Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: JmJ2cents on May 11, 2018, 09:43:29 PM

Title: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: JmJ2cents on May 11, 2018, 09:43:29 PM
From: Father Thomas Asher | FSSPX
The question has arisen each year whether the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday is binding on our faithful in those places where the bishops have lifted the obligation on that day due to their transfer of the feast. The District Superior asked me to communicate the following to all of the confreres in an attempt to clarify matters. I am indebted to Fr. Christopher Danel and to Travis Rankin for their assistance in sorting all of this out.
In 2008, a dubium regarding this question was sent to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” by the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. The response from Msgr. Perl was:
“While in accordance with Canon 1246 §2 of the Code of Canon Law [cf. 1917 CIC 1247 – ed.] the Episcopal Conference can legitimately transfer Holydays of obligation with the approbation of the Holy See, it is also legitimate to celebrate the Mass and Office of those feasts on the days prescribed in the calendar of the liturgical books in use in 1962 with the clear understanding that, in accordance with the legitimate decision of the Episcopal Conference, there is no obligation to attend Mass on those days” (PCED, 20 Oct 2008).
Therefore, while in Tradition the Ascension is always celebrated on Thursday, the obligation to attend Mass is binding on Thursday only in the ten states where the feast has been retained on Thursday by the bishops. These states are New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Nebraska (which belong to the ecclesiastical provinces of New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Hartford, Boston, and Omaha).
Additionally, when the feasts of the Circumcision, the Assumption, and All Saints fall on either Monday or Saturday, all bishops of the USA have abrogated the obligation to attend Mass on those days, with the feasts remaining on their properly-assigned days without transfer. The obligation is never abrogated on the Immaculate Conception or Christmas.
The U.S. bishops long ago abrogated or declined four of the holy days observed in the universal Church: Epiphany, Corpus Christi, St. Joseph, and Sts. Peter and Paul. They have retained six holy days of obligation: the Octave of the Nativity, the Ascension, the Assumption, All Saints’ Day, the Immaculate Conception, and Christmas. (In Hawaii, only the Immaculate Conception and Christmas are of obligation, as Honolulu has aligned itself for this matter with the bishops of the Pacific Islands.)
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.


Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: JmJ2cents on May 11, 2018, 09:44:49 PM
From: Father Thomas Asher | FSSPX
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: trad123 on May 11, 2018, 10:11:56 PM
I'm trying and I don't know how.  ugh sorry.


From: Father Thomas Asher | FSSPX


The question has arisen each year whether the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday is binding on our faithful in those places where the bishops have lifted the obligation on that day due to their transfer of the feast. The District Superior asked me to communicate the following to all of the confreres in an attempt to clarify matters. I am indebted to Fr. Christopher Danel and to Travis Rankin for their assistance in sorting all of this out.

In 2008, a dubium regarding this question was sent to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” by the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. The response from Msgr. Perl was:

“While in accordance with Canon 1246 §2 of the Code of Canon Law [cf. 1917 CIC 1247 – ed.] the Episcopal Conference can legitimately transfer Holydays of obligation with the approbation of the Holy See, it is also legitimate to celebrate the Mass and Office of those feasts on the days prescribed in the calendar of the liturgical books in use in 1962 with the clear understanding that, in accordance with the legitimate decision of the Episcopal Conference, there is no obligation to attend Mass on those days” (PCED, 20 Oct 2008).

Therefore, while in Tradition the Ascension is always celebrated on Thursday, the obligation to attend Mass is binding on Thursday only in the ten states where the feast has been retained on Thursday by the bishops. These states are New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Nebraska (which belong to the ecclesiastical provinces of New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Hartford, Boston, and Omaha).

Additionally, when the feasts of the Circumcision, the Assumption, and All Saints fall on either Monday or Saturday, all bishops of the USA have abrogated the obligation to attend Mass on those days, with the feasts remaining on their properly-assigned days without transfer. The obligation is never abrogated on the Immaculate Conception or Christmas.

The U.S. bishops long ago abrogated or declined four of the holy days observed in the universal Church: Epiphany, Corpus Christi, St. Joseph, and Sts. Peter and Paul. They have retained six holy days of obligation: the Octave of the Nativity, the Ascension, the Assumption, All Saints’ Day, the Immaculate Conception, and Christmas. (In Hawaii, only the Immaculate Conception and Christmas are of obligation, as Honolulu has aligned itself for this matter with the bishops of the Pacific Islands.)

