Pushed to the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter DorianGregorian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
You mentioned the Friday meat obligation. What was taken away was the sin. The law still is that we abstain from meat on Fridays or replace it with some other penance, such as a special act of charity. Since most people forget to do the special act of charity, it’s easier to just go ahead and abstain from meat. To abstain from meat and replace it with lobster tail is ridiculous. That is on the Church’s intention. It’s a penance, not a weight loss program. What you find in the law is the obligation to do the Friday penance, but the sin has been taken out of it. The Church made it a sin, the Church can also take it away.
Click to expand...
Br,

I don’t agree with your lobster analogy. Since when is a special act of charity a penance?

Abstinence from meat should put you in mind that it is Friday, the day of Lord’s passion. You should make a special meditation on that. It is not so much what you do, but the fact you are reminded by the obligation to fast, or perhaps say an additional rosary, or attend Mass, that this day stands out spiritually from Mon-Sat. So the fact that you decide to eat lobster tails, shrimp, scallops, or mahi-mahi is unimportant … you have already been reminded that it is Friday. You must certainly take the extra spiritual steps to obtain grace - the same as you would had you just decided to eat a tuna sub instead of a Philly cheesesteak. It must go beyond the meal and therefore the meal is more or less unimportant.

Have you ever had lobster tail without drawn butter? - now that would be a sacrifice!
 
There was a time in colonial New Englan when lobster was so common and cheap, it was forbidden to serve it to one’s servants or apprentices.
 
bpbasilphx said:
There was a time in colonial New Englan when lobster was so common and cheap, it was forbidden to serve it to one’s servants or apprentices.
Click to expand...
I know people, my mom’s generation, who won’t eat lobster because as children they suffered the shame of having lobster sandwiches every day for lunch at school.
 
ProVobis said:
Just a point of semantics maybe but is it fair to call all the priests “disobedient”? There is no doubt the four bishops are, but are the priests? They are definitely in suspension but any priest can be placed on suspension for any reason, not necessarily because he is disobedient.

Just asking. I’m not looking for an argument.
Click to expand...
This is not really an SSPX question, but a simple moral theology question. Any priest in the SSPX is objectively in a state of disobedience, because they are exercising priestly ministries without the proper eclesiastical approval. But only God can judge a particular priests heart as to whether he is culpable. :o
 
giuseppeTO said:
Br,

I don’t agree with your lobster analogy. Since when is a special act of charity a penance?
Click to expand...
I’m confused now. I didn’t make a lobster analogy. I don’t think. 🤷 I was simply saying that not eating meat on Fridays an replacing it with lobster tail is not much of a penance.

The point on charity was that the Church’s definition of penance includes to parts: restitution for sin and conversion or change of manners as St. Benedict would say. The idea of replacing absitenence with an act of charity is part of an on-going conversion. This dates back to early monasticism, to St. Benedict, actually. He taught his monks to be hospitable as a form of penance. It was handed down that way from the Benedictines to every religious order for generations. When the mendicants were founded: Franciscans and Dominicans, they taught charity as the highest form of penance, because it was an outward sign of an inner conversion.
Abstinence from meat should put you in mind that it is Friday, the day of Lord’s passion. You should make a special meditation on that. It is not so much what you do, but the fact you are reminded by the obligation to fast, or perhaps say an additional rosary, or attend Mass, that this day stands out spiritually from Mon-Sat. So the fact that you decide to eat lobster tails, shrimp, scallops, or mahi-mahi is unimportant … you have already been reminded that it is Friday. You must certainly take the extra spiritual steps to obtain grace - the same as you would had you just decided to eat a tuna sub instead of a Philly cheesesteak. It must go beyond the meal and therefore the meal is more or less unimportant.
Click to expand...
This above is very consistent with what Benedict wrote for his monks and what the mendicants later preached. The outcome of all penance must always be charity. This is was made clearer by St. Francis de Sales in his famous work, Introduction to the Devout Life.
Have you ever had lobster tail without drawn butter? - now that would be a sacrifice!
Click to expand...
On a liighter note. I’ve never had lobster in my life. When I was a kid we were Jewish and ate Kosher. I became a Catholic when I went to college, many many many moons ago. By that time, I had never developed a taste for shell fish, so I was never attracted to it.

Have a blessed and Happy New Year!

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
yosupman said:
This is not really an SSPX question, but a simple moral theology question. Any priest in the SSPX is objectively in a state of disobedience, because they are exercising priestly ministries without the proper eclesiastical approval. But only God can judge a particular priests heart as to whether he is culpable. :o
Click to expand...
The subjective and objective culpability are two different things. Objectively they are culpable of disobedience and violating canon law. Whether they are subjectively culpable of sin, that is between God and the soul.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I’ve never had lobster in my life.
Click to expand...
I believe it was either Aquinas or Augustine who postulated that lobster dipped in butter was a concoction dreamed up by no lower a creature than an angel from Dominations. I’ll have to go drag out my Summa.

However, it also appears to be the perfect formula for gout, which those of us over 50 dread, but Dominations would certainly not worry about.

