1- Introduction
Formation in the seminary is usually divided into four areas: human, spiritual, theological (academic/intellectual), andpastoral. In truth, the academic side tends to override all other aspects. Seminaries undoubtedly make every effort to balance, in terms of time and schedule, the activities of each seminarian. Yet there remains a pressing need, conscious or unconscious, to obtain the degree—a degree in Philosophy if possible, and then a degree in Theology. This academic focus is not reserved solely for the end of each cycle at exam time but permeates the whole of formation.
A double observation drawn from another tradition of formation may shed some light. In classical religious formation during the noviciate, it is forbidden to pursue any course of study aimed at obtaining a degree. The noviciate usually lasts one year (exceptionally two). The other observation is: until quite recently, some religious orders even forbade their candidates with final vows from seeking a doctorate. This, I was told, was for reasons of humility. Yet perhaps it was also for other reasons more closely aligned with the very purpose of religious life: seeking God and serving Him.
If one were to ask Cardinal Pierre de Bérulle, founder of the French Oratory in the seventeenth century and initiator of the renewal of priestly formation in France, how he regarded the priesthood in itself and in comparison, with religious life, he would certainly affirm that the dignity and state of priesthood is highly elevated, indeed more elevated than religious or monastic life. Why? Because the priesthood conforms a man to Jesus the Priest. The priest is called by God to represent Jesus himself. Of course, each Christian is called to this in some way, but all the more so the priest.
If we return to religious formation in its best form, whether monastic or religious, we see that the focus is placed on spiritual formation, on obedience, and on faithfulness to the horarium. The aim is to become holy, not merely to become an intellectual or a knowledgeable person. No one can rightly disparage instruction and intellectual formation; on the contrary, it must always and everywhere be honoured: “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7). Yet it must be lived in a particular spirit. I am not advocating obscurantism or ignorance. What I am speaking of is a wisdom that arises not merely from science, but first from lived experience, then from a science that is alive, and finally from inspired discernment.”
After the noviciate, which is the initial stage of formation, one becomes a religious, still under temporary vows and still in formation. If he is also called to the priesthood within his order, he becomes a student as well. St John of the Cross used to say to the Carmelite students: “religioso y estudiante, pero religioso por delante” – religious and student, but religious first. This advice carries great weight. It means that no aspect of religious life—consecration, prayer, community life—can be neglected for the sake of study. It places the clear emphasis on the primacy of spiritual formation, on the spiritual life, on faithfulness to God in prayer and in daily living.
Another essential aspect of formation is that one cannot give what one does not have. A priest must have a personal experience of the Risen Lord. What he does with that experience in his ministry will depend on the wisdom he exercises and, on the mission, entrusted to him. Two steps of depth may be expressed in two sets of advice or ideals: “to contemplate and to share with others what we have contemplated,” and “to contemplate and to teach others how to contemplate.” These embody two stages in Christian formation: Kerygma and Catechesis on the one hand, and Mystagogy and deep spiritual life on the other.
Let us not forget that a fundamental part of the priest’s vocation is to share in applying the redemption won by Jesus on the Cross to His Body, the Church, and in particular to the portion of the Church entrusted to him for their salvation and sanctification. This is precisely what the bishop reminds the newly ordained priest when he entrusts him with the paten and the chalice: be mindful of what you celebrate—the Redemption of Christ—and conform your life to it, in the holiness of total self-gift, even unto martyrdom. This is his personal part in the Mass!
All these considerations invite us to reflect on the exact relationship between the four areas of formation, the proper place of academic work, and how it can be integrated with the others. Wisdom is to see things from above, from God’s perspective, and to set them in order accordingly. A wise, or sapiential, formation today must do precisely this: start from above, from the primacy of spiritual life and the primacy of growth in spiritual life and therefore in spiritual formation. This formation needs to irrigate all the other formations, lead them, guide them and orientate them. Yet to achieve it will require sacrifices, sacrifices that not many seminaries may be willing to make. Spiritual formation—supported, of course, by human formation—is paramount. It must come first and remain first throughout the years of formation. It cannot be overridden or set aside, not even occasionally. This primacy of spiritual life and formation must be evident in every aspect: in time, in schedule, in energy, in attention, and in formation itself.
