The new SSPX seminary in these USA

The SSPX had their US seminary in Winona, MN in an old Dominican house.

But they grew.

They built a new US seminary Virginia.

They blessed it the other day.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SSPX and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The new SSPX seminary in these USA

  1. Fr_Sotelo says:

    It is a beautiful seminary. I think they might find Virginia to be a fruitful area of much support and vocations.

  2. JustaSinner says:

    Fr. Z., this one is so confusing I need a program to keep it straight. I thought SSPX was verboten for Catholics? Wasn’t this group on the outs with the Holy See? So as a Catholic I can or cannot go to services at an SSPX church/chapel and receive Communion? Can an SSPX priest hear my confession and give absolution?
    Geez, like I say, I need a program to keep up with this…

    Oh, and Trump 2016, drain the abortionist swamp in DC!

  3. Stephanus83 says:

    The new seminary is in my diocese and less than a 30 minute drive away. Hopefully reconciliation will happen soon with the SSPX. I’d love to have the option to attend Mass at the seminary after the SSPX is once again in full communion with the church.

  4. PTK_70 says:

    If SSPX doesn’t unambiguously reconcile with the Church soon, then may the benefactors of SSPX reconcile with the Church soon.

  5. MikeR says:

    It saddens me to see the SSPX on the outer rim of the Church, while loopy lefties of the church of nice destroy what’s left of our Catholic identity.

    It is a terrible shame that the SSPX can attract enough young men to set up such a beautiful seminary, while most dioceses’ seminaries are empty echoing halls, devoid of men.

    I pray Father Z’s pray frequently that the Society will end their self-inflicted estrangement soon & help the Church worldwide to recover our sacred liturgy & Catholic identity.

  6. Tom A. says:

    You do have the option of going. They are in full communion with the true faith. The issue is a canonical one, not theological. There are many articles available on the internet on this issue that continually reaffirm the legitimacy of fulfilling your obligations at an SSPX chapel. The hierarchy hates to admit it and so leaves untouched the urban myth that the SSPX are not in communion.

  7. zama202 says:

    Its wonderful to see God continue to bless the SSPX with vocations – as He does so abundantly with the other Traditional Catholic Orders and Monasteries.

    Charles

  8. Former Altar Boy says:

    Justasinner, Tom A.’s reply above is only partially correct. Father Z has written about this previously and you should be able to do a search of is previous posts for the full details. Basically, if you don’t have recourse to a TLM in full communion with Rome, you can fulfill your Sunday obligation at an SSPX church. However, their priests do NOT have faculties (i.e. authorization) from the local bishop to perform any sacrament (except Penance during the Year of Mercy and thereafter only in an emergency), so be aware…but read Father Z’s complete post.

  9. Tom A. says:

    Outer rim, inner rim. Doesn’t matter. They’re still in the rim.

  10. Tom A. says:

    Canon 1248.1 does not require licitness, only validity, to satisfy the obligation. Please correct me if I am reading this wrong.

  11. scholastica says:

    Stephanus we must be neighbors because I also live less than 30 minutes from the new seminary. I attended the blessing I Friday and was delighted at the joy and of everyone there. The seminarians were enthusiastic and friendly as they offered tours. The seminary and setting are spectacular! I look forward to having them as new neighbors.

  12. Thorfinn says:

    Congratulations!

    As Pope Francis put it, “You are Catholic, that is evident.”

    With over 600(!) priests and more on the way, the society is poised to play a heroic role in the Church over the coming decades. I pray the canonical situation is speedily resolved so we can heal at least one unnecessary division among Catholics and move forward together without all the fruitless polemics.

  13. MouseTemplar says:

    It is a penance to me that I must sit outside, with nose pressed against the window, without joining these SSPX faithful because I may be treading illicit or invalid ground.

    But for sure I can go to Heaven if I endure the saccharine music, the monochrome polyester garments, and the banal homily on recycling Slurpee cups at my home parish.

    This is a test. This is only a test.

  14. Nicolaus says:

    So scared that you can’t expect to experience in any regular seminaries today. I mean, things are truely catholic such as gregorian chant and cassock. I’d like to go for a pilgrimage here and discrening my vocation if possible.

  15. zama202 says:

    Its wonderful to see God continues to bless the SSPX with vocations – as He does so abundantly with the other Traditional Catholic Orders and Monasteries.

