Saturday, April 21, 2018

Fr.Chad Ripperger and FSSP priests still not permitted by the Vatican to affirm the traditional teaching on salvation : positivism towards magisterialism

There is a website, 'dedicated to the defense of the orthodox Catholic faith '  with homilies of Fr.Chad Ripperger and no where has he spoken about the salvation dogma with reference to Vatican Council II. I mentioned this in a blog post  on August 1,20131

How  can he? 

In public through silence in his new religious community and diocese, he holds the same position as those who deny the dogma.It is the same with the FSSP. They interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. 

This is also Fr.Ripperger's positivism towards Magisterialism 2.
The Binding Force of Tradition
The FSSP priests who offer the Tridentine Rite Mass in Rome have the same position on other religions as do the New Catehecumenal Way , the Charismatic Renewal and the Jesuits.

They study peacefully and with compromised doctrines at the Pontifical Universities in Rome.
I cannot think of any priest who offers the Tridentine Latin Rite Mass in Rome being different. Not a single one.
Fr.Ripperger has to protect his interests. So do the FSSP and other priests here. So how can he state that Vatican Council II supports the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney? How can he say in public that "There are no physically visible cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I in Italy in 2018" or " LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases in 2018"
He is not affirming the official teaching of the Catholic Church which says all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' (AG 7)  and with no known exceptions (LG 16,LG 8 not being known exceptions), This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church according to magisterial documents which he does not affirm while offering Holy Mass or doing excorisms or giving talks on the Catholic Faith.
The Vatican is not permitting the FSSP priests to affirm the traditional teaching on salvation. It is being denied by Fr.Kramer , the FSSP Rector  in Rome,It was also denied by the late Mons. Ignacio Barreiro who offered the Traditional Latin Mass mostly and sometimes participated at a solemn Mass in Italian.
Catholics do not know their Faith and the FSSP priests like those who offer Mass in the vernacular are not going to teach them it and risk their position and interests.
The FSSP priests would not be willing to provide their telephone number  or an e-mail address  for a   pamphlet using traditional Church-texts , after Vatican Council II , on the subject of exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.This has been my experience with them.
The priests who offer the Traditional Latin Rite Mass in Rome are using the same apologetics  as the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass. On the issue of salvation and other religions there is no difference.
Five years have passed and on Fr. Chad Ripperger's websites and books he does not touch the important subject of Vatican Council II being in line with the exclusive ecclesiology of the past and the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return.-Lionel Andrades

AUGUST 1, 2013

Fr.Chad Ripperger and FSSP priests not permitted by the Vatican to affirm the traditional teaching on salvation

“Magisterialism is a fixation on the teachings that pertain only to the current Magisterium. Since extrinsic tradition has been subverted and since the Vatican tends to promulgate documents exhibiting a lack of concern regarding some previous magisterial acts, many have begun ignoring the previous magisterial acts and now listen only to the current Magisterium.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives.
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings…are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles.
“As the positivism and magisterialism grew and the extrinsic tradition no longer remained a norm for judging what should and should not be done, neoconservatives accepted the notion that the Church must adapt to the modern world. Thus rather than helping the modern world to adapt to the teachings of the Church, the reverse process has occurred. This has led to an excessive concern with holding politically correct positions on secular matters. Rather than having a certain distrust of the world – which Christ exhorts us to have – many priests will teach something from the pulpit only as long as it is not going to cause problems…”-Fr.Chad Ripperger, Blog 1Peter5

Fr. Chad Ripperger

Professor Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph.D. is a Theologian, Thomistic Psychologist, Philosopher, and Author. Fr. Ripperger has served as professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology and Philosophy at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska. Father Ripperger was ordained in 1997. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy and a master's degree in theology from Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut. He currently works in the Diocese of Tulsa.

No comments: