Thursday, February 4, 2016

SSPX: 45 New Seminarians Take Cassock

Read some news reports and see images of the reception of the cassock ceremonies in the SSPX's seminaries.

Throughout the world in the SSPX's seminaries, a total of 45 seminarians have taken the cassock, or clerical habit, during the 2015-2016 academic year. We offer some news and images of this important event, a formative step towards the ultimate goal of the sacred priesthood.

St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona, MN, USA

On February 2, Bishop Bernard Fellay (the SSPX's Superior General), blessed the cassocks for 10 seminarians and gave the clercical tonsure to 8 other young men during the Pontifical Mass of Candlemas. He was assisted by Fr. Yves le Roux (seminary rector), Fr. Jurgen Wegner (U.S. District Superior), and Fr. Patrick Abbet (seminary vice rector).

Despite the the snowfall of 10 inches—which made travelling difficult for various families—the sacred ministers and servers did make a short procession outside with the lighted candles, celebrating Our Lord as the Light of revelation for the Gentiles. Read more and see an image gallery at the seminary's website (>


Catholic Mission said...

Bishop Schneider let us know what you believe on exclusive salvation. You are a shepherd.

Paul Hellyer said...

Nutty comment.

Anonymous said...

Where's the nutty comment. I don't see one?
The SSPX seminary in the USA is probably the only true Catholic seminary in the USA....and the others around the world likewise.
What is remarkable, on what is the eve of the absolutely evil and spiritually worthless pontificate of Pope Francis, is that the great Benedict XVI actually encouraged a return to a Catholic Church such as epitomized by the SSPX and its seminaries, and for the all too brief period of his pontificate-before his cowardly resignation-the Catholic Church as a whole had begon to respond. Catholic tradition was restored in many places. Seminaries which had been rotten too the core liberal have not changed, but the more moderate types did, for an all too brief time, encourage a re-introduction of some Catholic liturgical traditions.
Francis came in in 2013 and immediately trampled to the ground all of these healthy signs of a restoration in the Catholic Church. In 3 short years, he and his gang have done more harm to the Catholic Church, than even Vatican II did.....if that is possible.
In a few weeks, Francis will celebrate his 3rd year as pope. Even though it seems a lot longer than that!
Let's hope he and his people don't have another three.
Damian Malliapalli

Jonathan Howard said...

I didn't encounter any major restoration, at least within my diocese, of Holy Tradition during Pope Benedict XVI's Pontificate. From what I had gathered, that applied almost everywhere throughout the Latin Church. The Modernists simply continued their agenda and all but ignored Pope Benedict XVI.

In regard to the SSPX, they have benefitted greatly from Pope Francis' determination to bring about peace between Rome and the Society. Unlike his predecessors, Pope Francis has not required the SSPX always to initiate concrete actions to demonstrate the Society's loyalty to the Holy See.

For example, on December 15, 2008, Bishop Fellay had penned a letter to Rome to plead for the lifting of Rome's excommunications against the SSPX bishops. Only then (the following month) did Pope Benedict XVI lift the excommunications in question.

In contrast to the above, Pope Francis acted unilaterally last year when he declared that throughout the Holy Year, there was not any question as to the validity of the Sacrament of Penance when received via SSPX priests. Pope Francis was also instrumental in having the SSPX in Argentina recognized as a Catholic entity.

Jonathan Howard

Athelstane said...

If you're going to post your Feeneyite stuff, couldn't you do it on a post that actually mentions Bishop Schneider?

Tancred said...

Indeed, please refrain from non-topical comments, CM.

Catholic Mission said...

Relevant passages in that comment:-

The SSPX wants to build its new seminary in the USA ,in which they will teach the politically accepted teachings, of the Left, who represent Satan.


The seminarians will have to do the same ie support the Left on Vatican Council II and not know there is a choice.

He is also supporting the Left when he interprets Vatican Council II with an irrationality, with Cushingism, instead of traditional Feeneyism.
May be he's just ignorant or may be he is doing this to maintain his 'canonical status'.

Bishop Fellay too has come in line.
Bishop Fellay too has come in line.The SSPX wants to build its new seminary in the USA ,in which they will teach the politically accepted teachings, of the Left, who represent Satan.

The seminarians will be taught St.Emerentiana is in Heaven without the baptism of water.

Hypothethical cases are defacto and practically known.Someone saw St.Emerentiana go to Heaven without the baptism of water.Possibly he was an American at Baltimore or Boston.

Every one is comfortable with all this nonsense.

Can the Rector of the seminary or the SSPX bishops make a direct, clear statement?

Why does Bishop Athanasius Schneider not use these interviews to make a direct statement. Let us know what you believe bishop.You are a shepherd!

Affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church

Catholic Mission said...

SSPX seminarians begin politically correct formation approved by the Vatican

SSPX: 45 New Seminarians Take Cassock

Some 45 SSPX seminarians will be taught that they have to accept the Leftist understanding of Vatican Council II and they must interpret the Council mixing up what is invisible as being visible.In this way the Council will be a break with Tradition. It will be a rupture with the old ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They will be told that Bishop A.Schneider whom the SSPX holds in high esteem, offers the Novus Ordo Mass and accepts the new ecclesiology which includes an interpretatation of Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference. The false inference comes from the the factual error in the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of Holy Office 1949. The error has to be politically accepted not only because it is politically correct but because Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked it.

So his undestanding of Vatican Council II was confused.Now the seminarians are obligated to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past and so they will not affirm the Council in agreement with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past.

The seminarians will be told that they must not interpret Vatican Council II like me. I assume that the references to salvation in Vatican Council II, are not of explicit cases, objectively seen. They refer to hypothetical cases. So they are not exceptions to the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So I can affirm the rigorist interpretation of EENS, as did St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Leonard Feeney and also affirm Vatican Council II, in harmony with this traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.

Bishop Schneider could also do the same as me. But then he could lose his 'full communion' status, which the SSPX now seeks and possibly the seminarians too want the same thing.So the bishop does not affirm the Catholic Faith by saying all Jews and other non Catholics, need to formally enter the Church ( with faith and baptism) to avoid the fires of Hell and there are no known exceptions in 2016 and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II. He has to go along with the Nostra Aetate pitch.

The bishop will not say this in the many interviews he gives and neither will the SSPX bishops and priests do so. They all remain politically correct with the Left. So there are no threats to their property and they can build new seminaries. As long as they interpret Vatican Council II with the invisible-visible mix up they will not be harassed with leftist laws. There will be no campaign against them,like the one received by Bishop Richard Williamson, Robert Sungenis...

So the 45 seminarians will know that their religious formation is the same as that of the Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome, where they also interpret Vatican Council II with the same politically appropriate irrationality.

This is standard magisterial heresy, it is ecclesiastical heresy but it is has popular support within and outside the Church. The SSPX theologically is part of the same corrupt system.

For the SSPX seminarians, like those in the seminaries in Rome, to come out in the open and affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church would mean the end of their hopes of being a Catholic priest. Since the truth is prohibited at SSPX seminaries as in two of the Catholic seminaries in Rome, where I was a seminarian.-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...

I agree with Bishop Schneider. The crisis is not the liturgical reform but the defect in faith, the doctrinal relativism...The SSPX and Pope Francis could pick up this theme.Pope Benedict XVI avoided it.

Catholic Mission said...

If you're going to post your Feeneyite stuff...

There are two ways of interpreting Vatican Council II. This is not Feeneyite stuff.
Even the St.Benedict Centers are using the irrational option.
The same irrational interpretation is chosen by the SSPX and Louie Verrecchio.

The fault is there with Louie and his wrong inference. The Council does not say that he needs to assume hypothetical cases are not hypothetical

Athelstane said...

"The seminarians will be taught St.Emerentiana is in Heaven without the baptism of water."

So you reject baptism of blood, then. Does this mean that Ss. Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Bernard et al were peddling heresy?

Catholic Mission said...


Read the text of the dogma EENS on exclusive salvation in the Church. Then ask your self where does Vatican Council contradict the dogma?Then start educating and correcting just about every one
Read the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Then ask yourself where does Vatican Council II contradict this dogma defined by three Church Councils.
Where in Vatican Council II is there a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) , as taught by the saints and popes, with the exclusivist ecclesiology ?
Not a single place. There is not a single exception to EENS in Vatican Council II.
There is not a single exception in Vatican Council II to the Syllabus of Errors on other religions and Christian communities and salvation.Not a single exception.
Remember I have been writing on this same subject for years. I have been taking on questions on this issue.Not a single person could show me an exception in Vatican Council II to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441. No one could contradict St. Robert Bellarmine on EENS.Not a single one.
There are numerous Catholics who understand what I am saying and even agree with me but in public they will not say anything.They understand the consequences of the general mistake in the Church.
Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. This is the big secret they want to hide.
The Church ( magisterium) made a mistake.
There was a big mistake made on Vatican Council II.
We must remember that no where in Vatican Council II does the text say that we must interpret hypothetical cases as not being hypothetical.
There is no text which also says hypothetical cases are explicit, objectively seen and so are not hypothetical.
So when Louie Verrecchio, Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci ,the Superior of the SSPX in Italy, Catholic encyclopedias, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Cardinal Walter Kasper and numerous other Catholics interpret hypothetical cases as being explicit in the present times, who has given them permission to do this ? Not Vatican Council II!
Being saved with elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) refers to a hypothetical case.
Being saved with seeds to the Word (AG 11) refers to a hypothetical case.
Being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) refers to a speculative and hypothetical case.
Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) refers to a speculative case and not a personally known person, whom we can know by name.It is a zero case in our reality.
So they are not defacto, visible exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Similarly when Vatican Council II or other magisterial documents refer to the baptism of desire and blood it is a reference to a hypothetical case. No one has seen any one saved without the baptism of water.No one in the past or present could have seen a baptism of desire case in Heaven without the baptism of water.Humanly it is not possible.
Yet just about every one ( except me) is projecting hypothetical cases as being objective. They are projected as explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS and a break with the Syllabus of Errors.
The fault is there not with Vatican Council II but with the person who makes the inference.
Avoid the inference and the Council changes back to Tradition.
Any one can check this out.
Read the text of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. Then ask your self where does Council contradict the dogma?
Then start educating and correcting just about every one.
You will also help bring the Church, theologically, back to Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

We are beyond any hope or possibility of fixing our broken world.
What we are living in will take 100% supernatural force to fix.

Anonymous said...

st chrystostom believed that baptism was necessary unto salvation and he rejected the notion that catechumens were united to the church. st thomas Aquinas believed that desire of baptism for catechumens would lead them to purgatory(which would make him a semi feeneyite for rejecting the equal status it has with water baptism according to modern theology.)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...