[Ladislaus]

Mr. McCheese makes arguments that I personally can not refute.  Valid popes have the right to make the administrative changes to which he alludes.  I think that the R&R position winds up losing in the end.  I wish I could make their case, but am finding it increasingly difficult to do so.

This came up a little while ago, and Drew, who is R&R, made the argument that laws that are not conducive to the good of the Church do not bind or, rather, take force.  It's incredibly weak, and I reject this out of hand.  ANY relaxation of discipline can be argued not to be for the good.  And Popes have historically made many relaxations in such discipline, removing fast days on some Vigils, for instance.  So because Drew judges that it's not for the good, he can go around telling everyone that they are bound to keep the old disciplines under pain of sin?  So Drew can now try to bind consciences by his private judgment?  That's nonsense, and it highlights the reductio ad absurdum to which some classic R&R propositions can be reduced.  Now, I am not a straight sedevacantist, since I believe that many of the R&R arguments are valid, but I also believe that many of the SV (or, rather sedeprivationist) arguments are also valid.  So I have a nuanced middle position.  I think that we need to try to be intellectually honest in attempting to form our consciences.  I do not dismiss any arguments made by either side out of hand, simply because I have aligned myself with any given camp.  I evaluate them to the best of my ability and attempt to form my own conscience accordingly.

I would say, too, that even for sedevacantists who are not dogmatic, if there's any positive doubt whatsoever, then, since doubtful laws do not apply, there's no strict obligation to keep the old discipline.  DOGMATIC sedevacantists are the only ones subjectively bound in conscience to keep the old disciplines.

Of course, SeanJohnson made a good argument that we SHOULD keep the old disciplines due to the erosion of faith that could gradually result from not keeping them.  But SHOULD is far different from MUST UNDER PAIN OF SIN.

I find it very refreshing to see a number of R&R folks on this thread honestly admitting the true status of this issue.

[X]

Mr. McCheese makes arguments that I personally can not refute.  Valid popes have the right to make the administrative changes to which he alludes.  I think that the R&R position winds up losing in the end.  I wish I could make their case, but am finding it increasingly difficult to do so.

Then let me help you out:

1) The implicit (but undemonstrated) presupposition in McCheese’s argument is that these “administrative things” (as he calls them) are necessarily good and/or infallible;

2) But since these “administrative things” are all disciplinary measures, such is not necessarily the case;

3) It is not the right of legitimate popes to change or promulgate disciplinary changes which is being questioned, but the goodness and theological note of the particular change, which is being challenged;

4) The sedevacantist says it is all infallible (directly, or in virtue of it being a secondary object of infallibility).

5) What is missed, is that infallibility pertains to the teaching office of the Pope, and consequently, certain types of disciplinary acts which are not magisterial in that they do not teach, but merely regulate and/or order behaviors, cannot be secondary objects of infallibility (eg., fasting laws).

This is why, much to the chagrin of sedevacantist apologists, Lefebvre was correct when he explained not every ecclesiastical law is infallible.

[Pax Vobis]

The Church can decide what minimum practices are obligatory under sin. However, even the modernist church doesn't prevent people from doing more than the minimum. Wouldn't doing something when it is not obligatory be following the "spirit of the law"?

Yes.  If you consider yourself Traditional, at least follow the pre-V2 fasting/abstinence laws, which are quite wimpy to begin with.

It's also difficult to talk about "consistent laws of centuries" when the laws of fasting and abstinence have changed a LOT. It wasn't that long ago there was obligatory fasting during advent. Do you think "partial abstinence" and two "smaller meals" while fasting is centuries old?

Agree with your point - no, the "2 smaller meals" of fasting days are not centuries old.  BUT, the idea of penance for all 40 days is.  The V2 church has gotten rid of the 40 days of fast and turned it into 2 - the fast on Ash Wed and good friday.  The point is, the idea of FASTING on EVERY day of lent is centuries old.  Trads should at least follow this modified fast if they want to be a "spirit of the law" catholic (even though, technically, it's not obligatory).

When I was involved with the SSPX 20 years ago, prayers in the chapel bulletins just identified indulgences as plenary or partial, without reference to a specific number of days. I even recall one priest having a chapel practice that he took specifically from the 1960s enchiridion of indulgences (it was the plenary indulgence for a public veni creator on January 1 and Pentecost.)

Though the V2 church has gotten rid of many indulgences, I believe that those who wish to live as Trads and follow the pre-V2 laws will be blessed by God and He will take this into consideration on judgement day. 

[McCheese]

Speaking of the requirement of praying for the "pope's intentions" that often accompany many of the indulgences, you have to be very careful as to what you're actually praying for. The "pope's intentions" are written and posted each year on a month by month basis and this year's intentions can be found here:  http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/the-popes-monthly-intention.cfm

Many times we try to follow the old indulgence rules and when we say the one Our Father, one Hail Mary and one Glory Be for the pope's intentions, we don't realize that we might actually be praying for something that is not catholic at all, depending upon the published "pope's intentions" for that month.

[madwoman]

When you pray for the Popes intentions, you are praying that he lead the church as God wishes.  You are not praying for his bad thoughts or ideas to become reality. You are praying for him to lead as he should. We should always pray for the popes intentions, especially if he is a Pope that has gone astray and is very liberal.

[McCheese]

When you pray for the Popes intentions, you are praying that he lead the church as God wishes.  You are not praying for his bad thoughts or ideas to become reality. You are praying for him to lead as he should. 