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.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Fanny on May 12, 2018, 08:16:46 AM
You're either traditional or you're not.
You don't get to pick and choose.

Fr. Asher has proven time and time again to be a liberal in traditional garb.  

If the SSPX has done away with the traditional holy days of obligation, it is another clear indication to one and all they are being absorbed by the conciliar church.

What will it take for people who still attend the SSPX to wake up and smell the conciliarism?
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Seraphina on May 12, 2018, 07:26:31 PM
Sorry, but the statement about New York was wrong.  Ascension Day was transferred to Sunday.  
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: M and Liz on May 12, 2018, 08:13:55 PM
Last Sunday parishioners in Walton, KY, were told that they are no longer obligated under pain of mortal sin to attend Ascension Thursday Mass.  The priests will 'encourage' attendance though, as the Mass will continue to be celebrated as usual on Ascension Thursday.  When the pastor was asked why after all these years... why the SSPX is just now following this change by the U.S. bishops, he replied, "I think this is something that fell  through the cracks and so when we realized it we addressed it.  There is nothing more than that. We will continue to treat the Ascension as a holy day and encourage all the faithful to treat it as a holy day ."
No one batted an eye.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Nadir on May 12, 2018, 08:25:45 PM
Welcome M and Liz, Didn't you think to ask him did he let communion in the hand fall through the cracks and how long before it is addressed? On second thoughts... 
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: M and Liz on May 12, 2018, 08:40:14 PM
That question was missed.   
He's been told what a liberal modernist the diocesan bishop is, but continues meetings with him.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Matthew on May 13, 2018, 09:24:03 AM
Last Sunday parishioners in Walton, KY, were told that they are no longer obligated under pain of mortal sin to attend Ascension Thursday Mass.  The priests will 'encourage' attendance though, as the Mass will continue to be celebrated as usual on Ascension Thursday.  When the pastor was asked why after all these years... why the SSPX is just now following this change by the U.S. bishops, he replied, "I think this is something that fell  through the cracks and so when we realized it we addressed it.  There is nothing more than that. We will continue to treat the Ascension as a holy day and encourage all the faithful to treat it as a holy day ."
No one batted an eye.

Incredible.
Not the SSPX changing more and more every day to "fit better" into the Conciliar Church -- that I expected.

It's sad that so many Traditional Catholics are losing it -- being demoted from "Traditional Catholic" to "Latin Mass Catholic".

Latin Mass Catholics just believe "it's better in Latin" or "the Tridentine Mass is better" but they don't think there's a Crisis in the Church as we consider it -- unless you're talking about the fact that so many ignorant souls prefer the inferior Novus Ordo... That's the only Crisis in the Church for them.

Traditional Catholics want NOTHING TO DO with the Conciliar Church, its entire corrupt or compromised hierarchy, the Novus Ordo Missae, the new Code of Canon Law, or the new relaxed disciplines established by the Conciliar Church after Vatican II.

That's how you can tell a Traditional Catholic from a conservative Catholic, or "Latin Mass" Catholic. There's a huge world of difference.

The SSPX used to be Traditional; now they're conservative. That's not what I signed up for, so I left.

With the defection of the SSPX, Tradition has been thrown back to the Stone Age as it were -- a.k.a. the 1970's. Few options for Mass, Independent chapels only, lots of humble chapels (garage, hotel room, rented facility), lots of variety of theological opinion, severe priest shortage, many people can't get to Mass on Sunday. Oh, and just like the 1970's, we have former parishioners telling us things like, "Come on, stick around and at least have a place for Mass on Sunday. You can ignore the various evils or offer them up. Come on, don't be proud or disobedient..."

For those who lived through the 70's, and stayed faithful to Tradition after the SSPX defected, it's like Deja vu!

 We'll rebuild Tradition once again. We have to. We really have no choice. We still have to save our souls, raise our children Catholic, etc.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: 2Vermont on May 13, 2018, 01:04:21 PM
You're either traditional or you're not.
You don't get to pick and choose.

Fr. Asher has proven time and time again to be a liberal in traditional garb.  

If the SSPX has done away with the traditional holy days of obligation, it is another clear indication to one and all they are being absorbed by the conciliar church.

