Author Topic: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX  (Read 4381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18936
  • Reputation: +10421/-4931
  • Gender: Male
If you are not a sedevacantist, then it is perfectly within the power of the Pope and Bishops (with his permission) to eliminate or move days of obligation.  He's only being consistent.  Whether you like it or not, this is just fact.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23120
  • Reputation: +20276/-246
  • Gender: Male
If you are not a sedevacantist, then it is perfectly within the power of the Pope and Bishops (with his permission) to eliminate or move days of obligation.  He's only being consistent.  Whether you like it or not, this is just fact.

Being sedevacantist (or not) is a different matter.

Once you look at everything through the lens of "well, this is the Church, and they have the power of the keys..." the whole Traditional Movement collapses. The whole "resist" portion of "recognize and resist" collapses. 

Tradition has always been about "pretending that Vatican II was just a bad dream" and crafting lifeboats, makeshift churches, in which we stick to the ENTIRE PACKAGE of what used to be Catholicism: all the old standards of morality, disciplines, liturgy, and spiritual practices. Heck, we still use the 1962 calendar (or earlier) as well as an outdated (1962 or earlier) Missale. We area also decades behind in terms of priestly formation (no TV, no modern philosophers, teaching Theology in Latin, no psychology course, no Freud, no sensitivity training, teaching seminarians animosity towards the Modern World, etc.)

Where does this neo-SSPX line of reasoning end? They're starting from "recognize" and pretty soon there won't be any "resist" left, because the official Church, with the power of the Keys has instituted the New Mass, etc. so how can they oppose it any longer? Where do they draw the line and say, "We are Trad, we aren't going there." Today it's 2 miles away, tomorrow it's 1 mile away, and next year it will be just 100 feet away. Before long they'll be OK with the Novus Ordo Mass, merely "preferring" the Latin Mass (which is what they will soon start to call the Tridentine Mass).

It's a bunch of crap. The whole argument: namely, just because we fail to depose the Pope (or declare him deposed) we must go along with the destructive insanity.

Traditional Catholics have not acted this way up till now.
Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


Offline noOneImportant

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Reputation: +138/-168
  • Gender: Male
You are missing the point entirely. We "resist" by going to mass on the Thursday anyway. Doesn't change the fact that we don't have an obligation to under conscience.

Offline Last Tradhican

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3232
  • Reputation: +1751/-993
  • Gender: Male
We "resist" by going to mass on the Thursday anyway. Doesn't change the fact that we don't have an obligation to under conscience.
You speak for yourself. I see it differently. We DO have an obligation under conscience, and to me, the fact that the USCCB changed the law is just further proof that they are part of a counterfeit church leading souls to Hell. "By their deeds you shall know them". The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

Offline Fanny

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
  • Reputation: +243/-407
  • Gender: Female
I'm confused.  I thought the SSPX/R&R has always considered the 1983 Canon Law legit.  Wouldn't the new liturgical calendar/days of holy obligation be in the same category?
True traditional Catholics draw a line in the sand and follow the 1917 code of canon law, for everything after Vatican 2 is questionable.

According to Can. 1246 §1 The Lord’s Day, on which the paschal mystery is celebrated, is by apostolic tradition to be observed in the universal Church as the primary holyday of obligation. In the same way the following holydays are to be observed: the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Epiphany, the Ascension of Christ, the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, the feast of Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, the feast of St Joseph, the feast of the Apostles SS Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints.
§2 However, the Episcopal Conference may, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See,
suppress certain holydays of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.


So unless an Episcopal conference was held with the approval of the pope, wherein ALL the bishops in the USA got together and agreed to transfer Ascension Thursday to the following sunday, it isn't legit.

The SSPX is telling us, that since the time of its founding, the good ABL had an oversight of something so profound?  I might be stupid, but ABL wasn't.


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4979
  • Reputation: +2891/-1324
  • Gender: Male
Quote
You are missing the point entirely. We "resist" by going to mass on the Thursday anyway. Doesn't change the fact that we don't have an obligation to under conscience.
I get what you’re saying.  As St Paul says:  “The letter of the law kills but the spirit of the law quickens.”

Those who follow the letter of the law will have a tough road to heaven.

Offline Last Tradhican

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3232
  • Reputation: +1751/-993
  • Gender: Male
I get what you’re saying.  As St Paul says:  “The letter of the law kills but the spirit of the law quickens.”

Those who follow the letter of the law will have a tough road to heaven.
I don't get what you are saying Pax, can you explain it as it pertains to the discussion?
The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

Offline Sienna629

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 345
  • Reputation: +363/-5
  • Gender: Female
If I wanted to follow the USCCB, I would join the Novus Ordo; after all, they all go to Heaven!

But I don't. I wish to follow +ABL, one chosen and set apart by God to help save the True Faith.

You will never hear me say "Do I have to?" about any of the regulations in Tradition. If we are in Tradition in the first place because we love Our Lord, why would we be looking for ways to get out of showing that love? 


Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18936
  • Reputation: +10421/-4931
  • Gender: Male
Being sedevacantist (or not) is a different matter.

Whether it's good or bad is a different matter.  Is assisting at Mass on Holy Thursday objectively required under pain of mortal sin?  [Note that I say "objectively" ... people could subjectively not commit sin depending on how they formed their conscience on the matter.]


Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18936
  • Reputation: +10421/-4931
  • Gender: Male
If I wanted to follow the USCCB, I would join the Novus Ordo; after all, they all go to Heaven!

But I don't. I wish to follow +ABL, one chosen and set apart by God to help save the True Faith.

You will never hear me say "Do I have to?" about any of the regulations in Tradition. If we are in Tradition in the first place because we love Our Lord, why would we be looking for ways to get out of showing that love?

It's not about trying to "get out of" something, but about whether it's required under pain of mortal sin ... two different things.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18936
  • Reputation: +10421/-4931
  • Gender: Male
It's a bunch of crap. The whole argument: namely, just because we fail to depose the Pope (or declare him deposed) we must go along with the destructive insanity.

But doesn't classic R&R hold that we must obey the authorities unless they command us to do something that positively violates our conscience?


Offline wallflower

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
  • Reputation: +1982/-94
  • Gender: Female
Although we clearly do not wish either to be or to appear liberal, it behooves us to be honest with the faithful about these days' obligations just as we are about the penitential obligations: only the power of the keys can determine our concrete obligations, as Catholics, on any given day.

While we must urge and exhort the faithful to keep the traditional days of feast or of fast, it needs to be clear that they are not obliged under pain of sin to do so when the power of the keys has eliminated the obligation. Unfortunately, the faithful are sometimes convinced of an obligation that does not exist and then violate that "obligation" culpably. The sin is real in that case, despite the fact that the obligation is not. Let us not be the cause of such sins by being unclear or culpably wrong about these points ourselves in our communications with the faithful.

This is very important, it's about the proper formation of consciences. The SSPX will do more damage than good if they are improperly forming consciences. Let those who would do more, do more. But at least clear up unnecessary sins for the others. 

This may be yet one more "little thing" that adds up to the big picture of the SSPX softening. But I do not need to cling to this as a softening towards Rome; a dozen other much more disturbing things are already convincing enough. I can separate this as one thing being made right, even if they have ulterior motives of playing up to conciliarists. Objectively speaking, clearing this up for all consciences, whether scrupulous or lax or somewhere in between, is good.

Knowing the letter of the law doesn't necessarily mean one is following it. It just means you know it. From that starting place you can choose to follow the spirit. 

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4979
  • Reputation: +2891/-1324
  • Gender: Male

Quote
I don't get what you are saying Pax, can you explain it as it pertains to the discussion?
The vast majority, let’s say 95%, of post-V2 changes have been a destruction/RELAXATION of Church law and catholic traditions.  In essence, the modernists sought to weaken the Faith, not by direct attack, but by a watering down of the rules.  By the letter of the law, new Rome has the power to change many things, and technically, this relaxation of the Ascension obligation is allowed.  But, following the letter of the law (ie only giving to God what is required) kills the soul in the long run, for it shows no true love of God.  True love gives more than is required.  The spirit of the law says we try to go to Mass as often as possible, Holy day or not.  

Offline Aleah

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 387
  • Reputation: +145/-33
  • Gender: Female
Whether it's good or bad is a different matter.  Is assisting at Mass on Holy Thursday objectively required under pain of mortal sin?  [Note that I say "objectively" ... people could subjectively not commit sin depending on how they formed their conscience on the matter.]

Ladislaus sums it up quite well.  The Church is stating that the bishops have jurisdiction to deem the Mass obligation as mandatory or not mandatory under pain of mortal sin and this even varies by country. If you were living in Ireland- this would be a non-issue for Ascension Thursday.

Think about all the fasting changes throughout the history of the Church. Do you know how many times the requirements have changed throughout the ages? Which one have you deemed as the legitimate requirements? 1st century? 12th? 19th?
I am He who is- you are she who is not.

Offline Incredulous

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4942
  • Reputation: +5707/-492
  • Gender: Male

Ah... Fr. Asher, the "Texas dispatcher"... with the fastest Tridentine Mass in the West.



Menzingen likes to use him as their "American spokesman" and for confidential administrative purposes.

For example, in 2009, speaking as Winona's assistant rector, he readily stepped forward and denounced Bp. Williamson's anti-semitism.

And since he's the treasurer of the new Virginia seminary, he likely knows the German political rock star, Max Krah.
If you recall, Maxie told us in a 2011 public interview, he was allocating part of the Jaidhoff funds to the new seminary.

And now Fr. Asher gives us the technical scoop on Consiliar Holy Days of Obligation... as if we give a rip.

Poor Father is probably just doing his ready best, not realizing he's being used to advance neo-SSPX phariseeism.

"Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16