So, can I attend a SSPX mass or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Armor_of_Light
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q. Can a Catholic attend mass at an SSPX chapel and fulfill his Sunday obligation?
A. Yes.

Q. How so?
A. The SSPX priests are validly ordained Catholic priests who celebrate a valid Catholic liturgy.

Q. Why is it illicit?
A. The celebration of any sacrament, without the permission of either the bishop of the diocese or a male religious superior is prohibited by law. In this case, the absolution of sin in the confessional is invalid, since these priests do not have permission to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation. However, the consecration of the Eucharist does not require permission for validity. It requires permission for liceity.

Q… So what happens if a Catholic attends such a mass.
A. First of all, you will not be struck down by lightning. However, you will be attending a mass that is being celebrated against the law of the Church. It’s like anything else in life. If you do not fulfill the legal requirements, then you have to deal with the aftermath. This is the case with the priests and bishops of the SSPX. They have to deal with the aftermath of their illegal activities.

Q. Are the priests of the SSPX schismatics?
A. There are many priests and non priests who are schismatics, but they don’t all belong to the SSPX. A schismatic is one who has apostolic succession, but has broken communion with Peter. The priests of the SSPX and the laity that supports them are objectively culpable of certain schismatic statements, ideas and actions. But it takes a lot more than that to make one a schismatic or to be in schism. Everyone dissents on something. The key is to stop, think and self-correct.

Q. If I go to an SSPX mass, do I have to go to a second mass in order to make sure that I covered my bases?
A. No. That’s like going to a dentist who has no license and you get a tooth pulled. Then you feel guilty so you go get another tooth pulled by a licensed dentist. What’s the logic?

Q. Why do the bishops and the Vatican Curia discourage people from attending mass at an SSPX chapel?
A. I’m neither a bishop nor a Curia official. If I were to guess, there are several dangers. The more one is exposed to dissenting views, the more comfortable one feels with them. There have been studies done about people held hostage. After an extended exposure to their kidnappers, they hostages begin to become sympathetic. We don’t want to be too sympathetic to people who call the pope a Modernist, who believe that those of us who are not with them are enemies of orthodoxy, who see conspiracies, who have been charged with being antisemitic. Having said that, there are many beautiful things that can be found in these traditionalists communities. For me, the most beautiful thing that I find is the deep desire to please God. I don’t have to agree with their rhetoric to see and recognize this intense love of God. The danger is that one would adopt their way of seeing the Church placing oneself in conflict with the Church. There is also the issue of reinforcement. If I’m doing something that 800,000 people applaud, I’m not going to be dissuaded to give it up too quickly. In the case of the SSPX there are several hundred thousand people who applaud their fidelity to traditional Catholic values, their love for the EF, and their love for the people of God. This does not mean that the same 800,000 people applaud their disobedience. But the disapproval of the disobedience gets drowned out by the applause.

Q. The diocese has an EF mass not too far from me, but it’s not the same as the SSPX chapel.
A. This may be due to many reasons, none of which have anything to do with the mass. The priests are different personalities. The congregation is made up of different personalities. The SSPX exists for the purpose of preserving these traditions. Fr. X in a diocesan parish did not join the diocese for this purpose. He celebrates the EF, because it nurtures him. He has no obligation to celebrate it, not matter how many lay people claim that it nurtures them. No one can force him to do so. Father X’s spirit in approaching the EF may be different from that of an SSPX priest.

Q. So, then it’s OK to pass up Father X’s mass and attend mass at an SSPX chapel?
A. The problem there would be one of fidelity. Father X is in full communion with his bishop, who also happens to be your bishop, if you live in the same diocese. That bishop is in full communion with the Holy Father, who happens to be your pope as well. So, you’re bypassing them to worship with those who have no communion with the local bishop. If they have no communion with the local bishop,they have a very unsatisfactory communion with you, because you are part of the local diocese. The question arises, how faithful am I to my diocese, my bishop and my pope. It’s very hard to claim faithfulness to Christ and walk around the Apostles. I guess it can be done. I wouldn’t do it. My conscience would accuse me of infidelity.