What will it take for people who still attend the SSPX to wake up and smell the conciliarism?
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?
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 13, 2018, 01:45:42 PM
Quote
The SSPX used to be Traditional; now they're conservative.
Very, very profound and perfect point!  This explains 20 yrs of change in 1 sentence!

In political terms, the sspx policy towards new-Rome is strikingly similar to the immigration problem the US faces.  Let me explain...

In the post +ABL days, the sspx changed its stance towards V2 and the new mass gradually, gradually, gradually, at first, by accepting more and more novus ordo/“conservative” catholics into their chapels without caring too much if they became traditional-minded, (ie had a conversion to catholic thinking).  They only cared if they “looked/dressed the part”, then they were accepted. 

Much like the immigration policies of the 80s-90s where all kinds of people came into our country because they wanted freedom/liberty and peace.  They were drawn by the promise of a better life and many assimilated into our culture as best they could.  The govt wasn’t picky; thru needed workers.  

After a group/country takes in a bunch of “newbies” there is always a period of change, ie the “transition period”.  It can be the group/country that changes to accommodate the newbies, or the newbies change to fully integrate with the group/country.  It’s rarely a 50:50 change.  One side usually is dominant. 

In the transition period of the sspx, many newbies did learn more of the faith and grew in love of tradition, but their novus ordo bad habits/poor chatechism still weighed them down in some areas, and because these newbies we’re not taught traditional fundamentals (ie why we're here, what’s the point of tradition), these newbies loved the Latin mass for the outward message only.  And sspx leadership did not (purposefully or neglectfully, I don’t know) fully integrate these people into the group’s mentality.  The bad leadership looked at their growth as quantity over quality.  They wanted more chapels and more parishioners to look good on paper (and...more money??)

Much like in the US, where so many of our immigrants are from socialized countries.  They love the idea of freedom and capitalism and liberty but their backgrounds gave them a distorted view of these concepts.  They don’t understand that true liberty means limited govt and self-sufficiency.  That true capitalism means working your tail off without food stamps, no free healthcare, etc.  That true freedom means being virtuous, God-fearing and kind to your neighbor; it does not mean being able to believe/promote errors, it does not mean we have to accept your atheism nor pay more taxes so you get handouts FROM your neighbor.  ...In other words, most immigrants, however nice they are, don’t understand how/why America became great. 

And so, in the sspx, they did not integrate their newbies to tradition, they are faced with a group of people who outnumber the true Catholics who built the sspx in the first place.  Either the true Catholics have died or left, having been fed up with the compromises to the Faith and lack of focus on orthodoxy.  So the sspx is suffering from a crisis of identity (again, whether purposefully or neglectfully,  I don’t know, but I will say it’s not all by “accident”.).  The sspx is no longer traditional but only conservative because they have forgotten the reasons they came into existence.  They exist now to provide the mass, but the Faith they offer is tainted and weak.  

Let’s hope this doesn’t happen to the US, which is weighed down heavily with many immigrants who are infected with socialist errors, and no understanding of history.  Then, worse, those Americans who SHOULD know better, have been corrupted by immorality, laziness and complacency in keeping Uncle Sam under control so that it’s almost too late.

With both the sspx and the US, the situation seems dire but there’s always hope.  Prayer, penance and new leadership is needed!  And a re-understanding of the foundation/reasons of the movement is a must!
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: noOneImportant on May 13, 2018, 02:11:47 PM
I don't see why this bothers people so much. Holy Days are binding because the Church (and specifically, the local bishop) says they are. Thus the difference in Holy Days observed across different continents. Why exactly is it controversial to acknowledge their power to loose what they have bound? We aren't schismatic. Whether or not it's advisable is another matter entirely, but that's not really relevant here.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Last Tradhican on May 13, 2018, 04:04:05 PM
I don't see why this bothers people so much. Holy Days are binding because the Church (and specifically, the local bishop) says they are. Thus the difference in Holy Days observed across different continents. Why exactly is it controversial to acknowledge their power to loose what they have bound? We aren't schismatic. Whether or not it's advisable is another matter entirely, but that's not really relevant here.
I guess you are also not bothered by all the other uses of "the power to loose and bound" like communion in the hand, easy annulments, communion for adulterers, sodomites masses.......
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: noOneImportant on May 13, 2018, 04:14:39 PM
Because clearly changing something that is already regularly changed (by country) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_day_of_obligation#Observance_by_country) is equivalent to sodomy. Glad we are all being nice an objective here.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Nadir on May 13, 2018, 04:38:42 PM
Because clearly changing something that is already regularly changed (by country) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_day_of_obligation#Observance_by_country) is equivalent to sodomy. Glad we are all being nice an objective here.
Oh! That's great! Ascension Thursday is now "just another Sunday" that we can roll up to after the football, with a few drinks under the belt.  :facepalm: 

Sorry, I upthumbed you when I went for the "quote".
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 05:06:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Matthew on May 13, 2018, 05:10:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: noOneImportant on May 13, 2018, 05:18:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Last Tradhican on May 13, 2018, 05:33:28 PM
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

Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Fanny on May 13, 2018, 05:55:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 13, 2018, 06:00:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Last Tradhican on May 13, 2018, 06:19:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Sienna629 on May 13, 2018, 06:27:18 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 06:35:53 PM
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.]

Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 06:36:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 06:38:36 PM
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?
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: wallflower on May 13, 2018, 09:08:15 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 13, 2018, 09:32:27 PM

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.  
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Aleah on May 14, 2018, 05:00:50 AM
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?
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Incredulous on May 14, 2018, 07:28:19 AM

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

(http://sarh.ca.sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/colorbox-big/public/USA-R-LosGatos/ADS-Sidebar%20media/1frasher_1.jpg)

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.

Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on May 14, 2018, 07:39:09 AM
Within novus ordo, many are priests and religious sisters are leading a double life and don't have a true calling.

Sodomites and adulterers have taken over Catholic schools and universities too.  

And now the SSPX deal is done.   They are taking the novus ordo steps of slowly stripping traditional Catholicism.  I notice many diocesan Latin Masses have been discontinued. 

What was Feast of Ascension like at SSPX philly?




Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: ignatius on May 14, 2018, 09:33:04 AM
From: Father Thomas Asher | FSSPX


The source is not showing up.  Can you provide the link?
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Fanny on May 14, 2018, 11:50:52 AM
Revision of the 1917 code was called for by pope John XXIII in 1960 the same day he called for Vatican 2.  It took 17 years, with the code being accepted in 1983.
 
 The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) did not exist before this time.
 
 While the 1917 code of canon law allows a bishops council to change such things, true traditional Catholics draw a line in the sand and do not accept things promulgated after Vatican 2.
 
 According to a NY times piece from 1983, the American NCCB met in 1983 to decide how many days of holy obligation the American Church would observe.  "After some discussion, the bishops voted to retain the existing pattern in America of observing six holy days."  The key here is "in America."  Changes must be made by unanimity of all the bishops in a country.  Individual states are not allowed, even according to the 1983 canon law, to change such things. 
 
 (https://mobile.nytimes.com/1983/11/27/us/new-canon-law-code-in-effect-for-catholics.html)
 
 Clearly Fr. Asher, once again, is touting the party line bringing the SSPX, day by day, closer in line with the conciliar church to make complete absorption palatable and seamless. 

Considering Fr. Ashers parents are strong NO and one of his brothers is hard core feenyite, I can see why he might be confused.  I hope confusion is all it is.  Pray for Fr. Asher.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: verilyCatholic on May 14, 2018, 12:10:56 PM
I'll tell you one thing, Jim: I attended holy Mass at the Los Gatos chapel in 2009 on the Feast of the Ascension, and there were very few people in the pews. The celebrant was a third stringer from the Trans-Alpine Redemptorists. I expected Father Emily to be saying the Mass. The priest was "effeminate", like a Conciliar priest is. Smiles, nods, feeble mind, etc. I got the distinct impression that the Society does not consider Ascension Thursday a major feast, and it is nearly certain that almost none of the regular congregation took the day off work. My disgust was immense, because I am a pre-Vatican II Catholic, not a modern Catholic. I reject the Council and the "reforms". In my opinion, the Feast of the Ascension is a Holy Day of Obligation, whatever the Conciliar Church or the Society feels.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Mr G on May 14, 2018, 02:09:48 PM
I'll tell you one thing, Jim: I attended holy Mass at the Los Gatos chapel in 2009 on the Feast of the Ascension, and there were very few people in the pews. The celebrant was a third stringer from the Trans-Alpine Redemptorists. I expected Father Emily to be saying the Mass. The priest was "effeminate", like a Conciliar priest is. Smiles, nods, feeble mind, etc. I got the distinct impression that the Society does not consider Ascension Thursday a major feast, and it is nearly certain that almost none of the regular congregation took the day off work. My disgust was immense, because I am a pre-Vatican II Catholic, not a modern Catholic. I reject the Council and the "reforms". In my opinion, the Feast of the Ascension is a Holy Day of Obligation, whatever the Conciliar Church or the Society feels.
I was there also in 2009 (and several year before) and Fr. Alphonsus is not "effeminate", he is a very good priests, one of only three that left when the Redemptorists made a deal with Rome. Plus, he told me specifically that is our duty to take the day off work when Holy Days fall on a weekday, but if the boss prevents you then no sin on you, but you do have to try. So we can not judge the others, although we can suspect some did not even try or even care, assuming you know each person and their circumstances which I suspect you do not (otherwise you would not single out 2009, you would have similar experience in 2004 and 2006).
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Fanny on May 14, 2018, 02:47:45 PM
I'll tell you one thing, Jim: I attended holy Mass at the Los Gatos chapel in 2009 on the Feast of the Ascension, and there were very few people in the pews. The celebrant was a third stringer from the Trans-Alpine Redemptorists. I expected Father Emily to be saying the Mass. The priest was "effeminate", like a Conciliar priest is. Smiles, nods, feeble mind, etc. I got the distinct impression that the Society does not consider Ascension Thursday a major feast, and it is nearly certain that almost none of the regular congregation took the day off work. My disgust was immense, because I am a pre-Vatican II Catholic, not a modern Catholic. I reject the Council and the "reforms". In my opinion, the Feast of the Ascension is a Holy Day of Obligation, whatever the Conciliar Church or the Society feels.
The redemptorists of stronsay opened dialogue with the conciliar church in 2008.  I suspect what you experienced in 2009 was similar to pre vat 2 conciliarism, and similar to what is now going on in the sspx.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Fanny on May 14, 2018, 02:49:21 PM
, you would have similar experience in 2004 and 2006).
Not necessarily.
The redemptorists opened dialogue with the conciliar church in 2008. 
Ergo, he might have had a completely different experience with them in 2004 or 2006.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Mr G on May 14, 2018, 03:02:56 PM
Not necessarily.
The redemptorists opened dialogue with the conciliar church in 2008.
Ergo, he might have had a completely different experience with them in 2004 or 2006.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I was referring to the "experience" he had with the parishioners (not being at Holy Day Mass) and not with Fr. Alphonsus. 
But since you brought up brought up Fr. Alphonsus in 2004 or 2006, then the parishioners would tell you that Father had issues with the Redemptotist leaders before they opened dialog and thus was not surprised they made a deal after 2008. But as for Fr. Alphonsus manner or style in preaching would have been similar in 2004 to 2009 and beyond.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: M and Liz on May 14, 2018, 05:22:30 PM
At the Walton, KY, SSPX parish............1st it was the change in the rubrics - e.g. , the standing instead of kneeling at certain times during the Mass , then the pastor accepting permission from the diocesan modernist 'bishop' to witness sspx weddings, now no obligation under pain of mortal sin to attend Ascension Thursday Mass, etc.......even most recently allowing N  O  priests in the sanctuary during a nuptial Mass.


Marcel Lefebvre -  Econe, July 29, 1976............"That the Conciliar Church " (as Msgr. Benelli himself called the Church in his letter to the Archbishop in June of '76) ,  " is a schismatic Church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been.  It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.
The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical.  This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic.  To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.   Today's Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.  The norm of Catholic faith is Tradition.  The demand of His Eminence Msgr. Benelli is, then , illuminating: submission to the Conciliar Church, to the Vatican II Church, to the schismatic Church.  For our part, we persevere in the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary."
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Incredulous on May 15, 2018, 07:40:12 AM
At the Walton, KY, SSPX parish............1st it was the change in the rubrics - e.g. , the standing instead of kneeling at certain times during the Mass , then the pastor accepting permission from the diocesan modernist 'bishop' to witness sspx weddings, now no obligation under pain of mortal sin to attend Ascension Thursday Mass, etc.......even most recently allowing N  O  priests in the sanctuary during a nuptial Mass.


Marcel Lefebvre -  Econe, July 29, 1976............"That the Conciliar Church " (as Msgr. Benelli himself called the Church in his letter to the Archbishop in June of '76) ,  " is a schismatic Church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been.  It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.
The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical.  This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic.  To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.   Today's Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.  The norm of Catholic faith is Tradition.  The demand of His Eminence Msgr. Benelli is, then , illuminating: submission to the Conciliar Church, to the Vatican II Church, to the schismatic Church.  For our part, we persevere in the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary."
SSPX Walton's gradual subservience to newChurch is interesting to watch.

Like an open psychology experiment, with sad outcomes for many of the established trad families.

And how calculated it all was, with the SSPX putting a new trad chapel across the street from the Novus ordo St. Joseph parish.
Only a few years later, they "coincidentally" welcome the anti-pro life, conciliar bishop into the school.

It's a good demonstration of our Catholic remnant's "losing battle" with weakness of intellect, human respect and chronic concupiscence :facepalm:
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Last Tradhican on May 15, 2018, 08:27:56 AM
Only a few years later, they "coincidentally" welcome the anti-pro life pro-infanticide, conciliar bishop into the school.
There, that's better. Politically correct "anti-pro life" replaced by reality, pro-infanticide.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Fanny on May 16, 2018, 05:29:16 PM
At the Walton, KY, SSPX parish............1st it was the change in the rubrics - e.g. , the standing instead of kneeling at certain times during the Mass , then the pastor accepting permission from the diocesan modernist 'bishop' to witness sspx weddings, now no obligation under pain of mortal sin to attend Ascension Thursday Mass, etc.......even most recently allowing N  O  priests in the sanctuary during a nuptial Mass.
What do you expect from KY? 
I am convinced the state is cursed.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: Ladislaus on May 16, 2018, 09:56:27 PM
Father Alphonsus filled in for my own local elderly independent priest when he was out of commission due to a hip replacement, and I can say without hesitation that he is a terrific priest ... and not the least bit effeminate.  His sermons were deep and theological (but put in simple terms so anyone could understand) and inspiring.  Many of us were begging him to stay.  Great confessor also!
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 13, 2019, 04:22:35 PM
From: Father Thomas Asher | FSSPX

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.

A number of considerations here:

1) Where is the accompanying announcement Fr. Asher should have provided which explained the scandalous nature, and deleterious consequences, of this legislation of the conciliar bishops (which the SSPX of old would certainly have provided)?

2) As with another famous SSPX.org article which (using the same pastoral rationale as Fr. Asher uses above) reaffirmed the conciliar laws of fast and abstinence are the binding laws, there seems to be no jurisprudential consideration of whether a law which has manifestly deleterious consequences for the sanctity and piety of the entire Catholic Church (not mrely the US District) aree in any real sence properly "laws" at all.  How can laws which attack the common good for which they were ordained be considered legitimate?  And if not legitimate, then the preceding laws continue in force.  

It seems the conciliarized SSPX is only concerned that the laws were promulgated by legitimate authority.  But if that is the only criterion for ascertaining legitimacy, without any reference ot the common good they are supposed to foster, then the bishops conferences could remove the penalty for abortion, and logically, the SSPX would have to explain to its people that, "traditionally abortion was punished by excommunication, but it no longer is.  We musn't have our people think it is an excommunicable offense, then procure one anyway, and suffer the real consequences.  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."

3) Implicit in this submission to conciliar law (if it is law), is the acceptance of collegiality: It is the bishops conferences to which the 1983 code delegates the authority to transfer feasts, so the acceptance of this authority and laws is simultaneously an acceptance of collegiality (at least as regards the transfer of feasts, and also the new disciplinary laws of fast and abstinence).

4) Notice how, as with all modernist propositions, it is the pastoral justification which is advanced: "Oh, we would love to hold to tradition, but the plight of the poor faithful compel us to make an honest admission, lest we lead them into sin."  But is this not allowing the exception to disprove the rule?  In which direction do the scales tip between assessing the number of those who will sin according to the scenario Fr. Asher lays out, versus the number of those who, being dislodged from Tradition, now having no excuse to abstain from work on Thursday or attend Mass (i.e., the employers know it is no longer a mandatory holy day), encouraging the reduction in the life of the Church in public society and sectioning it off to Sundays-only, etc?

