Not sure your source agrees with you. "charismatic gift, practical experience, and personal guidance"
Why are you so fervent to diminish the role of the charismatic gift and these other methods in favor of academics?
Why not read the source
for the source for yourself and eliminate any bias introduced by the article that I cited earlier:
Fliche, A., and V. Martin, eds. Histoire de l'Eglise, vols. 1-4. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1934-37. The first two volumes have been translated by E.C. Messenger and published as J. Lebreton and J. Zeiller, The History of the Primitive Church, 4 vols, London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 19421948; and the third as J.R. Palanque (etc.), The Church on the Christian Roman Empire, 2 vols., 1949 1952.
I thought you may know something new that would have changed the conventional thinking. As your sources are over 60 years old and out of print, I am confident the convential wisdom still stands.
Did we really answer the OP's question or create more confusion for him?
That is that seminaries only came into wide use during the counter-reformation to correct the abuses found in the Roman Catholic Church. The first Orthodox seminaries coming into use from Roman Catholic influence. These were first found in Serbia and Kiev and taught in Latin.
You claim that Seminaries are 450 years old, give or take, and have a basis in Latin Scholasticism which is around 900 years old, give or take?
The purpose of this thread is to debunk Western Scholasticism as the source of modern Orthodox Seminaries. Dart
claims that Seminaries were created in Serbia and Kiev, which taught in Latin, as a byproduct of Roman Catholic influence.