My bishop may be the best or the worse, but he’s my bishop. If there is a bishop, there is a local Church. I look to him with great love, not because we always agree, but because we both love the same Church of which he is the highest ranking local authority.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Q. So, then it’s OK to pass up Father X’s mass and attend mass at an SSPX chapel?
A. The problem there would be one of fidelity. Father X is in full communion with his bishop, who also happens to be your bishop, if you live in the same diocese. That bishop is in full communion with the Holy Father, who happens to be your pope as well. So, you’re bypassing them to worship with those who have no communion with the local bishop. If they have no communion with the local bishop,they have a very unsatisfactory communion with you, because you are part of the local diocese. The question arises, how faithful am I to my diocese, my bishop and my pope. It’s very hard to claim faithfulness to Christ and walk around the Apostles. I guess it can be done. I wouldn’t do it. My conscience would accuse me of infidelity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Would this, also, be true if there is only an OF Mass available?
 
JM3 said:
Would this, also, be true if there is only an OF Mass available?
Click to expand...
I would have to say no. Notice that I said that fidelity is called into question when you pass up Father X for the SSPX. If there is no Father X, where else can you attend an EF mass.

However, I wouldn’t make it a habit and I would keep in mind that I’m there for the mass alone. I go to confession with a priest who has faculties. I get married by a deacon or priest who has faculties from the local bishop. I would not attend or send my children to their religious education program, not because they teach heresy, but because the mindset of the catechist may be schismatic. I have no way of knowing. If were unhappy with CCD in my parish, I would homeschool my kids in CCD, rather than send them to either place. One person with a schismatic attitude is not better than the other, be he on the left or the right.

Of course, when I go there, I must be kind to the folks there. I must be respectful to the clergy. It would be appropriate to make a small donation in the collection. After all, the only reason I can attend mass there is because someone pays the mortgage, utilities and the priest’s salary. That someone is sitting in the pew, meaning me and everyone else.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
No

Even if the mass is valid is still illicit…

You can always go to the N.O. mass… it may be a sacrifice (but even that united to the cross can save souls!) if you prefer the TLM but it is certainly better than going to a Mass said by a priest who is part of a schismatic group

In Christ,
Zac
 
LightBound

perhaps, but I have seen 1995 articles posted as reason to not attend,
this article has been posted a few times, I believe (and most certainly stand to be corrected) it is the most recent official statement…I have found nothing newer

ps - for what it is worth I attend an OF parish, and am quite happy with the fidelity to Rome found there
 
Podo2005 said:
No

Even if the mass is valid is still illicit…

You can always go to the N.O. mass… it may be a sacrifice (but even that united to the cross can save souls!) if you prefer the TLM but it is certainly better than going to a Mass said by a priest who is part of a schismatic group

In Christ,
Zac
Click to expand...
Let’s clarify. There is a difference between a schismatic act and a schism. Members of the SSPX have committed some schismatic acts, so have some Catholics from the mainstream. However, a schismatic act a schism does not necessarily create.

The SSPX is not in schism. There may be individuals who are in schism, but who knows which one. For the entire institute to be in schism the schismatic act would have to come from above. They would have to commit a crime that is condemned as schism by the Holy See. Such a crime has not happened. Canonically, the SSPX is still Catholic.

Think of it as a citizen who loses his rights because he breaks the law. He does not cease to be a citizen. That’s the case of the deacons, priests and bishops of the SSPX, even some laymen.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I would have to say no. Notice that I said that fidelity is called into question when you pass up Father X for the SSPX. If there is no Father X, where else can you attend an EF mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Forgive me, Br. JR, but you have confused me. If a Bishop will only have OF Masses in his diocese and I refuse to attend an OF Mass and go to a SSPX Mass instead, then my “fidelity” is still with the Bishop? I truly do not understand this.
 
JM3 said:
Forgive me, Br. JR, but you have confused me. If a Bishop will only have OF Masses in his diocese and I refuse to attend an OF Mass and go to a SSPX Mass instead, then my “fidelity” is still with the Bishop? I truly do not understand this.
Click to expand...
Now, you’re introducing another element into the equation. I was talking about a situation where there is no EF mass in your area. You’re adding a piece. You’re saying that the bishop will only have OF masses.

