Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Mega-fin on May 29, 2019, 05:43:31 PM

Title: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Mega-fin on May 29, 2019, 05:43:31 PM
Has the SSPX jumped on board with the new list of indulgences before? I bought a copy of the Little Office from Angelus Press (I joined the Knights of Our Lady, and you should too) and instead of the traditional 7 years and 7 quarantines for reciting the Office, it just lists partial indulgence referencing the 1999 indulgence which is not for the traditional Office but the stupid new one which has just “Morning Prayer” and “Evening Prayer” and no more. 
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 29, 2019, 06:22:04 PM
Nice catch!

Here's the deal:

Before the ralliement ramped up into overdrive in 2011, the SSPX was content to retain the pre-conciliar modifications in practice, even though it knew such practices and disciplines were technically abrogated, obrogated, or derrogated by subsequent legislation.

The SSPX was keeping the traditions anyway.

There was no hand wringing about "Oh, people think they are sinning when they aren't, and therefore we need to explain that, though we recommend the old practices, they are no longer binding."

That's true, technically.

But the old SSPX never felt the need to specify (except perhaps in the confessional or in private).

But today, it wants to do so publicly, and so we get the articles on feasts moved to Sunday; fasting laws; the new CIC; handbook on indulgences; etc.

In other words, whereas in the old SSPX you might get a sermon about the scandalous 1 hour fast, or Ascension Thursday moved to Sunday, today you are more apt to get one saying, "Well, technically..."

And so little by little, fallen human nature being what it is, people forego the old disciplines and devotions: "Well, if it isn't a sin anymore, then I can have coffee on the way to Church, and by the time I get there, since its a sung Mass, the hour is up by the time I receive Communion."  

Or, "Well, I might as well throw my Raccolta away, since it is now only good as an historical or devotional artifact, but worthless from the perspective of indulgences in 4/5th's of the prayers contained therein.

Ultimately, what we are witnessing is an increasing legalism (which not only caused Menzingen's scruples with regard to its canonical status, but is also affecting the every day quality of spiritual life of the average faithful):

The constant bombardment of reminders of all these changes in discipline and canon law are sending the message:

We are conciliarists, legally, and the only difference between us and the other more modern conciliarists, is the rite of Mass we attend...for now.

For all the rest of it, we are slowly transforming into Novus Ordo Catholics (dress, discipline, worldliness, doctrine, devotion, etc.), with all these public explanations, articles, and sermons paving the way for it.

I have no doubt the legalist, scrupulous SSPX genuinely feels bound to do so.

But it was not always so, and when the SSPX (and its faithful) were more vigorous, these explanations were handled as needed in private.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Mega-fin on May 29, 2019, 06:46:09 PM
Well yes, they do the whole “It’s not really a sin...” (here in Canada for example we have 6 days of Obligation. The NO bishops say just 2, Christmas and Circuмsion, so SSPX says it’s not really a sin to not attend the other 4). Obviously jumping on the conciliar ship. 

I was just still thinking they would at least use the old indulgence s because you know, it “fits with their spirituality” and all that nonsense. But this was still a surprise to me. I thought they would still at least try to save face somewhat!
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 29, 2019, 10:46:40 PM
I really don't get this kind of stuff TBH.

I get R + Rs rejecting the (fallible) doctrinal statements of the current hierarchy that they perceive as clashing with tradition.  Sure.  Makes sense.

But on what basis can you ignore the purely disciplinary laws of the people you think are in charge?  I of course get Sedes rejecting their disciplinary laws, because they reject their authority.

I'm not trying to disrespect anyone here, but stuff like this really confirms my intuition that the regular SSPX is taking the most trad position you can consistently take while being Sedeplenist, and the SSPX-Resistance is functionally acting like they're sede.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 29, 2019, 11:12:51 PM
ByzCat3000,
The point is this:  The letter of the law kills; the spirit of the law gives life.