    Charles

  16. Gabriel Syme says:

    Justasinner,

    The Church authorities have long since (2002) confirmed that one can fulfill mass obligations at an SSPX Chapel, and that it is even acceptance to contribute towards the financial upkeep of that Chapel and its priest(s).

    It is good that you want to be clear as to the situation, as our faith is important .

    Of course, as the SSPX regard the Church as being in a state of emergency, their official stance is that they have always had emergency jurisdiction to minister anyway. But this is increasingly a moot point now.

    Some people deny a state of emergency exists. But, there’s gotta be something up when people widely question the Catholicity of the SSPX while the Roman Pontiff speaks warmly about being thankful for the “gifts of the reformation”, right?

    MikeR,

    I am not sure that it is fair to describe the SSPX situation (lack of canonical status universally, though they do have it locally in Argentina) as “self-inflicted”.

    As regards the suppression of the Society, which occurred in murky circumstances 5 years after its canonically legal founding, ++Lefebvre had this to say:

    ..we have been condemned, without trial, without opportunity to defend ourselves, without due warning or written process and without appeal.

    http://sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3

  17. Chiara says:

    I am with Just a Sinner here. Why do we celebrate the opening of an SSPX seminary, when we deride the Pope extending a hand of friendship to the Lutherans?

    At least the Lutherans are unambiguous about not pretending to be Catholic, and do not insult the Pope nor try to override his authority over faithful Catholics.

    From what I can see in my area of the country, the SSPX chapels do their best to confuse faithful Catholics and draw them away from their true home. Every SSPX chapel in my Diocese (Cleveland) has an identical name to an authentic, nearby Catholic parish. With all the names of the saints to choose from, I find this to be the only answer as to why they would do this. They also actively attempt to recruit faithful Catholics by presenting themselves as the true Catholic church.

    With all the faithful Catholic parishes in my area (including those who provide the Latin Mass weekly), I can think of no reason a faithful Catholic would ever find the occasion to go to an SSPX chapel.

    I find no reason to celebrate this, Father, and I say that with great respect to you and to those who may feel this is a good thing.

  18. kiwiinamerica says:

    Aren’t vocations supposed to be a sign of…….ya know……….”Divine blessing”?

    [Not when you consider some priests and bishops.]

  19. PTK_70 says:

    @Chiara…I rather think our genial host is simply reporting news which may be of interest to a segment of his readership. Note the terse nature of this report and then compare with the post a few days back regarding the new seminary in Charlotte, NC.

    Let us pray that Fr. Z’s outreach (whether through this blog or by other means) to SSPX clergy, affiliates and benefactors bears fruit.

  20. Gabriel Syme says:

    Chiara,

    Why do we celebrate the opening of an SSPX seminary, when we deride the Pope extending a hand of friendship to the Lutherans?

    The SSPX are fine example of Catholic tradition (by no means the only example, but surely the most prominent). It is positive news to see them continue to grow, especially at a time when the mainstream Church, as altered in the wake of Vatican II, has been failing badly for decades now (at least in the west).

    The Pope is doing more than extending friendship to the Lutherans. See the nonsensical and irresponsible talk springing up about intercommunion etc. This kind of false ecumenism is damaging to the true faith and insulting to Our Lord, as it equates man-made false religions with the divinely instituted Catholic faith.

    At least the Lutherans are unambiguous about not pretending to be Catholic, and do not insult the Pope nor try to override his authority over faithful Catholics.

    The SSPX do not do any of things. They do not pretend to be Catholic, they are Catholic. They respect the Pope, but to criticise him on occasion is not to insult him. To be fair to Francis, he seems to take criticism well, which indicates a strong and mature character. (In any case, Francis is not shy about criticising those he disagrees with, including traditionalists). And the SSPX are not schismatic, as has been long since clarified by Ecclesia Dei.

    With all the faithful Catholic parishes in my area (including those who provide the Latin Mass weekly), I can think of no reason a faithful Catholic would ever find the occasion to go to an SSPX chapel.

    With respect, this comment is somewhat naive. Go back to the 70s and 80s and see how many non-SSPX TLMs Catholics could access then. Some Bishops even went as far as lying to the faithful (intentionally or otherwise) that the traditional mass had been abolished and was not allowed – Pope Benedict later clarified this was never the case.