Let’s make a clear distinction. There are dioceses that do not have an EF mass for very real reasons.

a. There is no one who knows enough Latin.

b. None of the priests in the diocese want to celebrate it and no one can force priest to do so.

c. There are serious scheduling conflicts, such as displacing 500 people to have an EF for 50. SP did not have that in mind.

d. A religious superior who will not give his priests permission to celebrate the EF.

These are situations out of the bishop’s control. He can’t force anyone to celebrate the Ef. He if a parish needs five masses and has only two priests, the bishop can’t reasonably allow a pastor to change one of the to an EF, if it displaces a significant number of people. Bishops have no authority over priests who are religious. Even if the priest is willing to celebrate the EF, the bishop can ask and the superior has the authority to turn him down.

Give these and similar conditions, one would not be unfaithful to the bishop, because the bishop cannot provide the EF at this time.

When you say that the bishop won’t have it, this raises many questions that I cannot answer here. But you would certainly do well to ask.
  1. Who said that the bishop won’t have it?
  2. What exactly did the bishop say?
  3. If it is true that he said there could not be an EF mass in his diocese, what is his reason? The reason may be legitimate.
  4. Who asked for the EF? The current rule is that anyone who is associated with the SSPX or similar group does not have the right to ask for the EF. The Holy Father made this very clear in UE. Let’s say that you have 10 people who attend mass at the SSPX and are supporters of the SSPX. They forfeit the privilege of asking for an EF from one of the pastors in the diocese.
  5. How was the bishop approached? If the approach is demanding or those who approach a bishop have a sense of entitlement, they will most likely find that the bishop is going to have reservations. For example, I would not walk into my bishop’s office asking for an EF mass because it’s more reverent than the OF. The logical response would be, “Let’s fix whatever is broken with the OF so that it is celebrated reverently.” or “On what basis are you making the comparison?” In other words, it’s a confrontational approach. If bishops caved every time that someone acts aggressively, where would we be?
All that I can say is that if your bishop has valid reasons for not having an EF in his diocese, it would be unfaithful to bypass him. We all need to learn to live with sacrifices.

When someone says that the bishop will not have it or not allow it, one should verify with the questions above and other similar ones.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Now, you’re introducing another element into the equation. I was talking about a situation where there is no EF mass in your area. You’re adding a piece. You’re saying that the bishop will only have OF masses.

Let’s make a clear distinction. There are dioceses that do not have an EF mass for very real reasons.

a. There is no one who knows enough Latin.

b. None of the priests in the diocese want to celebrate it and no one can force priest to do so.

c. There are serious scheduling conflicts, such as displacing 500 people to have an EF for 50. SP did not have that in mind.

d. A religious superior who will not give his priests permission to celebrate the EF.

These are situations out of the bishop’s control. He can’t force anyone to celebrate the Ef. He if a parish needs five masses and has only two priests, the bishop can’t reasonably allow a pastor to change one of the to an EF, if it displaces a significant number of people. Bishops have no authority over priests who are religious. Even if the priest is willing to celebrate the EF, the bishop can ask and the superior has the authority to turn him down.

Give these and similar conditions, one would not be unfaithful to the bishop, because the bishop cannot provide the EF at this time.

When you say that the bishop won’t have it, this raises many questions that I cannot answer here. But you would certainly do well to ask.
  1. Who said that the bishop won’t have it?
  2. What exactly did the bishop say?
  3. If it is true that he said there could not be an EF mass in his diocese, what is his reason? The reason may be legitimate.
  4. Who asked for the EF? The current rule is that anyone who is associated with the SSPX or similar group does not have the right to ask for the EF. The Holy Father made this very clear in UE. Let’s say that you have 10 people who attend mass at the SSPX and are supporters of the SSPX. They forfeit the privilege of asking for an EF from one of the pastors in the diocese.
  5. How was the bishop approached? If the approach is demanding or those who approach a bishop have a sense of entitlement, they will most likely find that the bishop is going to have reservations. For example, I would not walk into my bishop’s office asking for an EF mass because it’s more reverent than the OF. The logical response would be, “Let’s fix whatever is broken with the OF so that it is celebrated reverently.” or “On what basis are you making the comparison?” In other words, it’s a confrontational approach. If bishops caved every time that someone acts aggressively, where would we be?
All that I can say is that if your bishop has valid reasons for not having an EF in his diocese, it would be unfaithful to bypass him. We all need to learn to live with sacrifices.