Post-V2 has destroyed the spirit of the law, so that only the bare-minimum of Church law exists; only the bare-minimum of penances, fasts, feasts, etc.  By the new-sspx posting the letter of the law only, they are showing their break with Tradition and tradition.  "T"radition being centuries upon centuries old, and "t"radition being simply the sspx's past few decades.
.
The spirit of the law gives life because we are to live as Traditional Catholics, meaning we are to live just as every other Catholic lived for 2,000 years.  Christ told us in Scripture:  "Unless ye do penance, ye shall all likewise perish."  This command to penance is ongoing, it is part of EVERY catholic's vocation, it is part of the Church's duty to spread.  
.
Those who consider themselves to be Traditional will follow the "old" law (i.e. the consistent laws of centuries).  Those who want to be saved will follow the "old" law.  Those who follow the new laws - the letter of the law - will die spiritually and not be saved.
.
Is the new-sspx Traditional or not?  This is another example which says they are not.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Stanley N on May 30, 2019, 12:06:04 AM
Those who consider themselves to be Traditional will follow the "old" law (i.e. the consistent laws of centuries).  Those who want to be saved will follow the "old" law.  Those who follow the new laws - the letter of the law - will die spiritually and not be saved.
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"?

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?

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.)
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: poche on May 30, 2019, 02:11:24 AM
Fr. Schouppe, in his book, "Purgatory," said that the days and quarantines, etc. don't actually correspond in the same way that we count time today on earth. He said that they correspond more like the indefinite time that we have in the partial indulgences as opposed to specific times like numbers of days etc.  
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: SoldierOfChrist on May 30, 2019, 01:37:38 PM
I joined the Knights of Our Lady, and you should too
What is the Knights of Our Lady?  Is there a good website for information?
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 30, 2019, 02:22:53 PM
What is the Knights of Our Lady?  Is there a good website for information?

No.

The Knights have the materials you are seeking (charisma, rule, obligations, etc), however.

I can introduce you to a couple Knights, if you are interested in browsing those materials.

As regards their stance in the crisis in Tradition, they are 101% Resistance.

Here is their 2015 declaration:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/declaration-of-the-order-of-the-knights-of-our-lady/ (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/declaration-of-the-order-of-the-knights-of-our-lady/)
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 31, 2019, 01:23:57 AM
Here's a true treasure from the Treasury of Indulgenced Prayers, 1944: https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-674.shtml (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-674.shtml) I prefer the traditional method of stipulating indulgences in days of penance. Suppose the temporal punishment of our sins required 10 or even 100 years of the hardest penance. Imagine how difficult it would be to finish this, yet we would be bound to do so, or else probably face an even greater punishment in purgatory, e.g. 100 or 1000 years. So when there are Indulgences of 300 days or of 7 years, the meaning is, the Indulgence granted, by the Mercy of God, and the Treasury of Merits of the Church, is equivalent to 300 days or 7 years penance. The time in Purgatory we would have to suffer, because Divine Justice would probably be more severe, is probably even more than 7 years. But by making use of indulgences, we can partially or even entirely pay off that debt of temporal punishment.

There are many indulgences, even plenary, to be gained at the hour of death.
Quote
PART XII.
FOR A HAPPY DEATH
Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I give you my heart and my soul.
Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, assist me in my last agony.
Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, may I breathe forth my soul in peace with you.
(7 years every time each one is said)*
From sudden and unprovided death, O Lord, deliver us.
(300 days every time said)
O Lord, my God, I now, at this moment, readily and willingly accept at Thy hand whatever kind of death it may please Thee to send me, with all its pains, penalties, and sorrows.
(7 years every time said. Plenary indulgence at the point of death to all those who at any time of their lives, with sincere love toward God and with the usual conditions, make this kind of act)

The new indulgences didn't cancel the old. The old ones still apply. Rosary and Way of the Cross were earlier plenarily indulgenced and still are such. 30 minute Eucharistic Adoration and 30 minute devout Scripture reading are two new plenary indulgences.