Paradoxically, this requires not only spiritual directors but also spiritual formators: men and women with long and deep experience of spiritual formation, who possess spiritual theology at the highest level of quality, wisdom, discernment, and learning. Why? Because they are the locomotive of the seminary.
Again, if the call of every Christian is to become holy, and if the mission of the priest is to lead his flock to God himself, then the priest must be an expert in God—nothing less. Everything in his life must be directed towards that. If, therefore, he is not formed in the seminary to discover God, to enter into his intimacy, and to experience his love, how can he truly be a priest?
Both seminary formation and the later life of the priest must be freed from every unnecessary burden.
The questions remain. Can we make these sacrifices? Can we resist the tyranny of academic demands that obscure the true meaning of seminary formation? Are we willing to prepare genuine spiritual formators- capable of leading others to holiness, experts in spiritual theology, rich in experience and discernment, able not only to direct souls but to form them?
Whoever is willing to make these sacrifices will prepare the priests that the Church so urgently needs.
2 – Implementing Sapiential Formation
On a practical level, how can “Sapiential Formation” be implemented in a seminary? What might be the short-term and long-term plans? What sacrifices will be necessary, and what kinds of investment will be required?
At its core, “Sapiential Formation” implies a complete shift in both spiritual and intellectual formation. At present, spiritual formation is not integrated into intellectual formation. Theology, as it is taught and practised, is not spiritual. Also, Spiritual theology (one of the modules in Theology) is weak and does not really address the task of “giving an account” of our spiritual life (cf. 1 Peter 3:15: “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.”).
The main sources of spiritual formation in seminaries today are limited to a few talks on spiritual life, heavily reliant on three other realities: first, the personal effort of the seminarian—his reading, his inclinations, his freedom exercised rather loosely; second, the liturgy as a source of spiritual life (Mass, Confession, and so forth); and third, spiritual direction, which belongs to the internal forum and the private realm of the candidate. Apart from the talks offered, and in some seminaries common sessions of Lectio Divina, the essential effort of learning and formation rests on the private sphere.
Spiritual theology, as taught in Faculties of Theology, is often meagre and remains largely on the level of the history of spirituality rather than the practical question: what must I do to grow spiritually, to discern, and so forth? Even less is offered to prepare seminarians pastorally for the ministry of spiritual direction.
This situation must change radically. In what direction? Towards a spiritual formation that is at once intellectual (theological, academic) and practical. The Spiritual Theology course itself must be reformed: without neglecting the speculative or historical aspects, it should include a common core cycle of practical formation that initiates seminarians into spiritual life, and then accompanies them in growth, exposing and explaining the different stages of spiritual development. This field has never been systematically implemented.
Note: this content and method form the foundational principle of the School of Mary’s formation: to offer, at each stage, the practical nourishment and discernment necessary to ensure steady growth and reach the fullness of spiritual growth (Union with Christ and a loving participation in His redemptive mission).
The direction of this change, then, takes us from a divided reality—private devotional life coupled with historical theology—to a unified reality in which academia and spiritual formation converge, theology and spiritual life become one, under the leadership of a renewed, deeper, and more expansive spiritual theology[1]. Academia and personal spiritual life sustain the same flame of the Gospel.
There is no longer an academic framework disconnected from spiritual life, but a fully integrated spiritual formation grounded in rigorous study. Each nourishing the other.
This requires conversion, sacrifice, and a new plan. It demands courage to rethink intellectual formation itself—and theology itself. That is no small sacrifice, for it entails leaving behind the current model of teaching theology in favour of an entirely different approach: more spiritual, sapiential, more prophetic, more integral[2]. Some would call it “monastic theology”[3].
