What were the rules before 1966?

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 :

“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".

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.

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?

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.