Author Topic: Sunday Obligation (Read 4072 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2019, 01:15:58 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on September 29, 2019, 12:11:34 PM

You are making stuff up:
Lefebvre said that nobody could be compelled to attend the NOM, but he also said that those who did could fulfill their Sunday obligation by doing so.

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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2019, 02:18:59 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on September 29, 2019, 01:15:58 PM

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."

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #7 on:** September 29, 2019, 02:21:28 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on September 29, 2019, 02:18:59 PM

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."

Agreed. How can those who attend the Novus Ordo commit an intrinsically evil act, yet satisfy the Sunday obligation (i.e., Obviously, one does not satisfy the precept by committing an evil act). Therefore, I agree with Lefebvre: You should not attend the Novus Ordo, but those who do do satisfy the obligation.

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** September 29, 2019, 02:59:46 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on September 29, 2019, 02:18:59 PM

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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #9 on:** September 29, 2019, 03:30:35 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on September 29, 2019, 02:21:28 PM

Agreed. How can those who attend the Novus Ordo commit an intrinsically evil act, yet satisfy the Sunday obligation (i.e., Obviously, one does not satisfy the precept by committing an evil act). Therefore, I agree with Lefebvre: You should not attend the Novus Ordo, but those who do do satisfy the obligation.

It is not a given that the Novus Ordo is "intrinsically evil". Intrinsically evil would include sodomy, abortion, willful murder of the innocent, etc. which is to say: actions which are evil in themselves and must be avoided in every case and for every person and situation.

"dysfunctional", "poor quality", "inadequate", "defective", "dangerous", "shoddy" do not equal INTRINSICALLY EVIL -- not even all taken together!

I would say "Trads who understand there is a Crisis in the Church" must avoid the Novus Ordo 100% of the time -- but note that even then, there is an exception: passive attendance for social obligations, like weddings and funerals. Could you imagine a scenario where it would be morally permissible to help out during an abortion procedure? No.

But not everyone is Trad. Not everyone has been given the brains and God's grace to see the Crisis and embrace the BEST PATH to deal with it (i.e., Tradition). Some people are ignorant and/or stupid. Do simpletons and the ignorant meet their obligation by attending the Novus Ordo? Do they commit (on their part) an intrinsically evil act by attending the what is called (and they believe to be) the "ordinary form" of the Mass?

Should 100% of converts confess how many times they attended the Novus Ordo, as so many mortal sins, upon joining Tradition? In my experience this isn't preached, or done, by most Trad groups.

An apple with a single bruise in it is technically "evil", because "evil" is the privation of any good. In that respect we are all evil, since we all have flaws and have offended God at some point.
Matthew

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Sunday Obligation (Read 4072 times)

Stubborn

Re: Sunday Obligation

Änσnymσus

Re: Sunday Obligation

Änσnymσus

Re: Sunday Obligation

Stubborn

Re: Sunday Obligation

Änσnymσus

Re: Sunday Obligation