Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on May 14, 2021, 02:32:36 PM
-
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?
-
At the St. Cloud chapel, it was made clear as day that it was a Holy Day of Obligation.
Any other Society chapels that still followed the Catholic calendar yesterday?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 once had an argument with an R and R friend about this. Objecting to this (not the serving breakfast before mass thing, that seems ridiculous and probably false) seems ridiculous to me. Fasting rules have obviously changed in the Church before V2, they even differ based on rite, so I don't see how it can be part of divine law.... which means the bishop has the right to change it... unless you're sedevacantist and you don't really believe that bishop has authority over you, in that case, sure, a non authority can't change the rules.
Now of course, any Traditional Catholic is going to say you'd be better serving your soul by following the older rules, in all things whether fasting or fasting for communion or holy days or whatever, but the idea that you can say "yeah, he's the bishop, yeah, this isn't an issue of divine law but human law, yeah he changed the rule, but no, I'm still going to say you're committing a mortal sin if you follow the new rule and will be damned unless you repent before you die" seems ridiculous to me. It seems like either the current SSPX position (that only the Church can bind to a specific act of penance, but that following the current rules consistently leads to a danger that one will be neglectful of penance in general which violates divine law) or the full blown Sedevacantist position is more consistent. I don't understand the middle ground of "yeah he's the Pope and the bishop but that means absolutely nothing, even when it comes to mere ecclesiastical law."
And before someone mentions the NO, I think there's really only three consistent positions there either; either you're disobeying it because you're a Sedevacantist and think there was no real authority that promulgated it, you think its positively harmful to the faith and contra divine law (the first one and the second one can go together, or one can go without the other), or you don't accept either of those arguments and thus you submit to it because it came from legit authority and isn't contra to divine law. I don't understand this other thing.
-
Masonic nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr moves the Holy Day to Sunday.
They can celebrate Ramadan.....
-
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?
Exactly. On the other hand Matthew - a layman - gets to decide who can and who cannot attend Mass at St. Dominic’s.
-
I once had an argument with an R and R friend about this. Objecting to this (not the serving breakfast before mass thing, that seems ridiculous and probably false) seems ridiculous to me. Fasting rules have obviously changed in the Church before V2, they even differ based on rite, so I don't see how it can be part of divine law.... which means the bishop has the right to change it... unless you're sedevacantist and you don't really believe that bishop has authority over you, in that case, sure, a non authority can't change the rules.
Now of course, any Traditional Catholic is going to say you'd be better serving your soul by following the older rules, in all things whether fasting or fasting for communion or holy days or whatever, but the idea that you can say "yeah, he's the bishop, yeah, this isn't an issue of divine law but human law, yeah he changed the rule, but no, I'm still going to say you're committing a mortal sin if you follow the new rule and will be damned unless you repent before you die" seems ridiculous to me. It seems like either the current SSPX position (that only the Church can bind to a specific act of penance, but that following the current rules consistently leads to a danger that one will be neglectful of penance in general which violates divine law) or the full blown Sedevacantist position is more consistent. I don't understand the middle ground of "yeah he's the Pope and the bishop but that means absolutely nothing, even when it comes to mere ecclesiastical law."
And before someone mentions the NO, I think there's really only three consistent positions there either; either you're disobeying it because you're a Sedevacantist and think there was no real authority that promulgated it, you think its positively harmful to the faith and contra divine law (the first one and the second one can go together, or one can go without the other), or you don't accept either of those arguments and thus you submit to it because it came from legit authority and isn't contra to divine law. I don't understand this other thing.
There is a middle case, which is more difficult to ascertain:
A law which runs contrary to the common good is no law at all.
So, since the case of many of the disciplinary changes since Vatican II do seem to run contrary to the common good (eg., 1 hour “fast;” etc.), are they in fact “law” at all?
And if they are not true laws, then the “old” laws would remain in place.
This would be an argument in favor of the old laws remaining obligatory (at least for those conscious of the evil in the new norms).
The SSPX has even acknowledged in one of its articles of a few years ago that the new norms governing fast and abstinence are not sufficient for obtaining salvation (ie., run contrary to the common good).
Confusingly, however, they do not say these new laws are not laws at all, but rather encourage the faithful to observe the traditional norms (while not saying they are obligatory).
In the end, I’m not sure what the answer is, but it sure seems safer to disregard the new norms and stick with the old, regardless of whether they remain obligatory or not.
Therefore, I accidentally eat something 2.5 hours before Mass, I do not receive communion.
-
Exactly. On the other hand Matthew - a layman - gets to decide who can and who cannot attend Mass at St. Dominic’s.
You're not doing yourself any favors if you're hoping to get your other post answered and not deleted.
-
At the St. Cloud chapel, it was made clear as day that it was a Holy Day of Obligation.
Any other Society chapels that still followed the Catholic calendar yesterday?