Presuming these conciliar laws really are laws in the technical and legitimate sense, is there some reason why the priest could not address such issues in the confessional or in private conferences, as they always used to?

5) Finally, notice the selectivity of these pastorally-based admissions of the SSPX: As Nadir observes on p.1 of this thread, where is the admission from the SSPX that there is no sin in receiving communion in the hand?  I would think that would be an even larger issue (its hard to say the word) "misunderstanding" in the weekly lives of Catholics than those "imagining" they sin by culpably missing Thursday Mass.  But if the fact that a law has been promulgated by the competent authority is now the only criterion for legitimacy (and therefore its binding nature), to be logically consistent, we ought to hear why communion in the hand is no sin.

And perhaps that will come soon!

No, it seems to mee that this announcement from Fr. Asher (as with the SSPX.org article on the new laws of fast and abstinence), though addressed to the faithful, was in fact intended to be received by Rome, to signify that the SSPX is on board.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 13, 2019, 04:54:33 PM
Sorry for typos; in a hurry  ::)
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: apollo on July 13, 2019, 05:27:32 PM
The SSPX used to be Traditional; now they're conservative. That's not what I signed up for, so I left.
.
Now they're FAKE Traditionalists. 
.
We live in a world of FAKEs, the new is fake, Protestants
are fake Christians, Republicans are fake conservatives,
Rome is fake Catholic, Universities are fake education,
the New Mass is a fake, transgenders are fake, Fellay is
a fake traditionalists, even much of the food in my grocery
store is fake (artificial flavors, colors, high-fructose corn
syrup, etc.).
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 14, 2019, 06:47:20 AM
A number of considerations here:

1) Where is the accompanying announcement Fr. Asher should have provided which explained the scandalous nature, and deleterious consequences, of this legislation of the conciliar bishops (which the SSPX of old would certainly have provided)?

2) As with another famous SSPX.org article which (using the same pastoral rationale as Fr. Asher uses above) reaffirmed the conciliar laws of fast and abstinence are the binding laws, there seems to be no jurisprudential consideration of whether a law which has manifestly deleterious consequences for the sanctity and piety of the entire Catholic Church (not mrely the US District) aree in any real sence properly "laws" at all.  How can laws which attack the common good for which they were ordained be considered legitimate?  And if not legitimate, then the preceding laws continue in force.  

It seems the conciliarized SSPX is only concerned that the laws were promulgated by legitimate authority.  But if that is the only criterion for ascertaining legitimacy, without any reference ot the common good they are supposed to foster, then the bishops conferences could remove the penalty for abortion, and logically, the SSPX would have to explain to its people that, "traditionally abortion was punished by excommunication, but it no longer is.  We musn't have our people think it is an excommunicable offense, then procure one anyway, and suffer the real consequences.  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."

3) Implicit in this submission to conciliar law (if it is law), is the acceptance of collegiality: It is the bishops conferences to which the 1983 code delegates the authority to transfer feasts, so the acceptance of this authority and laws is simultaneously an acceptance of collegiality (at least as regards the transfer of feasts, and also the new disciplinary laws of fast and abstinence).

4) Notice how, as with all modernist propositions, it is the pastoral justification which is advanced: "Oh, we would love to hold to tradition, but the plight of the poor faithful compel us to make an honest admission, lest we lead them into sin."  But is this not allowing the exception to disprove the rule?  In which direction do the scales tip between assessing the number of those who will sin according to the scenario Fr. Asher lays out, versus the number of those who, being dislodged from Tradition, now having no excuse to abstain from work on Thursday or attend Mass (i.e., the employers know it is no longer a mandatory holy day), encouraging the reduction in the life of the Church in public society and sectioning it off to Sundays-only, etc?

Presuming these conciliar laws really are laws in the technical and legitimate sense, is there some reason why the priest could not address such issues in the confessional or in private conferences, as they always used to?

5) Finally, notice the selectivity of these pastorally-based admissions of the SSPX: As Nadir observes on p.1 of this thread, where is the admission from the SSPX that there is no sin in receiving communion in the hand?  I would think that would be an even larger issue (its hard to say the word) "misunderstanding" in the weekly lives of Catholics than those "imagining" they sin by culpably missing Thursday Mass.  But if the fact that a law has been promulgated by the competent authority is now the only criterion for legitimacy (and therefore its binding nature), to be logically consistent, we ought to hear why communion in the hand is no sin.

