Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX  (Read 16346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
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?

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. 


Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter

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

  • Supporter
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?


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.