Anyone know anything about the FSSP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MattBalkus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a note that Fr. Ripperger is no longer an FSSP priest and now leads an order of exorcists.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Cardinal Arinze has his opinions. (It is good form to link to the text of these statements when presenting them)
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point @MattBalkus is trying to make.

Cardinal Arinze was referring to the fact that there is no valid reason for Catholic Churches with kneelers to remove the kneelers. When removing kneelers (instead of replacing them) you send the message that kneeling is optional. Many people who kneel with a kneeler will not kneel on the floor.

The good Cardinal mentioned this as part of a Q&A in the United States several years ago, it was a question asked of him by a Lay person. The Q&A was tapped and can be found on YouTube. If I find it again, I will post.

God Bless
 
JHFamily said:
40.png
nunsuch:
but it is not “better” or “higher” in the mind of the Church.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that to mention the hierarchy of Masses is now considered heresy in light of the fact that this was once considered the norm, taught, and encouraged.

Before the Novus Ordo, the Church freely taught there was a hierarchy: the Solemn High Mass, High Mass or Missa Cantata, and Low Mass. In addition, not only was it taught, but people were encouraged to choose the highest Mass that was available to them. Why?

The higher the Mass, the more efficacious and a source of more potential graces. Does six candles or two candles give more glory to God? Six, of course, even though the two gives glory. Does the Gregorian chant propers or spoken propers give more glory to God? The chanted, of course, even though the spoken gives glory. And so on and so forth…

Saint Piux X was deeply concerned about the “Low Mass culture” and was instrumental in making sure the seminaries had choirs and spent sufficient time in teaching chant. It gave a little bump to the attendance at High Masses for a while, then it slumped. So, in the 50’s, it was permitted that the Ordinary could be chanted at Low Masses. But here’s the kicker. It was done in hopes that it would encouraged people to come back to the High Mass. Boy, that really backfired.

So, my point here, is that while the Church teaches that all Masses are equal in validity and licity, it has never taught an equality in potential efficacy. The silence on this point over the last 60 years has given the wrong impression.
Click to expand...
I partly agree with this post. However, I would word it like this.

A more solemn OF Mass would potentially have more efficacy than a less solemn OF Mass.

Just like a High EF Mass would potentially have more efficacy than a Low EF Mass.

However, I would not compare and contrast OF Mass vs EF Mass in this way.

Even though both the OF and EF are both forms of the same Roman Rite, it’s best to treat them as different Liturgies. For example: it would not be proper to say the Extraordinarily Form of the Roman Rite is better than one of the Eastern Rites.

God Bless.
 
But who gets to decide when “popes were in error”? Who gets to determine which popes “safeguard the truth”? An anonymous internet post-er? A random writer who in turn differs from 90+% of Catholic theologians? Of course we are not obliged to agree with everything a pope says. But that is why it is important to differentiate not only between infallible teachings and others (although we ARE expected to assent to the ORDINARY Magisterium, right?), but also between fact and opinion. Someone can find the Tridentine Mass more nurturing to THEM. Fine. Well and good. But to say it is categorically “better” is not a Catholic teaching.
 
Lol - you talk as if tradition doesn’t always prevail. I’m sorry if I offended you. Modernism is poison. It’s ruining the Church. That’s all I’m saying.
 
The best thing is to go on a retreat with the order; see what they are about and what their charisms are
 
And that IS an opinion, not a fact (apart from the fact that “modernism” is a term you have not defined–except as, apparently, stuff you disapprove of). Byeeeeee.
 
The statistics that show that the Catholic involvement and population overall has decreased since these new modernist, more Protestant versions of Catholicism came about after Vatican II, and ever since the introduction of the New Mass, are indeed facts. I’ve remained respectful to you this entire time and have presented you with facts. I’m not sure why you’re trying to offend me.
 
Last edited:
JHFamily said:
Does six candles or two candles give more glory to God? Six, of course, e
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Candles don’t glorify God, they’re inanimate objects.

The human heart glorifies God, not candles or incense or pomp.
 
nunsuch said:
To put this another way, you may regard yourself confidently as “more Catholic than the Pope,” but I do not have that overweening confidence. And now I will withdraw from a discourse that clearly is going nowhere.
Click to expand...
Thank you and God bless you for your insights.
 
ChristMyLife,’

Please give us a break.

How is giving someone the benefit of the doubt being arrogant? Please, if we followed your view on things then no one would become a Catholic, since one would be following their own personal tastes rather than conforming themselves to the objective reality.

This is the whole problem of the poison of modernism which reduces the Church to nice ‘inner feelings’ and ‘personal experience’, rather than the objective truth. It is we who have to conform and submit ourselves to the faith and the liturgy of the Church and not the other way around. And, that is what people of good will do, they submit themselves to God and not expect God and His laws to conform to them.
 
Catholic Answers is extremely fortunate to have Nunsuch, an academic and a scholar, posting.

My compliments to you, @Nunsuch.
 
nunsuch said:
But who gets to decide when “popes were in error”? Who gets to determine which popes “safeguard the truth”? An anonymous internet post-er? A random writer who in turn differs from 90+% of Catholic theologians? Of course we are not obliged to agree with everything a pope says. But that is why it is important to differentiate not only between infallible teachings and others (although we ARE expected to assent to the ORDINARY Magisterium, right?),
Click to expand...
You are right to reaffirm the Ordinary Magisterium, neglected by some Traditionalists today. Hopefully the FSSP supports this as well, and it is noted Fr. Ripperger is not in this community now.
However as a Catholic who accepts what Pope Francis teaches in the Ordinary Magisterium, it is fair to point there were many important unpopular truths reaffirmed by the two prior popes, still relevant now, that are shamefully neglected now.
 
Last edited:
Niether ecclesiology can account for the unfortunate misbehavior of clergy before and after the second counsel. That has to be addressed hopefully by the Catholic Church, if not heaven help us all when the government continues to step in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top