Author Topic: Just met a second fssp priest. (Read 4851 times)

Nadir · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2017, 09:26:12 PM »

The point is that some priests of the FSSP serve in non-FSSP parishes, and so have to fullfil the requirements of the newchurch parishes and newchurch bishops, even if they are on the conservative side. They also acknowledge the Novus Ordo as valid, in fact calling it the "ordinary" rite, as opposed to the "extraordinary" rite. And that these are one and the same Mass. Therefore their "Ordinary Rite" is a preferred option for which they are trained. That does not mean that they do not learn to say the Novus Ordo. If you read the link I posted and opened the links at the bottom of that page you might understand the compromised situation they are in.

Arsenius · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2017, 09:53:56 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

The point is that some priests of the FSSP serve in non-FSSP parishes, and so have to fullfil the requirements of the newchurch parishes and newchurch bishops, even if they are on the conservative side. They also acknowledge the Novus Ordo as valid, in fact calling it the "ordinary" rite, as opposed to the "extraordinary" rite. And that these are one and the same Mass. Therefore their "Ordinary Rite" is a preferred option for which they are trained. That does not mean that they do not learn to say the Novus Ordo. If you read the link I posted and opened the links at the bottom of that page you might understand the compromised situation they are in.

No need. I've attended FSSP masses in multiple states for almost 10 years now. The use of the terms "ordinary" and "extraordinary" are complex and usually misunderstood. Ordinary really just means that it is the "rite" being used by the ordinary (i.e., the bishop). Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has written various articles/essays about the misuse of this terminology on both sides of the liturgical line. The SSPX and the Resistance priests also recognize the Novus Ordo as being valid. Fr. Ripperger, while no longer with the FSSP, has published extensively on the objective superiority of the pre-Vatican 2 mass based on sound Thomistic philosophy. I've certainly never heard a FSSP priest say that the Novus Ordo and the 1962 are one and the same mass - if they truly believed that, there are far more lucrative positions available in the Conciliar Establishment. As for FSSP priests functioning within Novus Ordo parishes - I've personally attended the 1962 at such parishes before. In the case which I observed, the FSSP set up a totally separate chapel and functioned as a totally separate community temporarily borrowing space from the Novus Ordo parish. Absolutely no commingling of anything other than office space. That doesn't preclude the existence of other places where the sanctuary is indeed shared; that setup, however, certainly isn't the rule of thumb - neither is it traditionally unprecedented for that matter- think of the Holy Sepulchre which is shared with various schismatic Orthodox sects.

The TIA article is 5 years old. Things change.

Arsenius · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2017, 10:03:19 PM »

Also regarding the TIA article: It's basically just hearsay and published anonymously. Where are the pictures and supporting evidence? None of it sounds impossible, but you need to have evidence to back up these claims.

songbird · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2017, 04:39:21 PM »

Say it like it is: There is no ordination, that is no consecration, that is no sacraments/no Precious Blood. What do you have, nothing.

So,why do you bother?

josefamenendez · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2017, 05:55:38 PM »

I didn't think it is the priest's ordination directly that is the issue, but the consecration of the Bishop doing the ordination that is the problem. If the Bishop was consecrated prior to 1968 ( even Novus Ordo 1968) it was a valid consecration and not a Vll "installation" as the consecration for bishop was changed to the point of nullity at that time.
I know this is not news here at CI, but point being there may be (rare) valid priests left in the NO and FSSP that were consecrated by a (old) valid Bishop. Doesn't validate the NO Mass however, but I wonder about the FSSP.
I knew an FSSP priest that was ordained by JPll- a modernist Pope, but a Bishop prior to 1968. I suspect he is validly ordained. Few and far between, however, and getting thinner by the year.