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 offereed 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
1.

AUGUST 1, 2013

Fr.Chad Ripperger and FSSP priests not permitted by the Vatican to affirm the traditional teaching on salvation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/08/frchad-ripperger-rip-on-truth-of.html
https://sentrad.org/

2.
“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
https://onepeterfive.com/magisterialism-and-the-church-of-now/


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.



Gospel Reading yesterday (Friday ) affirms outside the Church there is no salvation : all need the Eucharist for salvation. In today's Reading the disciples reject this teaching as the Church does so today (2018)

Gospel
JN 6:52-59

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying,
"How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?" 
Jesus said to them,
"Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood,
you do not have life within you. 
Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood
has eternal life,
and I will raise him on the last day.
For my Flesh is true food,
and my Blood is true drink. 
Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood
remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me
and I have life because of the Father,
so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 
This is the bread that came down from heaven. 
Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died,
whoever eats this bread will live forever." 
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.






Gospel
JN 6:60-69




Many of the disciples of Jesus who were listening said,
"This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this,he said to them, "Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.
The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe."
Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."

As a result of this,many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer walked with him.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

Bishop Bernard Fellay is not affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the Social Reign of Christ the King due to worldly prudence.SSPX priests in Italy have to follow 'the official policy'

Bishop Bernard Fellay is not affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the Social Reign of Christ the King due to worldly prudence, just as he had to abandon Bishop Richard Williamson since the Left was opposing him.
So the priests of the Society of St.Pius X, Italy are not allowed to say something simple like, "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".
So for the Italian priests here, like those who offer the Novus Ordo Mass, this is a sensitive issue. So they will not 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".
For over 40 years the SSPX at Albano, Italy have been interpreting Vatican Council II wrongly. They could not state  " LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases in 2018".They  are following 'the official policy' on Vatican Council II,  set by Bishop Bernard Fellay.
For over 40 years they have not been aware that Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.BOD, BOB and I.I refer to unknown people.So they were never relevant to EENS as exceptions.This remains  an error, upon which the SSPX,  New Theology is based.
SSPX publications in Italy criticize Nostra Aetate 2, 'a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men' since the SSPX priests assume that NA 2 refers to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.So NA 2 would be at odds with the old exclusivist ecclesiolgy of the Church for them. To criticize Nostra Aetate and interpret it as a rupture with Tradition is 'official policy', which they have to follow.There is a choice. But they cannot oppose official policy even if it is irrational, non traditional and innovative.
The SSPX Albano criticized Pope John Paul II during his canonization,since Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition for them.This was the official policy the Italian priests had to follow, even if they knew 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".
They are not aware that there can be two ways to look at the EENS issue 1) theologically and 2) practically.
Theologically they can say that all need faith and baptism for salvation; all need the baptism of water for Justification and Salvation and, in real life, practically,there are no objective exceptions to EENS for us human beings.-Lionel Andrades

So for every one who is a part of this confusion, it is important for the SBC to clarify that the baptism of water is always needed for justification and salvation (John 3:5, Mark 16:16 etc) and there are no practical exceptions to EENS for us in 2018.

The St.Beneduct Centers (SBC) theologically say the baptism of desire is necessary for Justification and Salvation while the Society of St. Pius X would add that the baptism of water is not always needed for salvation and there are exceptions of being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), the baptism of desire(BOD) and the baptism of blood(BOB).A person can be saved with BOD,BOB and I.I and without the baptism of water is their position.
So for me the SBC says that the baptism of water is needed for all for salvation and there are no known exceptions of the BOD, BOB and I.I.For the SSPX since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS, these are references to objective and known people saved outside the Church.Invisible and unknown people cannot be exceptions to EENS.
For the SBC since BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS they imply that these are references  to unknown people.
Common sense tells us that there are no personally known cases of people saved, with the BOD, BOB and I.I, with or without the baptism of water, in 2018.
So for every one who is a part of this confusion, it is important for the SBC to clarify that the baptism of water is always needed for justification and salvation (John 3:5, Mark 16:16 etc) and there are no practical exceptions to EENS for us in 2018.There were also no physically viisible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I in the past too.-
Lionel Andrades


April 20, 2018
SBC and SSPX must clarify 1) they do not know of any physically visible case of the BOD, BOB and I.I in 2018 and 2) theologically they reject BOD,BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS based on non existing people
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/sbc-and-sspx-must-clarify-1-they-do-not.html


April 19, 2018
The St.Benedict Centers condone Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise and do not affirm Vatican Council II without the irrationality: liberal bishop considers this 'as authentically taught and defined by the Church's teaching magisterium'
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/the-stbenedict-centers-condone-vatican.html

Friday, April 20, 2018

MARCIA PER LA VITA PALERMO 2018: LE FAMIGLIE













Il più importante evento pro-life dell'anno sta arrivando...










Rome Yanks Largest Pro-Life Poster in Its History

Rome Yanks Largest Pro-Life Poster in Its History

"Rome Will Lose The Faith and Become the Seat of Anti-Christ"
www.churchmilitant.com/…/rome-yanks-larg…
Mayor claims pro-life display violates 'civil rights'
Roman authorities have removedfrom a busy street near the Vatican the www.affaritaliani.it pro-life poster in the history of Italian pro-life activism. The huge poster, spanning three stories, features the image of an 11-week-old unborn child, and was part of a chain of demonstrations promoted by pro-life group ProVita Onlus to recall 40 years of legal abortion in Italy. The poster, which had been legally granted a permit to be posted from April 3–15, was taken down by Mayor Virginia Raggi after a mere three days.
www.churchmilitant.com/…/rome-yanks-larg…

https://gloria.tv/article/HqZBLHKk8kM23nrtCjK2RyBUz