    It is true that more and more Catholics can now access the traditional mass, thanks to the continued growth of tradition and the generosity of Pope Benedict XVI and his wonderful gift to the Church of Summorum Pontificum.

    But, before that, there were few places other than the Society where Catholics could experience the authentic Catholic faith. People are not going to turn their backs on their SSPX priests, now that a few Diocesan TLMs are available (both are worth supporting, of course).

    Despite repeated requests by lay people, the Diocese I live in will not invite a canonically regular traditional order to the Diocese. And so, beyond the truly heroic efforts of a single Diocesan priest, the SSPX is all we really have, if we want to worship and believe as our ancestors did. The FSSP have a single priest stationed in our country – an American, he is excellent – but he is based 50 miles from our City.

    I believe the SSPX situation will be fully resolved soon, but people will still go there if not, due to the standards often found in the mainstream parishes. There, I have encountered priests ad-libbing the mass, school-children distributing communion, dancing priests, outrageously camp priests, heterodox priests, you name it. And if all this is canonically regular, then was value does a canonical status really have these days?

  21. Tom A. says:

    Read Canon 1248.1. You do not have to worry. Your obligation is met at an SSPX chapel. The CDF has affirmed this several times.

  22. Gabriel Syme says:

    Rorate Caeli has recently published an article about the new seminary, centering on a discussion with Bishop Fellay:

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/sspx-exclusive-bp-fellay-speaks-to.html#more

  23. surritter says:

    Tom A., while it’s true that a Catholic may attend an SSPX Mass in a pinch, you actually wrote that “They (SSPX) are in full communion with the true faith.” That is just plain false, unless you mean to imply that the popes since Vatican II have not been teaching the “true” faith.

  24. Gabriel Syme says:

    surritter,

    Is this term “full communion” actually defined anywhere, does it have any standing in canon law?

    I may be wrong, but I have always seen it chiefly as a term invented to undermine the SSPX, after the “they are schismatic / not Catholic” gambit was finally put to bed.

    It is true that, universally, the SSPX currently lacks a formal canonical status. I prefer to state that, rather than say “not in full communion” as I feel it gives more accurate and substantive information.

    unless you mean to imply that the popes since Vatican II have not been teaching the “true” faith.

    I think the teaching of the faith since Vatican II has been very much coloured by Vatican II.

    In my opinion, (and I stress I am no expert), this has led to ineffective teaching and the Catholic Church hiding its light under a bushel, as teaching emphasis has switched from the singular importance of the Catholic faith towards ecumenism (a concept which is not compatible with the singular importance of the Catholic faith).

    The religious education I got at school was little more than the basics of the nativity story, then several years worth of glowing praise for judaism and protestantism.

    Teaching is also hamstrung by a modern tendency to vaguely define concepts, as if attempting to give people freedom to make their own interpretations. For example, are large families a good thing, or should we not “breed like rabbits”? Is the mass the perpetuation of the sacrifice of calvary, or is it a simple memorial of the last supper?

    Recent decades are also notable for the proliferation of novelty for novelty’s sake – EMHCs, girl-altar-boys, communion in the hand – which have all helped undermine Catholic understanding in their own way.

    And now, one could argue that the Church is trying to move away from revelation, albeit in an underhand way. Do we really accept what Christ taught about marriage, or are we protestants:?

  25. zama202 says:

    Gabriel Syme said: Is this term “full communion” actually defined anywhere, does it have any standing in canon law?

    I believe that the term “full communion” is about as meaningful as “kind of pregnant”. It has no legal basis and is only meant to disparage the SSPX. I never heard it used in relation to any Liberation theologian, order or society (lay or religious), hospital or university that has gone off the Catholic rails.

    There are legal restrictions on the SSPX. That is indisputable. Those restrictions seem to be loosening both in Rome and in some dioceses where we hear of cooperation between local Ordinaries and the SSPX. God willing, they will be fully lifted soon.

    The SSPX has always been in “full Communion” with the Catholic Faith. That is also indisputable.

    The same cannot be said about many priests whose faith, based on their sermons, statements and actions, is much in question – but who are given a pass just because they celebrate Mass facing the people and in the vernacular.

    Disclaimer (for those who need one): I do not attend – and never have attended – a SSPX chapel. I have never donated to the SSPX. I do pray for them often however.

    Charles