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.
Topic: Neo-SSPX - Diocese this, Ascension isn't a Holy Day that (Read 2308 times)