When someone says that the bishop will not have it or not allow it, one should verify with the questions above and other similar ones.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Interesting. I think you remember my story. Sometimes the Bishop is just plain old not going to have it. Period. Or if it is to be allowed it will be suppressed.🤷

It can be frustrating and I and others need your prayers to not only have an EF made available but also to have the patience and obedience to follow our shepherd no matter how angry and frustrated we might be. for it is our duty to follow a Bishop even when we know they are wrong on this issue.

I have also learned from this site that such hostile bishops are not the norm. And that nothing lasts forever and the next bishop may be more accommodating.

When people say “the SSPX are a small and inconsequential group who will not do much for the Church if they are ever regularized” they are not understanding that on the local and personal level lives can be changed. A regularized SSPX in my area would have an immense impact. Not only in my own life but in the life of our local Church’s and out entire diocese. However that impact could be really good or really bad. It would definitely change things.
 
Moore11 said:
A regularized SSPX in my area would have an immense impact. Not only in my own life but in the life of our local Church’s and out entire diocese. However that impact could be really good or really bad. It would definitely change things.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming that they’re going to be allowed to stay. I know some grandfathering might be in effect, but in places where the Bishop is opposed or wasn’t consulted before their arrival, he might request for them to be removed. Especially if they set up shop without his permission.
 
Moore11 said:
Interesting.
When people say “the SSPX are a small and inconsequential group who will not do much for the Church if they are ever regularized” they are not understanding that on the local and personal level lives can be changed. A regularized SSPX in my area would have an immense impact. Not only in my own life but in the life of our local Church’s and out entire diocese. However that impact could be really good or really bad. It would definitely change things.
Click to expand...
I will certainly pray for you and others in your situation.

I would like to comment on some points you made. Let’s being with a regularized SSPX. I believe that a regularized SSPX will certainly have an impact on those who desire the EF of the mass and the older form of the other sacraments. There is no doubt about that.

Will the SSPX have any impact on the dioceses? None at all, if it comes in as a prelature. Look at Opus Dei. It’s a lot bigger than the SSPX. It has many more priests and many more laymen. It’s a prelature. A prelature has nothing to do with the diocese. The prelate requests the bishop’s permission to put up his tent in the bishop’s territory. From that point forward, the prelature has not voice or vote in the diocese. Some bishop invite the priests of the prelature to participate in the priests’ synod or to be active members of the deanery. I’m speaking about the Prelature of the Opus Dei. It’s up to them to take advantage of these invitations.

However, unlike priests who are religious the priests of the prelature who participate in the priests’ synod, deanery meetings and other commissions and committees, are expected to think in broad strokes. They are secular priests. A diocese is made up of secular Catholics and not all of them are subscribers to the prelature. What this priest brings to the table has to fit as many people as possible.

Why did I say unlike those priests who belong to religious orders? When a religious order enters a diocese, the bishop agrees to a number of things. Among those points, he agrees that the order will protect its charism first and the diocese second. It is agreed that the order has a right to proselytize for its charism. A Franciscan has a right to expect his parishioners to accommodate to Franciscan ways. He has the right to attend a deanery meeting or a priests’ synod and say, “Francis would do it this way.” This is part of his duty to protect and promote his charism. A prelature doe snot have this right. It’s range of influence is limited to those who make use of the prelature’s pastoral care.

As far as grumpy old bishops, I have not had that pleasure. Every bishop with whom I have worked, there have been many, has always been most gracious. I didn’t always get what I wanted. At times the bishop and I disagreed on some point. The bishop forgot or the bishop did not understand the rules of the game. Yes, this can happen. A bishop comes from a specific context. There is no school for bishops. They learn on the job.