Catholics have a misconception about the "pope's intentions" and most people think they are praying for the "intention of the pope" when this is not the case. When praying for the "pope's intentions" with regard to indulgences, you are praying for the published list of intentions that the pope and Rome put out for that year and they are specific things, the prayers are not for the pope himself.
Granted, most traditional catholics will change the wording of their prayers when it comes to these prayers and indulgences to say something more like "for the pope that he will stop spreading heresy and reunite the church" or something similar but the question then becomes, do you get the value of the indulgence since you decided to change the requirements.

[Stanley N]

The point is, the idea of FASTING on EVERY day of lent is centuries old.  Trads should at least follow this modified fast if they want to be a "spirit of the law" catholic (even though, technically, it's not obligatory).

This leads to a practical question.
The old western fasting obligations started at age 21, the new ones start at age 18. So is a trad of age 18-20 obliged on the 2 days required in the new rules? Answer seems clear to me. Yes.

[2Vermont]

If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema. - Vatican I

[Nishant Xavier]

Here's the problem with enlisting indulgences as "partial" instead of in number of days: 7 years Indulgence and 300 days Indulgence are not the same, anyone can see the former is greater, but both are now mistakenly just stated to be "partial" without further explanation.

The Indulgence is granted by the Church's Authority as being the equivalent of a certain number of Days of Penance. Days of Penance are not the same thing as Days in Purgatory. But God's Justice is much stricter than we think; it's likely the latter will be much larger.

If we have only 10 or less years of Penance to do here on earth, we may have to do 100 or more in Purgatory if we have neglected it. Very difficult, especially if God doesn't allow anyone to help us, in His Justice, as we never helped the Holy Souls. But by Indulgences gained with the intention of loving God more and assisting the Suffering Souls, we can gradually pay off both their debt and our own.

10 Plenary Indulgences from the Treasury of Indulgenced Prayers, 1944: https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-674.shtml

1. May the most just, most high, and most adorable Will of God be in all things done, praised, and magnified forever. (500 days every time said. Plenary indulgence at the point of death for those who have frequently said the prayer during life and who have, in addition, received the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion, or are at least contrite and have, if possible, pronounced the Name of Jesus or have devoutly invoked Him in their heart and have accepted death patiently from the hand of God in payment for sin)*

2. Jesus! (300 days every time said. Plenary indulgence at the point of death to those who during life frequently invoke the Holy Name)*

3. My Lord and my God! (7 years every time said when the Host is elevated during Mass or when it is solemnly exposed. Plenary indulgence once a week under the usual conditions)

4. Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof; but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed. (500 days every time said thrice. Plenary indulgence under the usual conditions if said thrice every day for a month)

5. Behold, O good and sweetest Jesus, before Thy Face I humbly kneel, and with the greatest fervour of my soul I pray and beseech Thee to fix deep in my heart lively sentiments of faith, hope, and charity, with true contrition for my sins and a most firm purpose of amendment, whilst I contemplate with great sorrow and affection Thy five wounds and ponder them over in my mind, having before my eyes the words which long ago David the prophet spoke in Thy own person concerning Thee, O good Jesus: 'They have pierced My hands and My feet, they have numbered all My bones. (10 years every time said before a representation of Christ crucified. Plenary indulgence if, after Confession and Communion, the prayer is said before a representation of the Crucifixion and prayers are offered for the intention of the Pope)

6. O most merciful Jesus, lover of souls, I beseech Thee, through the agony of Thy most holy Heart and through the sorrows of Thy Immaculate Mother, wash in Thy Blood the sinners of the whole world who are now in their agony and will die today.

Amen.

V. Heart of Jesus once in agony.

R. Pity the dying.

(300 days every time said. Plenary indulgence under the usual conditions if said thrice daily'but at three distinct times during the day'for a month)

7. Mary!

(300 days every time said. Plenary indulgence at the point of death to those who have frequently invoked the name of Mary during life)*

8. Hail, O queen, mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve, to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us. And after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

(5 years every time said. Plenary indulgence at the point of death to those who have frequently said it during life)

9. We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God, despise not our petitions in our necessities, but ever deliver us from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin.

(5 years every time said. Plenary indulgence at the point of death to all who have frequently recited it during life)*

10 Angel of God my guardian dear, To whom His love commits me here, Ever this day (or this night) be at my side, To light and guard, to rule and guide. Amen.(300 days every time said. Plenary indulgence at the point of death if the prayer was frequently said during life)*"

[ByzCat3000]

If you declare the pope not to be a true pope and also claim that there have been no true popes since Pope Pius XII (basically, the sedevacantist position), I can see why you would cling to the old fasting rules, old calendar, old indulgence rules and old holy days of obligation.

However, if you claim that the current popes since VII are still valid popes but we don't have to follow them if they go against truth and morals (the R&R position), then you have no choice but to follow all of the administrative changes made by these popes over the years since VII.

The reason is that that a valid pope has the authority to change all of the following administrative things in the church because they don't contradict truth and morals which include:

1. fasting rules
2. the church calendar including feast days of the saints
3. indulgence rules
4. holy days of obligation

The point is, if you consider Pope Francis a valid pope, you have to accept his administrative changes.

One question mark regarding #2 could be if you consider post Vatican II canonizations to be doubtful (as I currently do.  I don't reject them, but I don't accept them either.)

Otherwise I'm in agreement.