Is the sunday obligation also applied to the sspx or other tridentine mass places. I ve heard that in this crisis period there is no obligation to go to mass on any sort only to sactify the sunday with prayer or spiritual reading and abstaining from servile and unnecessary labour, is this true?

Is the sunday obligation also applied to the sspx or other tridentine mass places. I ve heard that in this crisis period there is no obligation to go to mass on any sort only to sactify the sunday with prayer or spiritual reading and abstaining from servile and unnecessary labour, is this true?

The Third Commandment is to "keep the Lord's Day holy", but it is the first Precept of the Church "to hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation".

Crisis or no crisis, to miss Mass on Sunday without a very good reason is a mortal sin.   

I want to add that going to the new "mass" does not fulfill our Sunday Obligation as it is contrary to the First Commandment.  

 

Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol II, Ch. 40):

Unfortunately, the Archbishop's statement was not as clearly worded as it might have been on the matter. One passage in particular gave some readers the impression that the Archbishop had stated that a Catholic could never fulfil his Sunday obligation by assisting at the New Mass. Among those who had received this impression from the statement was Cardinal Seper, who mentioned the anxiety it had caused him during an interview he granted me at Easter 1980. I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows:

Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass.

There were very few people in the early years, even decades of the revolution who clearly understood that the new "mass" was evil because of what it is. As it stands, after +50 years of it, most people still refuse to accept this reality.

Unfortunately, most people, although knowing it was evil, believed they were mistaken and that it was in some way acceptable and simply could not be evil because of who perpetrated it, namely, the pope and the Council V2. But make no mistake, after +50 years of devastation largely caused by the new "mass", there can be no denying what I said.

It is because of what it is and not who perpetrated it, that I stand by what I said, that going to the new "mass" does not fulfill our Sunday Obligation as it is contrary to the First Commandment.

Nonsense revisionism: 
ABL led the committee which produced the Critical Study in 1969 (i.e., 11 years before he said those who feel compelled to attend it can satisfy their Sunday obligation by doing so), and therefore had already had over a decade of experiencing the poisoned fruits of the NOM.
Those who argue that NOM Mass aattendance is intrinsically evil in the moral sense (rather than in the scholastic/philosophical sense) will have a difficult time explaining how Archbishop Lefebvre could (allegedly) hold two mutually exclusive propositions simultaneously:
Those who attend the NOM commit an intrinsically evil moral act (and therefore do not satisfy the Sunday obligation).
vs
Those who feel compelled to attend the NOM can satisfy the Sunday obligation.
This latter position of ABL was never retracted, and the SSPX continued to sell books containing this position uninteruptedly from ABL's time until the present day.

I've heard the saying that someone could be "more Catholic than the Pope," but I guess you are showing that some can also be "more traditional than Lefebvre."

Nonsense revisionism:
ABL led the committee which produced the Critical Study in 1969 (i.e., 11 years before he said those who feel compelled to attend it can satisfy their Sunday obligation by doing so), and therefore had already had over a decade of experiencing the poisoned fruits of the NOM.
Those who argue that NOM Mass aattendance is intrinsically evil in the moral sense (rather than in the scholastic/philosophical sense) will have a difficult time explaining how Archbishop Lefebvre could (allegedly) hold two mutually exclusive propositions simultaneously:
Those who attend the NOM commit an intrinsically evil moral act (and therefore do not satisfy the Sunday obligation).
vs
Those who feel compelled to attend the NOM can satisfy the Sunday obligation.
This latter position of ABL was never retracted, and the SSPX continued to sell books containing this position uninteruptedly from ABL's time until the present day.

I've heard the saying that someone could be "more Catholic than the Pope," but I guess you are showing that some can also be "more traditional than Lefebvre."

This ^^ is a perfect example of what I said.

Although personally, I believe +ABL is likely a saint, +ABL signed off on the changes at V2, he then later retracted his signature. Such was the confusion and chaos in the early years of the revolution.

+ABL himself was among those who seemed to only understand clearly that the new "mass" did not satisfy his own obligation. He did not say it, he avoided it, he did not train his priests in it, he in fact fought vehemently against it, yet he says it satisfies the obligation - where is the sense in this? Honest question.  I believe he said so because of who perpetrated it, certainly not for what it is. 

In seeing the devastation it has caused to the faith of billions and still causes, if a trad can still believe it sanctifies and not destroy faith, then they have a serious issue going on. Trads, seeing what it has done to the multitudes since it's perpetration, should be afraid to set foot in it for fear of losing their faith, as has been the case of the many who have gone and still go there. Use the many as the genuine example of why it does not and can never satisfy the obligation. That's really all there is to it.



 

This ^^ is a perfect example of what I said.

Although personally, I believe +ABL is likely a saint, +ABL signed off on the changes at V2, he then later retracted his signature. Such was the confusion and chaos in the early years of the revolution.

