Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?  (Read 1663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Reputation: +3625/-1044
  • Gender: Male
Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
« on: February 13, 2018, 07:24:26 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • SSPX.org just published this article, which lays out conciliar and traditional Lenten obligations on fast and abstinence.

    No recommendation given, just a comparison of each (with the conciliar practice being described as the current law, and the traditional practices being described as what used to be).

    Both perfectly correct, of course.

    But never would the old SSPX just have pasted such a comparison, without mentioning why the current law is scandalous, and why we stick to the old!

    The impression conveyed is that there is nothing wrong with the current legislation, but hey, if you prefer the old, here is what the Church used to do:

    http://sspx.org/en/fast-abstinence-rules
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6721
    • Reputation: +1889/-109
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #1 on: February 13, 2018, 07:46:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What were the rules before 1966?
    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)


    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +454/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #2 on: February 13, 2018, 08:39:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I remember last year or the year before I read an article by the sspx discussing this topic, and then it laid out what they are personally doing.  And, it was not the old fast and abstinence rules. I think it was either wed/fri/sat fast and abstinence.  Or, it was only a friday fast and abstinence.  Either way, I am not going to complain.  I thoroughly dislike the old fast and abstinence rules.  Fasting creates problems for me.  And, overeating creates problems for me.  I really cannot do either without getting sick with usually hayfever.  Because I do not overeat, I really have no need to fast.  I am not a fat renaissance king or prelate with gout foot needing a good fast to bring me back to reasonable health.
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline VeritasLuxMea

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +38/-34
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #3 on: February 13, 2018, 09:02:01 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • SSPX.org just published this article, which lays out conciliar and traditional Lenten obligations on fast and abstinence.

    No recommendation given, just a comparison of each (with the conciliar practice being described as the current law, and the traditional practices being described as what used to be).

    Both perfectly correct, of course.

    But never would the old SSPX just have pasted such a comparison, without mentioning why the current law is scandalous, and why we stick to the old!

    The impression conveyed is that there is nothing wrong with the current legislation, but hey, if you prefer the old, here is what the Church used to do:

    http://sspx.org/en/fast-abstinence-rules
    I'm confused. 

    In the second section, before listing the different rules, the article quoted says :
    Quote
    “Rules for penitential days under present Church law” details the bare minimum of penance which we must accomplish under pain of mortal sin.


    However we certainly offend God by neglecting penance completely over a length of time. Also, one will easily fall into mortal sin who confines the entire penance for the year to those days and acts required by the current law.
    “Guidelines for traditional penitential practices” spells out the strongly recommended practices which were observed until just after the Second Vatican Council.

    Maybe I can't read well, but that seems to say that if you only do the bare minimum (two days fast, and 7 days of abstinence) as the 1983 Code requires you're neglecting your duty to do penance, and are going to find yourself in mortal sin as a result of that neglect of your duty.

    I don't see how that is "going soft".

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +454/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #4 on: February 13, 2018, 09:39:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I should have read the article before I posted prior.  I think the article is good.  I agree with what they are doing.  That is an interesting bit you picked up on veritasluxmea.  And, I think it is accurate.  If the only penance you are doing is fast and abstinence twice a year with abstinence on fridays of lent, you will not be able to avoid mortal sin. 

    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3737
    • Reputation: +3625/-1044
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #5 on: February 13, 2018, 11:32:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ***THREAD RETRACTION***

    I received an email which convinced me that my objections to this article were ill-founded, and consequently, I am retracting my opinion on the matter.

    Below is my modified (to protect anonymity) response to my correspondent.


    Greetings ******-

    Thank you for your email.

    There is no doubt that I have become disillusioned by the morphing of the SSPX as it prepares for entrance into the conciliar church.


    But I do not think that had anything to do with my comments on this particular article.

    In truth, my post on CI suffered from haste (in both reading the article, and commenting upon it), as I was trying to beat the midnight deadline (i.e., I have given up internet, excepting emails, for Lent).

    That was poor judgment, to be sure, but a true explanation nonetheless.

    In any case, someone posted a rebuttal...which substantially reiterates your arguments above, and while I was rereading and reflecting, your email came through.

    In truth, I did (and do) think the citations you provide from the article are a rather cursory defense of the traditional practice, but I suppose that is a more stylistic, than substantive, objection.  

    Somewhat more pertinent, I wonder why the SSPX would bother to recount the new legislation to traditionalists at all?

    In any case, as I have nearly an hour left, I will go back to Cathinfo and retract that thread.

    Thank you for the correction, and my apologies.

    Wishing you a great Lent.

    Semper Idem,
    Sean Johnson
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline JmJ2cents

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 93
    • Reputation: +95/-17
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #6 on: February 14, 2018, 01:12:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is clear that the SSPX is using the new code rules.  I doubt anyone is surprised.  Just another watering down....What's next.  

    Offline VeritasLuxMea

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +38/-34
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #7 on: February 15, 2018, 02:51:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is clear that the SSPX is using the new code rules.  I doubt anyone is surprised.  Just another watering down....What's next.  

    I mentioned the above because I once asked an SSPX priest about this (one man does not speak for the whole, so it's just an anecdote). 

    I came to him self-righteous and shocked when he mentioned from the pulpit more-or-less what this article said, many years back.