In broad terms, this means that the goal of the new theological formation is to move from a theology centred on understanding the faith—fides quaerens intellectum—to a theology that does not merely recount the history of spirituality but guides us, theologically, towards holiness and union with God. From quaerens intellectum to quaerens Christum: a theology that leads to holiness, to God, to union with Him, to a profound knowledge and living experience of Jesus.
Note: The classic formulation of theology as fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding), inherited from Anselm, has long emphasised the rational and academic pursuit at the heart of theological reflection. Yet one may ask whether this definition, while true, is sufficient. A different accent could be expressed in the phrase fides quaerens Deum (faith seeking God). This rephrasing does not abandon the intellectual task of theology but situates it within a more existential horizon: faith striving not only to interpret but to encounter, to be transformed, to enter into union with God Himself. Such a vision has deep roots. Augustine, Bonaventure, and the mystics consistently described theology less as a speculative science than as wisdom ordered towards God. More recently, Hans Urs von Balthasar insisted that theology must remain contemplative before it is discursive, and Joseph Ratzinger stressed that theology is ultimately ordered to God rather than to knowledge about God. Jean Daniélou described theology as “essentially a mystery lived,” an expression which resonates closely with fides quaerens Deum. To speak in this way is not to oppose faith and reason, nor to dismiss the intellectual labour theology requires. Rather, it clarifies the hierarchy of ends: understanding serves encounter, and knowledge yields to love. Theology remains rigorous and critical, but its ultimate aim is not mastery of concepts—it is the living God Himself.
In sapiential formation, the paradox is that academia is not abandoned; rather, academia becomes wholly at the service of Christian experience and spiritual life. Personal spiritual life is not dragged into the public arena inappropriately; instead, it is strengthened and supported –by offering an entire body of teaching that explains it– while what belongs to the internal forum remains in place. Spiritual and intellectual formation are unified. The study of dogma is no longer merely historical but experiential: one understands from within why the dogmas exist and how they relate to spiritual life. Why, for example, does St. Teresa of Avila affirm that what is believed in the Creed is seen (sic) in the Seventh Mansion? Why was St. Athanasius so insistent that Christ is God? How does this directly affect my spiritual life? When I pray, am I not “in the Son”, grafted in Him, “facing the Father”, “in the Holy Spirit”? The same applies to liturgy and indeed to every other aspect of faith. What is my relationship with Christ’s Mystical Body in prayer and in love of neighbour, purified as St. Teresa explains (see the incredible spiritual theology intuitions of Bl. Marie Eugene regarding the saint in the mystical body in I Want to See God)? How does the Sermon on the Mount shape my actions, giving rise to moral theology? Can I live it without grace, without the transformative intervention of the Holy Spirit? How does this occur? How does the Holy Spirit work within us to purify, transform, and make us temperate, chaste, and loving? What is contemplation? How do we live the Mass from within? etc.
This development, brought about by a renewed and expanded spiritual theology, spreads like a contagion: it penetrates and renews, refreshes and brings life to every discipline. What does faith mean for St John in his Gospel? What is Mary’s true place in Luke’s Gospel, in relation to the act of faith?
To summarise, there are two axes of utmost importance in a fully renewed seminary formation of sapiential character.
First, the different layers in each discipline in theology, in each module. If we take the Bible, the Word of God, as an example we have the following line: (1) homiletics, catechesis, and mystagogy; (2) exegesis with all its tools; (3) biblical theology; (4) biblical spiritual theology; (5) the theology of listening; (6) contemplation specific to the Word of God; (7) Lectio Divina; and (8) the Living Word of God, Jesus, who speaks to us daily. With the Integral Theology[4] the chain of communication is complete: it goes from the Living God, Jesus, the Risen Lord, who is present in our life, in liturgy and wants to talk to each one of us, to the people the priest is supposed to preach to and teach. The future priest becomes truly a complete bridge between his brothers and God. We no longer face a disconnection between the eight different elements. We can easily find these eight different layers inside of each discipline or module in theology. We need to have new habits of seeing them and moving from one to the other. Otherwise we are going back to theology as it is taught today, often disconnected from liturgy, from spiritual life, from pastoral life.
