do not comment on this issue
    Terrance Berris a retired lawyer has a blog the Badger Catholic and he interprets Vatican Council II with the fake premise and with the same false premise he interprets extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) similar to Bishop Bernard Fellay, Fr. Davide Pagliariani and Fr. Franz Schmidberger of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).

    He has probably read the recent media reports in the main line newspapers on Traditionis Custode critical of those who do not accept Vatican Council II.The reports refer to Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and not without the rational premise, which prevents a rupture with Tradition.

    Terrance Berris is associated with the Thomas More Law center which also interprets the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X with the irrationality,the common error and so has not challenged the reports in the mainline media, which want the Catholic Church to maintain a false break with Catholic Tradition.

    Why must Catholics todays officially not have the spirituality and theology of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Dominic Guzman, St. Teresa of Avila and the founders of the religious communties before the 1940’s ?

    Why don’t Terrance Berris, Chris Ferrara and those in the legal community interpret Magisterial documents with the rational premise and then correct the error in reports of the Assciated Press, errors in Wikipedia and those of the SSPX ?

    Christine Niles at Church Militant TV(CMTV) interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion. She has a legal background. I have e-mailed CMTV so many times but they do not discuss this issue.

    Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar in the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets Vatican Council II with the fake premise and the rest of the Curia there, along with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).Fr. Georges de Laire has maintained prohibitions on the St.Benedict Center, NH, for not interpreting the Catechism of the Catholic Church( 847-848, Invincible ignorance) as being an objective exception to Feeneyite EENS.This is irrational. It is heretical and schismatic and yet it is the official policy of the CDF and the present two popes.Why must Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, NH, contradict St. Thomas Aquinas , St. Augustine,St. Maximillian Kolbe and numerous popes and saints on EENS, by using a fake premise?

    This is now a secular and public issue. The media when reporting on Traditionis Custode , have made an objective mistake on Vatican Council II, and John Salza, Christine Niles, Terrance Berris, Chris Ferrara and the Thomas More Law Society do not comment on this issue.-Lionel Andrades
    https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-media-when-reporting-on-traditionis.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Correction. The above paragraph should read:-
    He has probably read the recent media reports in the main line newspapers on Traditionis Custode critical of those who do not accept Vatican Council II.The reports refer to Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and not with the rational premise, which prevents a rupture with Tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MUDALEIN SEMINARY AND BISHOP ROBERT BARRON USE THE FALSE PREMISE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II, THE ATHANASIUS CREED, THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X(24Q,27Q),THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (CCC1257,846),THE NICENE AND APOSTLES CREED ETC. WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE THEY WOULD HAVE TO AFFIRM THESE MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS.THEY WOULD BE LABELLED EXTREMISTS, BY THE LEFT.

    February 6, 2020
    Pope Francis' books also follow this model : They interpret the Council with the false premise, inference and conclusion.
    The books of Pope Francis on Vatican Council II would have an error.They interpret the Council with the false premise, inference and conclusion.They avoid the rational and traditional option. So there is a new ecclesiology instead of the old one.It is created with the 'invisible people are visible' premise.
    Reuters and Associated Press refer to Vatican Council II when they mean the Council interpreted with the false premise, inference and conclusion.They are not referring to the Council without this irrationality.
    Similarly this is how Vatican Council II is being taught -unethically and dishonestly-at the pontifical and secular universities in Italy.Many of the professors are priests and nuns.



    The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and the Bishop of the Diocese of Manchester, USA are trying to force the religious community Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center, New Hampshire to accept the irrational model. They want Brother Andre Marie MICM, to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the false premise,inference and conclusion.Then he will create an artificial rupture with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), which pleases them.
    With the irrational model of Vatican Council II, Catholics cannot proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King over all politics and laws in society. Since the false model of the Council suggests there are exceptions to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.The non separation of Church and State is no more supported, as in the past.
    Image result for George Weigel
    This is appreciated by George Weigel and the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, USA.They will not interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational model.
    Similarly Massimo Faggioli, John Allen Jr. and Michael Sean Winters are keeping silent on this issue over the last few months.
    Image result for Bishop Robert Barron word on fireImage result for Bishop Robert Barron word on fire
    Bishop Robert Barron is calling for a censorship of Catholic bloggers. Most of his talks and the books of Word on Fire are based upon the irrational model of Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Bishop%20Robert%20Barron

    ReplyDelete
  7. December 24, 2018
    Fr.Brian Harrison, Bro.Andre Marie MICM overlook Bishop Robert Barron's mistake on Vatican Council II

    Fr.Brian Harrison and Brother Andre Marie MICM, do not ask why does Bishop Robert Barron cite Vatican Council II ( GS 22) as an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and so does not tell Ben Shapiro that he needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation?
    Again for both of them, like it is for Michael Voris, Gaudium et Specs 22(GS 22) refers to a personally known, objective, seen- in- the- flesh non Catholic, saved outside the Church.A possibility is a practical exception to the old teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.
    The liberal bishops can only speak in terms of possibilities, when they quote GS 22, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc.This is false and they know they are limited. They have no choice.Possibilities are always hypothetical and theoretical. For us they can only be speculative.So they cannot be real exceptions to the dogma EENS.They are not real people saved outside the Catholic Church in the present times.They do not exist in 2018.
    But the traditionalists, like the liberals,interpret Vatican Council II looking at possibilities as if they are real people saved outside the Church. They wrongly assume there are exceptions of salvation outside the Church. So they will say there is no salvation outside the Church but theologically they will interpret GS 22 ( people of good will) as being relevant to EENS. So on March 1,2018 when Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj referred to the hypothetical case of an unknown person saved with elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8) in another religion, who was an exception to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, no one said anything.No one objected.
    Now Fr. Brian Harrison and Brother Andre Marie have a report on Michael Voris' latest video.They do state that Lumen Gentium no where states there are personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church.
    Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth) refers to someone whom we cannot see or meet if he or she existed in real life.
    Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved with a good conscience, invincible ignorance) refers to a hypothetical case. It is an unknown person always.
    Lumen Gentium 14 refers to the case of the unknown catechumen and the unknown person saved in invincible ignorance.Both cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.Since they do not exist in our human reality.
    So on the Catholicism.org report they have both overlooked this error and the result is that Vatican Council II would also contradicts itself for them.
    LG 8, LG 16 etc would contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.(LG 16 vs AG7)
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church ( N.1257 The Necessity of the Baptism of Water) would also contradict itself when it states all need the baptism of water for salvation but God is not limited to the Sacraments.
    Mentioning God is not limited to the Sacraments with reference to EENS in the Catechism was a mistake of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Since God has chosen to limit salvation to the baptism of water and Catholic faith, this is the dogmatic teaching from John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.
    However saying God is not limited to the Sacraments is not naming a particular known person saved outside the Church. So it does not contradict EENS,for those who want to interpret it rationally.
    Similarly Pope Pius IX would contradict himself for Michael Voris who has quoted him.Since he has said that outside the Church there is no salvation and also that a person could be saved in invincible ignorance.
    In their mind Catholics do not make the objective-subjective, explicit-implicit, visible -invisible distinction.

    CONTINUED
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/frbrian-harrison-broandre-marie-micm.html

    ReplyDelete

Please contact matt@badgercatholic.com if you have issues commenting.