    I knew him well, so he felt free to take me to task and show me I had misinterpreted him. 

    He said he never recommends or promotes the new "fast" ( he used "air quotes" himself to show how ridiculous the new rules are), but that many people come into the confessional and confess not fasting during Lent, or eating meat on a non-Friday as mortal sins. He told me he had a moral obligation to form consciences so we know what is sinful and what is not, because if we think it's a mortal sin and do it (even if it's not) we're committing mortal sins. He has to prevent mortal sin when he can, and this is often by correction our erring conscience.

    I think that might be why the SSPX mentions the new code fast and abstinence, and why they say it as I quoted above. That is what we are obliged under pain of grave sin to follow. The article isn't "loud and proud" about how ridiculous this is, so is "soft" in that way, but hardly is promoting the new "fast".

    I note in passing one element of such confusion : Partial abstinence or the "half fish day" as one priest called it. It's not at all traditional. It is was uniquely done by indult for the U.S., by Pius XII in the 1930s along with the "Turkey Friday" after Thanksgiving indult. It only became more widespread after the WWII. One place where we insist on "tradition" that's not traditional at all.

    Kudos to Mr Johnson for both the correction and example to us as far as making a good Lent.


    Offline JmJ2cents

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 93
    • Reputation: +95/-17
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #8 on: February 15, 2018, 06:42:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I mentioned the above because I once asked an SSPX priest about this (one man does not speak for the whole, so it's just an anecdote).

    I came to him self-righteous and shocked when he mentioned from the pulpit more-or-less what this article said, many years back.

    I knew him well, so he felt free to take me to task and show me I had misinterpreted him.

    He said he never recommends or promotes the new "fast" ( he used "air quotes" himself to show how ridiculous the new rules are), but that many people come into the confessional and confess not fasting during Lent, or eating meat on a non-Friday as mortal sins. He told me he had a moral obligation to form consciences so we know what is sinful and what is not, because if we think it's a mortal sin and do it (even if it's not) we're committing mortal sins. He has to prevent mortal sin when he can, and this is often by correction our erring conscience.

    I think that might be why the SSPX mentions the new code fast and abstinence, and why they say it as I quoted above. That is what we are obliged under pain of grave sin to follow. The article isn't "loud and proud" about how ridiculous this is, so is "soft" in that way, but hardly is promoting the new "fast".

    I note in passing one element of such confusion : Partial abstinence or the "half fish day" as one priest called it. It's not at all traditional. It is was uniquely done by indult for the U.S., by Pius XII in the 1930s along with the "Turkey Friday" after Thanksgiving indult. It only became more widespread after the WWII. One place where we insist on "tradition" that's not traditional at all.

    Kudos to Mr Johnson for both the correction and example to us as far as making a good Le

    You are right, it is not promoting the new Fast laws:  I got ahead of myself when I read the rules for the members of the SSPX.  I see they don't have to fast during the week and I was under the impression that they did or use to.  



    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14034
    • Reputation: +518/-1289
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #9 on: February 19, 2018, 05:02:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SSPX.org just published this article, which lays out conciliar and traditional Lenten obligations on fast and abstinence.

    No recommendation given, just a comparison of each (with the conciliar practice being described as the current law, and the traditional practices being described as what used to be).

    Both perfectly correct, of course.

    But never would the old SSPX just have pasted such a comparison, without mentioning why the current law is scandalous, and why we stick to the old!

    The impression conveyed is that there is nothing wrong with the current legislation, but hey, if you prefer the old, here is what the Church used to do:

    http://sspx.org/en/fast-abstinence-rules

    If they mention that the current law is scandalous and the older version should be observed then how is that a manifestation of a desire to accept an arrangement with the Vatican?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15699
    • Reputation: +8288/-2603
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #10 on: February 19, 2018, 07:57:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I thoroughly dislike the old fast and abstinence rules.  Fasting creates problems for me.

    Anyone who has issues caused by fasting can easily be dispensed by their confessor.  I know of several people who have been dispensed because they have blood sugar issues or are nursing/pregnant, etc.  People who work jobs involving manual labor are often regularly dispensed.  So the fasting laws have never been Draconian.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15699
    • Reputation: +8288/-2603
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Worldly Semi-conciliar SSPX Going Soft on Penance?
    « Reply #11 on: February 19, 2018, 08:01:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Look.  Unless you're a firm sedevacantist, the Church has the authority to change and even completely eliminate fasting regulations.  So it's just consistent being consistent here with sedeplenism.  If you believe that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate popes, then their fasting changes apply.  Consequently, one would not be committing any sin by following the new regulations ... so it's only right to list them so that people can properly form their consciences.  Even if one is merely in doubt about the legitimacy of the popes, then the binding nature of the old fasting laws is in doubt ... and therefore cannot bind consciences under the pain of sin.

    So, if you believe that these men have been legitimate popes, you can't go around pretending that the old fasting laws remain in force under pain of sin.  People would be following them by choice and in trying to keep the older spirit of the fast.

    It's in cases like this that I see the R&R folks being inconsistent with themselves.  Some of you assert that these men are indeed popes, but then howl and carry on as if the new fasting laws are not legitimate.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16