Second, the different stages of growth. When the chain of transmission and communication explained in the first axis becomes alive in the teaching and in the personal life of the seminarian, linking the seminarian to God each day, connecting his theological learning with his spiritual life, and enabling him to reach out to others in living witness, we can observe spiritual growth. Real spiritual growth thus takes place, described by the great masters of the spiritual life: this is the heart of formation, this is the pearl, this is what seminary wants to achieve. Each seminarian advances at his own rhythm, while formators ensure that all is rooted in sound human and psychological formation. Spiritual Masters tell us about different stages of growth. think of the Itinerarium of St. Bonaventura, or the Interior Castle of Teresa of Avila, or the Spiritual Canticle of St. John of the Cross. Put together in a coherent teaching on stages of growth in formation is a fundamental axis in the life in seminary. The meaning of the years in seminary derives from this growth, bringing the candidate to maturity for the priestly mission to which Christ calls him.
These two axes are the core of a wholesome Sapiential Formation.
We talked about the necessity to reform Spiritual Theology and make it more practical, pedagogical, and spread over the stages of growth. We talked about combining this Spiritual Theology with the rest of Theology in a cohesive way, forming a living line of transmission of God’s Life in us (see above, the seven layers). What happens to the rest of the modules of theology? The implications of this transformation of theological formation on other theological disciplines are immense. The transformation of spiritual theology will irrigate the rest of the modules according to the eight-layered line of communication, revealing and showing in each module the line of transmission and enabling the seminarian to discover the deep meaning and living sap hidden in seemingly dry subjects—even in canon law and history.
Here theology, all theology, is placed at the service of spiritual life, of the living Gospel. The seminarian experiences what he learns step by step and becomes a true witness to Christ. His prayer and his teaching become one. He is able to understand the real challenges of the spiritual life and to lead his brothers and sisters along the same path.
Sapiential Theology is challenging, it requires changes at many levels: academic (renewing, deepening and enlarging spiritual theology, transforming theology itself), changing the focus in formation in the seminary, developing the notion of spiritual growth, the means it needs, the discernment it involves, training formators in this deeper and renewed vision… This implies a huge investment in personnel, doctrine, methods, … In the end of the day Sapiential Theology is the remedy to what the Church is lamenting since decades: the distance in formation and in theology between the study of theology (contents, methods, aim) and spiritual life. The Church’s wish for seminarians is that they relate in-depth to what they are studying. “The theological disciplines […] should be so taught that the students will correctly draw out Catholic doctrine from divine revelation, profoundly penetrate it, make it the food of their own spiritual lives, and be enabled to proclaim, explain, and protect it in their priestly ministry.” (Vat II, OT 16) This too was the deep desire of Pope Benedict in his magisterium. He also reminded us of the existence in the past of a “Monastic Theology”[5]. Pope John Paul II used the expression “Sapiential Theology”[6].
3- The First Step in The Implementation of Sapiential Formation
The Place of Lectio in Theology
The slow progression, difficult and full of pitfalls, of the Word and of its place in theology in the twentieth century is a unique phenomenon. It had to pierce through the hard shell of the Thomist and Neo-Thomist method; it had to emerge, grow, and finally be enthroned in theology. This is a fundamental and undeniable achievement of the Nouvelle Théologie, a sublime victory of which we are only beginning to grasp the extent!
Thus, was born Lectio Divina, a spontaneous yet profoundly fundamental fruit! The primacy of the Word in the liturgy is enthroned, crowned, defined, as one would define a dogma (the lectionary is renewed, filled with Scripture, and each sacrament is accompanied by a liturgy of the Word). The primacy of the Word in theology became an indisputable reality – it is its very soul (taken up by Vatican II). Likewise, the primacy of the Word in our spiritual life (the Council’s recommendation: to place it at the centre).
