Rorate Caeli

New computer models of future U.S. SSPX Seminary


Hidden One said...

Very nice architecture!

I hope that it will be able to have the blessing of, at the very least, the presence of a curial Cardinal at the dedication of the chapel.

J.S. said...

It really is too bad we will be losing the SSPX seminary here in Minnesota, but it looks as though this project certainly is necessary. I don't belong to an SSPX chapel (I'm a diocesan TLM attendee) but I will be following this project with interest.

I hope and pray that reconcilliation between the SSPX and Rome is still possible, and that it will happen soon!

TheRadTrad said...

Compare this to Rorate's previous article....

Jim said...

This is the most encouraging thing for the future of the Church that I've seen in a long time. May God bless the young men who enter here.

NIANTIC said...

Magnificent. This is what should give all of us hope. The assurance of holy traditional catholic priests for now and the future. May God richly bless this undertaking and supply the vocations which are needed so desperately.
Thanks be to God for the SSPX as well as all the other faithful traditional priestly societies. They each promote and advance the total adoration and glorification of God and the salvation of countless souls. Magnificent!

Pilgrim said...

Why is this exciting? The expansion of what? The church according to sspx?

croixmom said...

I'm sorry. It seems to me that if a man is called to the priesthood, it is for the Church. To that end, each and every ordination should be the most incredibly joyful event on earth.

A man ordained outside of the Church is a sorrowful event. I pray for holy priests, that they are in union with Holy Mother Church.

A new SSPX seminary is not working for the Church unless the SSPX is in full communion with the Church.
The men are well-formed, but with a defect. Our goal should be toward perfection.

Malta said...


The Rad Trad said...

Such a case for optimism and then we get that "outside the Church" not in "full communion" junk. Can anyone provide any concrete, definitive explanation of what "partial communion" means from before 1963?

Wonderfullo said...


Pilgrim, educate yourself. You might begin here:

Truth Searcher said...

Wonderfullo, as I recall, on two separate occasions, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has said that the clergy of the SSPX do NOT exercise a legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church.

Take it up with him.

JabbaPapa said...

The Rad Trad :

Can anyone provide any concrete, definitive explanation of what "partial communion" means from before 1963?

The expression "partial communion" is not a strictly accurate one, and is never used in any more technical statements, it's just shorthand for "not in full communion with the Catholic Church".

The basic principles of "full" and "partial" communion were established by the Council of Florece (1439) -- which was, BTW, in many ways a Council similar to Vatican II -- in its definition of the three Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, and full acceptance by the Armenians of the Catholic theology of those Sacraments, as forming the conditional basis of their return to the Catholicity -- in that any partial acceptance of this theology is not full acceptance of it.

Similarly, the writing of Pope Leo XIII, in Paterna Caritas (1888), is fully consonant with the doctrine of full communion and lack of full communion as expressed in Unitatis Redintegratio.

Unitatis Redintegratio is, though, simply the best source for the Catholic teaching on the degrees of Communion with the Catholic Church of the various non-Catholics, because it collects into one document all of the disparate doctrines that are otherwise separated into a vast quantity of Church teachings concerning the ongoing schisms with the Eastern churches.

JabbaPapa said...

As a follow-up to that previous comment -- the lack of full communion of SSPX is founded NOT on any non-acceptance by the SSPX of the *theology* of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but of its *disciplinary* requirements.

The separation of SSPX from this full communion is therefore extremely slim, give that it is not founded on any purely theological grounds.

Joseph said...

Partial communion meant the Church before 1963 recognized the validity of baptisms, and in some cases, ordinations of those separated from the See of Peter. It meant that a baby baptized in the Orthodox Church was certainly in the state of grace, until personal sin entered into the picture. Whether or not the expression "partial communion" was used or not is beside the point: the concept was certainly accepted.

Simplex sacerdos said...

Message to Archbishop Mueller: reconcile those boys quick! Do you really want THAT seminary to be outside the "official" Church?!

Lisa Mary said...

Wonderful amazing,Thanks
News In Syria

jeff said...

I've got a question. How many priests do we really need to service the needs of Trad communities?

For every man entering priesthood there is a man not exercising the headship of Christ in his family. Long term growth will come from dedicated dads modelling and teaching the faith to their children.

Don't get me wrong. We need enough priests. We need good and holy priests. But we need as many good and holy dads as we can get.

Robert said...

God Bless this seminary!!!. This is what is needed for the US. This represents Catholic identity and tradition. Unlike the fiasco in California, called the LA Religious Education Congress. This will be the CDF Muller's loose as his beloved country Germany, like France, get swallowed up by secularism and Islam.

Francis said...