+ABL himself was among those who seemed to only understand clearly that the new "mass" did not satisfy his own obligation. He did not say it, he avoided it, he did not train his priests in it, he in fact fought vehemently against it, yet he says it satisfies the obligation - where is the sense in this? Honest question.  I believe he said so because of who perpetrated it, certainly not for what it is.  

In seeing the devastation it has caused to the faith of billions and still causes, if a trad can still believe it sanctifies and not destroy faith, then they have a serious issue going on. Trads, seeing what it has done to the multitudes since it's perpetration, should be afraid to set foot in it for fear of losing their faith, as has been the case of the many who have gone and still go there. Use the many as the genuine example of why it does not and can never satisfy the obligation. That's really all there is to it.



 

This rejection of Lefebvre is refreshing candor, but I can assure you that the confusion is yours, not Lefebvre's.
The sense in it is here: 
When he is referring to intrinsic evil, he is describing it philosophically/Scholastically, not morally.
That realization removes the apparent contradiction you (erroneously) think to perceive.
The proof of it is that ABL says one can satisfy their obligation, which could not be possible of NOM attendance were an intrinsically evil moral act.
But you don't want to allow that, you you create a new narrative in which ABL wavers and contradicts himself.
Better than allowing one in extreme necessity, or scrupulous, to attend the NOM (you think)!!
There is no doubt that ABL's position in the matter hardened in later years, but he never changed his theology, and he never excluded those in necessity from the NOM.

This rejection of Lefebvre is refreshing candor, but I can assure you that the confusion is yours, not Lefebvre's.
The sense in it is here:
When he is referring to intrinsic evil, he is describing it philosophically/Scholastically, not morally.
That realization removes the apparent contradiction you (erroneously) think to perceive.
The proof of it is that ABL says one can satisfy their obligation, which could not be possible of NOM attendance were an intrinsically evil moral act.
But you don't want to allow that, you you create a new narrative in which ABL wavers and contradicts himself.
Better than allowing one in extreme necessity, or scrupulous, to attend the NOM (you think)!!
There is no doubt that ABL's position in the matter hardened in later years, but he never changed his theology, and he never excluded those in necessity from the NOM.

Intrinsic or extrinsic what's the difference? - either way it apes the True Mass and as such, is evil in and of itself. All anyone needs to do is compare it to that which it replaced, indeed, that is the only thing it can be compared to.

As I said, your previous post served as a good example of what the perception of the evil thing is, always based on who perpetrated it, rather than what it actually is and does to those who go there. I don't expect an answer, but think about why +ABL himself never said it and fought against it - even got himself excommunicated indirectly on account of him not saying it and his condemnation of it.

Do you not see, even after all this time, the devastation to the faith it has caused to the many who go there? Do you think going there will help you when it has proven to destroy the faith of the many who go there? Always best to learn by others mistakes - no?

You said above: Better than allowing one in extreme necessity, or scrupulous, to attend the NOM (you think)!!
I lived through that necessity and witnessed many families in extreme necessity who never allowed themselves to go there - to these, God gave the True Mass in His own good time. They never compromised and it was largely due to them that +ABL came out of retirement and got involved in the capacity that he did.

You want the True Mass? Then show God where your heart lies by not compromising, ever, and if need be, He will send a priest to your front door. That's the way it worked in the early days of the revolution, that's the way God works. Don't be among the many who go there and have lost the faith, stay true to the faith and you'll never go there, not even for funerals and weddings - because of what it is.

 

Everything: The former allows of no exceptions (if we are speaking of intrinsic evil in the moral sense, but of course, we really are not), while the latter does.
But obviously, if you can attend the NOM passively, we are not speaking of intrinsic evil in the moral sense.
Could you attend an abortion passively?  No.
Why?  Because it is intrinsically evil in the moral sense.

Ok, then it is intrinsically evil because it was invented with the purpose to destroy the faith and Church (if that were possible). We know without any doubt whatsoever that it has all *but* destroyed the faith of nearly all who go there, and while it has severely injured the Church itself, the Church has not been destroyed because of what the Church is - yet many trads do not even know where to find the Church any more, thinking it has been destroyed - thanks mainly to the new "mass". I do not choose to be one of them, certainly not for a funeral or wedding.

I went to a NO funeral once about 20 years ago for a work acquaintance, and while I can't say if there was ever a more blasphemous mockery of the True Mass, but the one I went to had to be in the top 10. All who went to it not only saw nothing wrong, they all thought is was a beautiful service! And yes, I confessed doing that and swore off the evil thing forever no matter what after that.

Finally, God does not want those who think they can get away with waving both flags - those people He refers to as being "lukewarm" - you can read Apoc 3:16 to see the fate that awaits the lukewarm. I personally, do not choose to be one of them.