And perhaps that will come soon!

No, it seems to mee that this announcement from Fr. Asher (as with the SSPX.org article on the new laws of fast and abstinence), though addressed to the faithful, was in fact intended to be received by Rome, to signify that the SSPX is on board.

6) But wait, there's more!  

According to the same "pastoral" rationale behind Fr. Asher and the SSPX's admissions regarding Ascension Thursday and the new fast and abstinence laws, not only should the SSPX, to be consistent, be informing the faithful, for the same reasons, that there is no sin in receiving communion in the hand, but that they are at perfect liberty to attend anticipated Mass on Saturday to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

After all, we don't want people thinking they commit a sin by believing they have to attend Mass on Sunday!  The bishops have decided!

At the bottom of all this, is the implicit suggestion that Tradition for the SSPX is nothing more than nostalgaic sentimentalism (to which, technically, we have no right).

Note also that the same legalism which is causing the scrupulous SSPX to reconcile with apostate Rome, is here sapping them of their traditionalism.

Nobody is disputing that the competent authorities can make disciplinary changes.

The question is whether those changes are binding when they work against the common good and against souls (i.e., whether the new laws are really legitimate laws at all).  And following from this, if the new laws are no laws at all, whether the old laws remain in effect.
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 14, 2019, 07:07:35 AM
Regarding the nature of "laws," and the idea that laws which work against the common good of souls are not to be obeyed, even the conciliarists recognize the principle as applied to the civil law.

This passage from Catholic Answers peretains to laws on abortion having no power to bind, to illustrate the principle:

In our day, the most egregious example of the failure of civil authority to maintain the common good and protect human rights is in the legalization of abortion and euthanasia. Applying the Catechism’s teachings, Pope John Paul II wrote at length about civil disobedience in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):
Quote
Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.
Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/when-is-it-okay-to-disobey (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/when-is-it-okay-to-disobey)

And here is St. Thomas Aquinas explaining again that laws which are not just are no laws at all (note that we are not yet speaking of human ecclesiastical laws; we are still just setting the foundations to discuss the nature of laws generally):

As Augustine says (De Libero Arbitrio i, 5) “that which is not just seems to be no law at all”: wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above. Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law. . . .
Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g. that “one must not kill” may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that “one should do harm to no man”: while some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.
Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human law. But those things which are derived in the first way, are contained in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also. But those things which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human law.
Summa Theologiae I-II:95:2

Is this same principle applicable against human ecclesiastical laws?

To be continued; 

When we resume, we will continue with Suarez's De Legibus (about laws):

Book 1-On the Law in general, its causes and effects; 
Book 2-On the Eternal Law, the Natural Law and the Law of Nations (Jus gentium); 
Book 3-On the positive, man-made law, or the Civil Law (i.e., secular as opposed to ecclesiastical law);  
Book 4-On the positive ecclesiastical (or Canon) law; 
Book 5-On the variety of human law, especially on penal (criminal) and onerous (i.e., tax) laws; 
Book 6-On the interpretation, the changing and the cessation of positive human laws; 
Book 7-On the unwritten law, which is also called customary law; 
Book 8-On Privileges; 
Book 9-On the Divine Law of the Old Testament; and 
Book 10--On -the New Divine Law (i.e., that of the New Testament).
Title: Re: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX
Post by: clarkaim on July 17, 2019, 11:15:52 AM
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?
Yup.  in te end if Bergoglio is the Pope, we owe religious ascent to the things he teaches.  EVERY theologian teaches that.  I jokingly said to Bishop Sanborn recently that we would need to follow his bracket in the NCAA tournament.

I think with Sede vacante, R&R, Sede doubtism, sede privationism, et. al., we are ALL in a practical sense forced to function as if there is no Pope, otdherwise we must hold our noses and attend our local nervous ordeal mass.  Heck, for now I drag m family down to the hood here in KC when I could quite literally cross the street to a large, well appointed (air conditioning too!!) and safe neighborhood.  Bishop Sanborn pointed out to me that te fact that I don't, wont, and even can't in good conscience is all the certainty I need to say that objectively the new church is a false church with a false "Pope" a priori.  Not sure how to fix it but practically, to be Catholic, one must operate as if there is NO autority in the church for now, at least not one we can see.  SSPX is a dead fish at this point i'd say.