Author Topic: Is the obligation to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday binding according to SSPX  (Read 4498 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline apollo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 418
  • Reputation: +188/-96
  • Gender: Male
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.).

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5500
  • Reputation: +4502/-1735
  • Gender: Male
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 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 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.
Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

-I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5500
  • Reputation: +4502/-1735
  • Gender: Male
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):
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.

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).
Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

-I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

Offline clarkaim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 182
  • Reputation: +123/-24
  • Gender: Male
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.


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