Same for Michigan, Fr. said from the pulpit on Sunday that it was a Holy Day of Obligation.
-
Exactly. On the other hand Matthew - a layman - gets to decide who can and who cannot attend Mass at St. Dominic’s.
Who have I banned from the chapel? No one thus far. I am not in charge of the chapel; Bp. Zendejas is.
I just keep the place clean, make sure everything is in order for Mass, answer the phones, etc. I am the coordinator, nothing more.
Once again, truth is not on the side of the neo-SSPX. This neo-SSPX shill is, once again, full of crap up to his neck.
-
Another point I'd like to address to The Shill --
You can call me dim-witted all you want, but apparently I have enough wits to set up and maintain a Traditional Catholic forum for 15 years, overcoming hundreds of obstacles (both human and technical) over the years. And at present, I've managed to curate quite a group of Traditional Catholics here on CathInfo.
CathInfo is either the biggest or one of the biggest Trad Catholic forums, to the point that shills like you can't seem to ignore it, for purposes of Public Relations, controlling the narrative, spewing propaganda, influencing public opinion, destroying your enemies' reputations, etc. Your repeated actions to sneak back in after being banned prove that you "want in", and that CathInfo has a high value.
Why are all your dead accounts, Shill, on the bottom of my shoe, and not vice-versa? I didn't inherit CathInfo from my daddy. Nor did I buy CathInfo or win it in a lottery. I put together, and grew from nothing, something that YOU want desperately. Not bad for someone dim of wit.
-
Same for Michigan, Fr. said from the pulpit on Sunday that it was a Holy Day of Obligation.
In Michigan, dose the local bishop NOT consider it a Holy Day and thus your SSPX priests is going against the Diocese, or dose the bishop still has it as a Holy Day for his Diocese and thus the SSPX priests gives the impression he is resisting the local bishop when he is not?
In Kansas the SSPX goes along with the local bishop:
https://smac.edu/sites/sspx/files/media/bulletin_05_09_2021.pdf
"Thursday May 13 is the Ascension of Our Lord. The Sunday Mass schedule will be followed. Ascension Thursday is not a holy day of obligation for most dioceses in the U.S. (including the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas); however, we encourage everyone to sanctify the day"
-
2018....Fr. Muscha , pastor of Assumption Church. Walton , KY, declared from the pulpit....Ascension Thursday is not a holyday of obligation.
This past Ascension Thursday one of the priests, not the pastor, reminded the faithful after his Mass that " it is a holyday of obligation today. Do not leave church and go back to chores, but spend the day with God."
Who's on 1st ?
-
As for breakfast on Sundays, I recall that at STAS in the late 1980s and early 1990s, they set up 4 tables instead of the usual 12 ... probably to accommodate those few who could not keep the fast that long for various medical or other reasons. It was not mandatory but was sparsely attended. Even on regular breakfast days, AFTER the early-morning Mass, you were required to show up but not necessarily to eat. You could sit there sipping water or coffee or nothing. It was between you and your spiritual director.
-
There is a middle case, which is more difficult to ascertain:
A law which runs contrary to the common good is no law at all.
So, since the case of many of the disciplinary changes since Vatican II do seem to run contrary to the common good (eg., 1 hour “fast;” etc.), are they in fact “law” at all?
And if they are not true laws, then the “old” laws would remain in place.
This would be an argument in favor of the old laws remaining obligatory (at least for those conscious of the evil in the new norms).
The SSPX has even acknowledged in one of its articles of a few years ago that the new norms governing fast and abstinence are not sufficient for obtaining salvation (ie., run contrary to the common good).
Confusingly, however, they do not say these new laws are not laws at all, but rather encourage the faithful to observe the traditional norms (while not saying they are obligatory).
In the end, I’m not sure what the answer is, but it sure seems safer to disregard the new norms and stick with the old, regardless of whether they remain obligatory or not.
Therefore, I accidentally eat something 2.5 hours before Mass, I do not receive communion.
I would not take communion in the situation you describe, I wouldn't feel right about it, but I wouldn't bind someone else's conscience if they decided to do so because I wouldn't think I had the authority to do that, and I wouldn't think they were committing a sin necessarily. But, like you, I think it safer to follow the older rules.
The SSPX's position on fasting makes perfect sense to me too. Yes, 2 days fasting and a few days abstinence a year obviously isn't enough penance, but only the Church can bind people to *specific* acts of penance. The SSPX cannot essentially function as Pope and demand *specific* actions of penance from people that the Church isn't. That the law is more lax than it used to be isn't sufficient reason either, since the 1958 laws were laxer than earlier, medieval rules and whatnot.
-
My husband booked a flight and planned a trip on Ascension Thursday but hadn't looked at the liturgical calendar to see that he would be missing a holy day of obligation that day. After realizing his mistake, he asked our SSPX pastor what to do and he responded that "they moved the obligation to Sunday", so no need to worry.