I agree. Yet in my opinion, I think Muller, and many modernists like him, if given a choice between Europe and the world returning to traditional Catholicism or becoming Islamic would want the latter to happen, given their past writings and actions. After all, bishops in Europe, and some here in the USA have no problem with selling their empty novus ordo churches to protestants, muslims or Buddhists, but not to traditionalist Catholic societies.

Hidden One said...

Jeff, I've heard arguments that every man entering EF-only societies is depriving the Church of men able (eventually) to minister to the needs of lay people who are not (and will not become) regular attendees of the EF, but I don't think I've ever heard or seen someone saying that a guy who enters the seminary is depriving a family of its head. I also can't see any basis or support in dogmatic theology, moral theology, the collective corpus of the Saints, or even philosophy for your remark. Surprisingly (to me), it privileges the vocation of marriage, which, frankly, should be looked into last by any vocation-discerning man under normal circumstances.

Te Deum said...

The Poor Clares and the Te Deum Foundation also plan a new seminary and Monastery in Mooresboro, NC.

Concerning vocations, the new Poor Clares Seminary will have actual advantages for our Church by forming priests with legitimate ministerial faculties.

"The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."

"In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."


"However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."

Robert said...

This still amazes me to see so many young seminarians at this place. Even at FSSP seminaries. And Rome still cannot see what is happening. What the youth really want in the Catholic Church. For God sake, the Church will be their responsibility in the future when we are all dead and gone. Give them what the thirst for now, instead of what is hip and pop. Or they will suffer the same fate.

Whats Up! said...

Wonderful video!

Let us pray that the Ordinary of Richmond Va. will approve this seminary in his diocese.

Oh Lord grant us many holy priests.

backtothefuture said...

The good lord is definitely working his miracles in the sspx.

GQ Rep said...

The SSPX could always buy our Archdiocese of Philadelphia Seminary of St. Charles Borromeo (LOL!!)

The theologate building, built in 1871 can house about 200 seminarians, but there are only about 60 there today...of which about 25 are studying for the Philadelphia Archdiocese.

The college and Philosophy building, built in 1928 by the great Dennis Cardinal Dougherty (archbishop of Philadelphia 1917-1951) can house in excess of 350 seminarians. It is a magnificent building done in the Italian Renaissance style, and indeed the chapel, dedicated to St. Martin of Tours, looks like it could be one of hundreds of beautiful Italian churches in any town in Italy, or in Rome Itself. The college building has about 75 seminarians, of which only about 35-40 are studying specifically for Philadelphia, the rest for other dioceses.

Given our new Archbishop Chaput's proclivity for closing down churches and selling off property to cover the monumental debt from all the post- Vatican II priests child abuse scandals, I would not be surprised if the seminary is shortly up for sale.

So far he has closed 10+ parishes, 3-4 schools, and sold off the Archbishop's Residence, a summer home for priests in Ventnor,NJ, and closed down the 100+ year old Archdiosecean newspaper..."The Catholic Standard and Times". All in 1 year. Weird isn't it? The pre-Vatican II bishops built....the post-Vatican II bishops close everything down. Something isn't right.......duh!

By the time he's thru ssven years from now (he's 68), there will be nothing left for his successor to be Archbishop of.

Such is the legacy of Vatican II !!

Ukrainian Catholic said...

GQ Rep,

Here is a voice chiming in from Denver. Do you know how absurd it is for you to blame Arbp. Chaput for the closings he must make? He inherited a mess of faithlessness, abuse, cover-ups, and woefully managed budget. Heck the planning of schools was already in place before he was even appointed to the See, let alone installed. Look at Denver, we have a ton of Vocations and several Diocesan TLMs in addition to an FSSP Parish.

authoressaurus said...

Good luck to them, I support the aims and objectives of the SSPX, even without being one of them. Everything they have done, by the very fact of their having done it, has precipitated every bit of response "within" the reformed church, and nothing else. It is because they exist that the the indults were issued; it is because they exist that the FSSP exist; it is because they exist that the ICK were able to be founded; It is because they exist that Summorum Pontificum was issued. AND...they not excommunicado, and every bit as Catholic as anybody in the "official" church. Personally I hope the SSPX "stay out" for as long as necessary for the reform to collapse. Tradition "within" the church will get alot farther as long as they are "outside" necessitating a response. God bless the SSPX.

O Resistente said...

Very beautiful and looks more romanesque than gothic, doesn't it?

Long-Skirts said...


Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Atlantic aurora
Our Mother's boast

The proud are scattered
In conceits of their heart
Blind to Melchisedech's
Priests thou art

Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Atlantic aurora
Our Mother's boast

A light to the Revelation
Of faithful Gentiles
Angels sing canticles
Simeon smiles

Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Atlantic aurora
Our Mother's boast

Root of Jesse
Gate of morn
Unworldly womb
The skulkers scorn

Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Atlantic aurora
Our Mother's boast

And we your daughters
Comely and fair
A terrible army
Birthing His heir

Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Atlantic aurora
Our Mother's boast

For our sons' inheritance
Roman men toil --
A Cathedral of cassocks
The Catholic priesthood all Royal!

NoGnostic said...

Te Deum,

The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Remember Jesus' abhorrence of legalism? When canon law hinders the salvation of souls, that canon law is null and void as applied.


Regarding "full communion," this is essential reading:

Athelstane said...

As regards Archbishop Chaput:

I agree with GQ Rep: It's unfair to blame Chaput, who was just appointed, for the disaster that is the Catholic Church in Philadelphia. I'm not sure I agree with every closing, but there's no question that he's not responsible for the terrible situation which raised the question of their viability in the first place.

That blame properly belongs with his predecessors: Rigali, Bevilacqua, Krol. And many helps that they had along the way in the chancery and the clergy - and the laity.

CMike said...

Did I hear correctly that the architect makes the claim that such a style of building has been done in the last 50 to 70 years? Perhaps he's not aware of this:

GQ Rep said...

Did the Clear Creek Benedictines decide to change from the traditional black Benedictinehabit to a white one? That's what is shown in the photo for

I know of only afew examples of single Benedictine monasteries of the Benedictine Confederation which wear white. Pluscarden and Prinknash Abbies in Great Britian, and 1-2 in France.

Other than that, there are only the Olivetans, and the Camaldolese which have always worn white.

If they have changed their habit, it's unique. Hopefully they adopt a white cowl and capuche too. Or keep the black.

JabbaPapa said...

NoGnostic :


Regarding "full communion," this is essential reading:

Well thank you for that -- it can help clarify one important distinction.

Whilst the SSPX in itself can be described as not being in full Communion with the Church, but for some essentially disciplinary reasons not theological ones -- OTOH the Faithful supporters of the SSPX on their part cannot be generally described as not being in full Communion with the Church, for pretty much exactly the reasons provided in the article.

Anonymous said...

Having been away I have not been able to keep up with this interesting article. The total lack of CHARITY is evident in comments like " croixmom " evidently not so well informed in church history. I thank "authoressaurus" for having spoken my mind.
Julia of Arc

John McFarland said...

Dear JabbaPapa,

Please confirm that you have read and absorbed Te Deum's post indicating that according to the Holy Father, the issues between Rome and the SSPX are doctrinal, not disciplinary.

Roma locuta est...

There is nothing new about this: the whole point of the 2009-11 discussions between the Society and the Vatican is that they were doctrinal discussions, and were always characterized as such.

Furthermore, Rome has made is abundantly clear that acceptance of the doctrines of Vatican II that the Society (and not just the Society) judges erroneous is a necessary condition for regularization; and the Society has made it abundantly clear that there will be no such acceptance.

When beginning in 2012, it seemed that a no doctrinal string regularization was a possibility, Bishop Fellay indicated loud and clear that he considered this eminently feasible, based on Rome's proposals regarding the canonical arrangements.

The Holy Father has now drawn back from a purely practical regularization. One can speculate on the reasons; but as the Society leadership has said, we are now back at square one. The PCED communique of course claims that everything is going along swimmingly; but all I can say about that is that whoever okayed that language has a date with his confessor.

Apparently the Society still owes the PCED an official no; but no one in full possession of his faculties thinks that it will differ in substance from the July 14 declaration.

So: the Society and the Vatican are at an impasse, and that impasse is doctrinal.

John McFarland said...

Dear JabbaPapa,

As for "full communion," let me say a few things.

One is that communion with the Church has traditionally meant having supernatural faith, being baptized, and accepting the authority of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.

I think it follows that whatever is to be made of issues such as those dealt with by the Council of Florence, those who do not meet the three classic criteria are not in any kind of communion with the Church.

Can you demonstrate use of the concept of "partial communion" in these situations among a significant number of important pre-Vatican II theologians?

Furthermore, it's not even obvious to me that what you say makes any case at all for a notion of "partial communion."

You speak of the Council of Florence's "definition of the three Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, and full acceptance by the Armenians of the Catholic theology of those Sacraments, as forming the conditional basis of their return to the Catholicity -- in that any partial acceptance of this theology is not full acceptance of it."

I read that to mean that if the Armenians do not accept Catholic teaching on the three sacraments, they are not in communion with the Church. Nothing new there.

Is there anything in the acts of the Council that says that by virtue of what they have in common doctrinally with the Catholic Church (presumably everything else), they are in partial communion, as opposed to heretics with substantial doctrinal similarities to the Catholic Church?