Fr. Paul O Sullivan encourages all to gain indulgences frequently and apply them to the Holy Souls. As we know, the usual conditions for indulgences are (1) sacramental Confession. (2) Holy Communion (3) Prayers for the Holy Father. For Plenary Indulgences, deep detachment from sin is required. That means the Indulgenced work should be done purely out of love for God, as the work above explains.

From "read me or rue it": Read Me or Rue It: https://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/READRUE.TXT (https://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/READRUE.TXT)

Quote
"IV. The recital of the Rosary (with its great indulgences) and making the Way of the Cross (which is also richly indulgenced) are excellent means of helping the Holy Souls.

St. John Massias, as we saw, released from Purgatory more than a million souls, chiefly by reciting the Rosary and offering its great indulgences for them.

V. Another easy and efficacious way is by the constant repetition of short indulgenced prayers [applying the indulgence to the Souls in Purgatory]. Many people have the custom of saying 500 or 1,000 times each day the little ejaculation, "Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place my trust in Thee!" or the one word, "Jesus. " These are most consoling devotions; they bring oceans of grace to those who practice them and give immense relief to the Holy Souls.

Those who say the ejaculations 1,000 times a day gain 300,000 days Indulgence! What a multitude of souls they can thus relieve! What will it not be at the end of a month, a year, 50 years? And if they do not say the ejaculations, what an immense number of graces and favors they shall have lost!
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: SoldierOfChrist on May 31, 2019, 10:31:44 AM
No.

The Knights have the materials you are seeking (charisma, rule, obligations, etc), however.

I can introduce you to a couple Knights, if you are interested in browsing those materials.

As regards their stance in the crisis in Tradition, they are 101% Resistance.

Here is their 2015 declaration:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/declaration-of-the-order-of-the-knights-of-our-lady/ (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/declaration-of-the-order-of-the-knights-of-our-lady/)
Thanks for the info!  I’ll check out their site and see if I might be interested
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: McCheese on May 31, 2019, 10:46:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 31, 2019, 11:01:27 AM
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:

Yes, with the understanding, of course, that people are still FREE to follow the old disciplines.  But the fact is that no one would be obliged under pain of sin to follow them.  So, what is the SSPX supposed to do, tell everyone they're bound under pain of sin to attend Mass on Ascension Thursday?  That would be wrong.  They cannot bind consciences like that.  What IS interesting, however, is the shift in their taking every opportunity to publicly announce the "lack of obligation".  I think they have long conceded that these disciplinary changes are legitimate, but just never openly proclaimed it.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: hollingsworth on May 31, 2019, 11:03:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 31, 2019, 11:04:44 AM
Just a little note for those with conflicted consciences.  In both the old and the new discipline, the Stations of the Cross remain a plenary indulgence.  So there's no doubt about that one in any case if one is seeking a plenary indulgence.  Also, there's no requirement to say any formal prayers for the Stations.  You just need to move from station to station (unless physically impeded) and think about each station.  One could devoutly make the Stations in about 5 minutes.  Just spend about 30 seconds meditating on each station.  Then add the typical prayers for the intentions of the Holy Father (which still exist even if the See is vacant and which are specifically defined intentions and not the schemes of Jorge Bergoglio).  There's a little difference there, but it's easy to come up with a version that satisfies the requirements of both the old and the new.

Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 31, 2019, 11:12:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: X on May 31, 2019, 11:48:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 31, 2019, 12:33:19 PM
Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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. 
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: McCheese on May 31, 2019, 12:42:07 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: madwoman on May 31, 2019, 02:47:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: McCheese on May 31, 2019, 03:35:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Stanley N on May 31, 2019, 04:07:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: 2Vermont on June 02, 2019, 08:11:43 AM
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

Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on June 03, 2019, 04:44:13 AM
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 (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-674.shtml)

Quote
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)*"
Title: Re: SSPX and new indulgences?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on June 03, 2019, 09:05:54 PM
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.