CathInfo.com

Who says the SSPX hasn't changed! You need to have your brain examined.

Talking about the diocese and archdiocese all the time (of the Conciliar Church! Hello?) and going by POST-VATICAN II practices -- what's next? The Novus Ordo Mass? That is technically approved by the Conciliar Church too, you realize?

Traditional Catholics don't keep 2 eyes glued on the (Conciliar) diocese. We "let the dead bury their dead". When the Conciliar Church is ready to convert back to the Catholic Faith, we'll know. It won't be subtle, and it won't be a secret. It will probably only happen post-Chastisement.

Aren't we supposed to be TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS -- by definition, that means trashing everything after Vatican II to save our Faith, and holding to what is known, what is true, what is a "known good" to maintain our Faith intact during this Crisis in the Church?

Hasn't the SSPX defected from Tradition BY DEFINITION by doing things like this?

Seriously.

When you start cherry picking "Well, the Church is the Church, they have the Keys to loose and to bind..." where does it end?

The "official Church" changed the Mass, too, in 1969. You gonna go along with that change too?

I was raised Traditional Catholic, which is a package deal. Basically you ignore the counterfeit Conciliar Church and cling to the WHOLE PACKAGE of Catholicism as it was before Vatican II. Priests trained in the Traditional way, ordained in the Old Rite, by bishops consecrated in the Old Rite, the Mass 100% Tridentine, using no books or Liturgy that wasn't set in 1962 or earlier, all religious practices (Rosary, etc.) only used if they were from before Vatican II -- no Luminous Mysteries, no "Divine Mercy" devotion, etc.

Traditional version of the Bible, only traditional songs and chant, traditional attire at Mass, traditional art, traditional church design, traditional Catechisms used, traditional calendar, traditional saints  -- you get the idea.

Holy Days, feast days, fast days -- all Traditional Catholics act as if it's still 1962 or earlier. What am I missing here? Hasn't the SSPX clearly defected when they continually surrender to the Conciliar Church like this?

This is like the calendars where they give the little fishes that mean "traditional day of fast and abstinence" but acknowledge that the Novus Ordo Bishops have the right to remove the obligation, but suggesting that we still follow the old rules anyway. Or acknowledging that the Communion fast is now one hour. Is it true that in the SSPX seminaries they served breakfast before Mass on Sundays and Holy Days so that one could not follow the older Communion fast from midnight (A former seminarian in Argentina said this)? It is a sign that they believe the Novus Ordo Bishops have power even though they often misuse it.

I think being able to say a day *isn't* a holy day of obligation is a bit different than the NO, because the argument against NO is that its against divine law, or at least, that its harmful to the faith, and thus we can't comply with it.  By analogy, SSPX (and other recognize and resisters) are engaging in civil disobedience.

If somehow the Novus Ordo bishop was to say we aren't allowed to worship on Ascension Thursday (or any other historic day of worship) I could see being like, yeah, we're not going to obey that.

But if Holy Days of Obligation are a part of ecclesial law, rather than divine law, than presumably the ecclesial authority can technically change them, even if the ecclesial authority sucks.  By contrast, if the sees are vacant (as Sedevacantists have it) than of course a non-authority can't change any holy days of obligation.  And not even a valid authority could change divine law.  Is "Ascension Day is a Holy Day of obligation" part of *divine* law?

Perhaps I'm missing something here, and maybe the SSPX doesn't need to announce this, but I feel like saying "yeah, Francis is the Pope, and yeah, the diocesan bishop is the bishop of this place, they say you don't have to go to mass today, but I'm saying no, you are obliged to on pain of eternal damnation unless you repent before you die" seems like effectively appropriating episcopal authority to oneself, and I don't see how that can be justified under R and R principles.

What am I missing here?

Nothing.