Where does all this come from? From the discovery of the Fathers of the Church in the XXth century, from what they say, from observing their way of acting (they comment on Scripture, preach it in season and out of season, explain it). But the question should have been asked: their experience of the Word, how can it become our experience? How can we imitate them? What is their method?
The primacy of the Word in theology and the growing weight of exegesis (that is to say, the letter, the historical-critical analysis) were such that, due to the combination of these two movements, we ended up “drowning”. On the one hand – and this is positive – we see emerging as a fundamental truth that imposes itself: the primacy of the Word (let us note that it is a question of Word and not of Scripture). And on the other, with the excessive pressure coming from the sciences of exegesis – and this excess is negative – from their method, we found ourselves led to the Letter of the text, which ended up suffocating us through excessive analysis and often through the lack of unanimity among exegetes, each excelling in his own method!
The sequence of events has been: 1 – We are led to place the Word above all in theology. 2 – The Word leads us to the Bible. 3 – And exegetical sciences and analysis immerse us in the letter to the point of “drowning”.
As we drown, we look from afar, in wonder, at the Fathers of the Church and the treasures they draw from Scripture (the different spiritual senses of Scripture), unable to get out of the water. We sink through lack of method.
The supremacy of the Word in Theology is an achievement (some even go so far as to want to show that this was always the case in Saint Thomas Aquinas himself). But to gain personal access to the Word remains problematic even today: how to do so?
Lectio Divina emerges as a real phenomenon – of personal religious practice, of prayer – but outside theological practice. Lectio has never been correctly explained, and this remains the case today! Who has explained what thecontemplation proper to Lectio Divina consists of? Admittedly, action was eventually added, and though this was wise, it only served to break apart Lectio Divina (contemplation and the ascent of the ladder (read, meditate, pray) climb upwards, action in turn takes something from this contemplation and leads it downwards!).
This is a fact till today: the two movements do not meet: a- the supremacy of the Word and b- the practice of Lectio. They do not meet within the very activity of Theology. Lectio is perceived only as an outsider, as a reality belonging to piety, but having little or nothing theological about it! That is to say, it is seen as a method that is not necessarily theological but rather pious and personal. Yet Lectio is the theological method par excellence! In this sense, the subject I gave for the seminary: “Lectio Divina and Theology”[7], lies at the heart of renewal, or rather of the method of the Fathers who stand at the heart of the Nouvelle Théologie. This is what the Nouvelle Théologie should have done, that is, to extract the very method of the Fathers. And this method is quite simply, first and foremost, personal Lectio Divina, the heart of the Gospel: listen to Jesus’ Word and put it into practice.
The form of contemplation proper to Lectio—distinct from that of Contemplative Prayer—must be clearly articulated. This theological development, together with the correct practice of Lectio, is imperative. It constitutes the primary step in reforming seminary formation, a step on which everything else depends[8].
The slow but necessary reform of theology lies in taking the still-missing step: practising Lectio Divina as the Fathers of the Church once did. If we consider the following modules of Theology: Revelation, Dogma, Sacraments, Bible, Liturgy, Moral Theology, Canon Law, and we see them as the seven branches of the candelabra (see OT and book of Revelation), “Bible” is in the middle. The image is pertinent because truly the central branch, i.e. Bible, is also the trunk and supports the whole Candelabra.
[1] See here: https://schoolofmary.org/renewing-spiritual-theology-principles-and-practice/
[2] See: https://schoolofmary.org/integral-theology/
[3] See Pope Benedict’ Catechesis here: https://schoolofmary.org/monastic-theology-and-scholastic-theology/
[4] See here: https://schoolofmary.org/integral-theology/
[5] See Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience, Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
[6] See here: https://schoolofmary.org/sapiential-theology/
[7] See Chapter IV of this first part.
[8] Lectio Divina and Theology will be developed in further chapters.