A Blessed New Year to you and your Franciscan brothers!
 
giuseppeTO said:
I believe it was either Aquinas or Augustine who postulated that lobster dipped in butter was a concoction dreamed up by no lower a creature than an angel from Dominations. I’ll have to go drag out my Summa.

However, it also appears to be the perfect formula for gout, which those of us over 50 dread, but Dominations would certainly not worry about.

A Blessed New Year to you and your Franciscan brothers!
Click to expand...
I never heard that before; but it would not suprise me if Thomas Aquinas said it. Aquinas was a lover of food. He was so huge that they had to carve a semi-circle at the table so that he could pull up against the table. They say that he was a “big ox” as his friars called him. Poor guy!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I never heard that before; but it would not suprise me if Thomas Aquinas said it. Aquinas was a lover of food. He was so huge that they had to carve a semi-circle at the table so that he could pull up against the table. They say that he was a “big ox” as his friars called him. Poor guy!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Hmmm - I wonder if he had gout?
 
JReducation said:
I never heard that before; but it would not suprise me if Thomas Aquinas said it. Aquinas was a lover of food. He was so huge that they had to carve a semi-circle at the table so that he could pull up against the table. They say that he was a “big ox” as his friars called him. Poor guy!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
In the novel In the Name of the Rose, wasn’t the prior of the abbey given his position because he had figured a way to get the body of Thomas out of the room he died in and down the stairs and was thus thought to be clever? I had also heard the semi-circle story, though I had been told that it was a specially built altar.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Hmmm - I wonder if he had gout?
Click to expand...
This may sound like a dumb question, but since I’m not a medical historian, I’ll take my chances. Did they know about gout in the 1200s? People often died of “unknown” causes back then. For example, the early biographers of St. Francis said that he died of malnutrition. Today, after examining bone fragments we know several things: he did suffer malnutrition, but that’s not what killed him. He had TB of the bones, which is excrusiatingly painful and very rare today. They didn’t know about TB then. I’m wondering if they knew about gout. Aquinas did die relatively young. He was 49. Even then, people often lived into their late 50s or early 60s. But it is believed that he died of some kind of trauma to the brain from an accident about three months before his death. But people didn’t know about traumatic brain injury (TBI) back then.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Bluegoat said:
In the novel In the Name of the Rose, wasn’t the prior of the abbey given his position because he had figured a way to get the body of Thomas out of the room he died in and down the stairs and was thus thought to be clever? I had also heard the semi-circle story, though I had been told that it was a specially built altar.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the altar. It would not suprise me. Yes, they did give his post in Naples, I believe, to the friar who figured out how to get his body out of the house. There is a relic of his habit in Italy. It’s huge. Normally a man’s habit is much wider than a woman’s, because we talk larger steps. But his habit is vey wide. Mine is 60" across the front. Figure, it’s 120" in circumference. That’s the standard measure of a monastic habit. From where I stood looking at it (it’s behind glass), the scapular looked wider than the standard scapular. That’s usually about 30".

Poor guy, here he is one of the greatest minds of history and we’re mesuring him up for a new wardrobe. :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
pnewton said:
AL ove it when a serious thread breaks down into a discussion of food. It puts much in perspective. Personally, I prefer crawfish and shrimp, but then I do not attend SSPX chapels.
Click to expand...
Are they kosher? 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
pnewton said:
AL ove it when a serious thread breaks down into a discussion of food. It puts much in perspective. Personally, I prefer crawfish and shrimp, but then I do not attend SSPX chapels.
Click to expand...
Newt,

I have four great New Years resolutions for you:

  1. *]Join an SSPX Chapel
    *]Give up crawfish and move up to his big brother, the lobster
    *]move to a state where they speak English - or where the English they speak sounds like English
    *]smile more
 
giuseppeTO said:
Newt,

I have four great New Years resolutions for you:

  1. *]Join an SSPX Chapel
    *]Give up crawfish and move up to his big brother, the lobster
    *]move to a state where they speak English - or where the English they speak sounds like English
    *]smile more
Click to expand...

  1. Don’t do it Newt. He’s trying to get you to go to upstate NY where he lives. Too cold. I know. I went to high school upstate NY. Fifteen inches of snow six months a year? I don’t think so. 😃 I’ll go home to VA instead.

    Fraternally,

    Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
giuseppeTO said:
Newt,

I have four great New Years resolutions for you:

  1. *]Join an SSPX Chapel
    *]Give up crawfish and move up to his big brother, the lobster
    *]move to a state where they speak English - or where the English they speak sounds like English
    *]smile more
Click to expand...
  1. JReducation said:
    Don’t do it Newt. He’s trying to get you to go to upstate NY where he lives. Too cold. I know. I went to high school upstate NY. Fifteen inches of snow six months a year? I don’t think so. 😃 I’ll go home to VA instead.

    Fraternally,

    Br. JR, OSF 🙂
    Click to expand...
    No Newt, listen to me … I am the voice of reason. He is just a Confederate hiding under a brown hooded robe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top