This is the problem with the one foot in the conciliar church and one foot in Tradition approach.
If the Society would just announce that they are completely in the conciliar fold, it would clarify much, but I doubt they would lose many faithful over it.
This is why the SSPV's stance makes way more sense.
-
My husband booked a flight and planned a trip on Ascension Thursday but hadn't looked at the liturgical calendar to see that he would be missing a holy day of obligation that day. After realizing his mistake, he asked our SSPX pastor what to do and he responded that "they moved the obligation to Sunday", so no need to worry.
This is the problem with the one foot in the conciliar church and one foot in Tradition approach.
If the Society would just announce that they are completely in the conciliar fold, it would clarify much, but I doubt they would lose many faithful over it.
This is why the SSPV's stance makes way more sense.
I think the SSPV's position makes sense based on a different premise. If SSPX has any doubt that the conciliar claimants are real popes, they settle it in favor of the claimant. If SSPV has any doubt, they settle it *against* the claimant.
In other words, SSPV might give lip service to the idea that you *can* believe Francis is a Pope if you must, but for all practical intents and purposes, they're Sedevacantists (even if they're charitable enough to sometimes commune SSPXers.)
I'm sure your SSPX pastor doesn't literally mean "don't worry about it." If you hadn't screwed up, and ahead of time you told him you were gonna miss Ascension Thursday, I'm sure he would've encouraged you to go.
But at the end of the day, its only the Church that decides if these things bind on pain of mortal sin, not the SSPX. The thing is the SSPV *literally* thinks the post conciliar claimants have no authority, so obviously they can't change the day. But BOTH SSPX and SSPV would've had to admit it wasn't a mortal sin if Pius XII had made this allowance, however imprudent they might've thought they were.
In other words the application is downstream from whether one thinks Francis is merely a harmful pope or whether he is no pope at all. Non Sedevacantists who think that you can say its a mortal sin to follow the modified calendar are honestly kidding themselves. I'll be blunt and take the downvotes, that's an idiotic position.
-
When I said the SSPV stance makes more sense, I meant in the way they hold everything "conciliar" in doubt and without declaring that they definitely know for sure, err on the side of caution by avoiding those doubtful decisions made by the conciliar church.
The response by the SSPX priest was definitely in a "don't worry about it" manner. The "Church" has moved the day of Ascension, even though today the SSPX celebrates the Sunday after the Ascension. Ir's madness!
Oh, and if you're not already confused, on Saturday, the vigil of Pentecost is an obligatory day of fast and abstinence for SSPX members, but nor for the rest of us.
Why can't we all be on the same page?
-
SSPX issued 1962 Missal lists The Ascension of our lord as day of obligation. The local SSPX church added an evening Mass for those who work and could not attend in the morning, however I do not recall an announcement on the preceding Sunday that this is indeed a holy day of obligation.
-
"Thursday May 13 is the Ascension of Our Lord. The Sunday Mass schedule will be followed. Ascension Thursday is not a holy day of obligation for most dioceses in the U.S. (including the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas); however, we encourage everyone to sanctify the day"
.
Who cares what the Counciliar Heretical Church and the local diocese have done
to demote the Feast of The Ascension to a non-holy day ?
.
They have also declared that the Latin Mass is the "extraordinary form". Who
cares what they think?
.
Obviously, the SSPX is officially a diocesan organization. So if you want to
separate yourself from the Counciliar Church, as A. Lefevbre recommends,
you must leave the SSPX.
.
Question. Who is going to "own" the $30,000,000 church which is being
built? The diocese ???????
-
This is the problem with the one foot in the conciliar church and one foot in Tradition approach.
If the Society would just announce that they are completely in the conciliar fold, it would clarify much, but I doubt they would lose many faithful over it.
This is why the SSPV's stance makes way more sense.
The OLD SSPX had all the advantages of the sedevacantist position, but without a few of the disadvantages. That's where I'll stay thanks.
-
Saying that the SSPX position is flawed or inferior just because +Fellay, a certain % of SSPX priests, and a good % of the Faithful have abandoned it,
is like saying that a wife and children are "bad" because the husband succuмbed to temptations of the flesh and abandoned his family.
Or the Catholic Faith itself! Doesn't the Church lose members on a regular basis to other religions, paganism, etc.? Men can be tempted and lose the Faith, and they do. But there's nothing wrong with the Catholic Faith.
Foolish men might reason thusly:
John abandoned X for Y.
(IMPLIED MINOR) But men always choose the greater good over the lesser good.
Therefore X must be inferior or flawed in some way.
BUT THE UNSPOKEN MINOR IS FALSE!
Every sin is a man foolishly pursuing some lesser good (pleasure, etc.) over a greater good (doing God's will, holiness, being worthy of heaven)