Like everyone else, bishops have personalities. They may understand this, but not that. The agree with this and disagree with the other. They’re resistant to new things, even if it is old, such as the EF. They often have so much on their plate that they make poor choices, because they make them on the run. In many diocese, the bishop has nothing to do with any of this. If it’s a very large archdiocese, there are vicars, chancellors, department heads, directors and even auxiliary bishops. All these people are the bishop’s deputies. They make decisions in the bishop’s name. Those decisions are binding, because they have been authorized to do so.

I often wonder if our idea of what a bishop should be is not a little romanticized. This being the case, we’re often disappointed, frustrated, angry or just plain stunned by the bishop.

I can only speak from my experience. I’ve lived and worked in five dioceses. In each diocese I found the bishop to be attentive, cordial, and kind. This does not mean that I have always gotten what I wanted. How is it that I can enter a bishop’s office and leave smiling? Very simple.

First, I make up my mind that I’m going to speak to a successor of the Apostles. Whatever his personality, that fact alone puts me into a state of awe.

Second, I hope the bishop had a good night’s sleep and a good breakfast. If not, he might be testy. If he’s testy, there is not much that I can do about it, but it’s not my fault. I’m leaving room for his humanity.

Third and last, I remind myself that he’s the bishop, not Einstein. He does not have to know everything. It’s not a job requirement. It’s up to me to bring with me whatever notes, documents and other materials that I may need to make my case.

Once the dialogue begins, I lay out my case in bullets, pausing to allow the bishop to absorb and respond. When I finish laying out my case, I ask for what I want using language as concrete as possible, so there is not room for confusion. For example, I might say, “Your Excellency, given everything that I have explained I believe that we can and should insert an EF at St. John Doe’s parish at 10:30 on Sundays. Can we do that?”

Using these methods of communication and not expecting more from a bishop than I would expect from myself has helped me enjoy the company of my bishops and has helped me to like them very much, even when I don’t get what I want.

For me, it’s more important to have a wonderful relationship with the successor of the Apostles than to have an EF or an OF mass. That sense of connection to the 12 Apostles is awe inspiring and stimulates my Catholic faith. Even the old cranky bishop does something positive for me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Melchior said:
You’re assuming that they’re going to be allowed to stay. I know some grandfathering might be in effect, but in places where the Bishop is opposed or wasn’t consulted before their arrival, he might request for them to be removed. Especially if they set up shop without his permission.
Click to expand...
I dont think that is anything to worry about. If we are looking at big assumptions The assumption of regularization is the bigger one to worry about. In all the models for “grandfathering” I have seen all 3 SSPX chapels in my diocese stay. But why even bring that up? lets not get too ahead of ourselves with the negative Nancy stuff. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now there is not even a bridge to cross.
 
My neighborhood is a town of about 30,000 people. There is one large parish supporting a full pre k-12 Catholic school and four! smaller parishes within a 4 miles raidius. These smaller parishes survive due to traditional neighborhood and ethnic loyalties. Our parish, the largest one is a white rural demographic, fairly successful economically and extremely generous. The parish subsidizes about 1/2 of the schools’ expenses.

There is a battle going on in the parish. I say a battle, but it has not yet erupted into that. We have a segment that believes a contemporary worship style is the antidote to stopping the leak going to the ecumenical protestant multimedia church down the street, which is growing by leaps and bounds. And another segment who wants more traditional worship and thinks that is the way to draw people back. These more traditional folks are “suffering” quietly for the most part. The bulk of the parish is cool with whatever the hierarchy decides to use at the Mass. I would venture we have the best music director anywhere in the world,an immensely talented man who is paid a living wage and has given everything he has to pleasing people of different tastes. This is a man equally adept at, and happily willing to play, Palestrina, or Haugen and Haas (sounds like and ice cream company doesn’t it). Also he does a guitar and piano Mass at Saturday vigil. Our choir does many Latin hymns on Sunday morning.

Sitll, he is being pilloried rather uncharitably by people who are full of anxiety over losing butts from the pews. It’s HIS fault that people are leaving apparently. His music selections are not contemporary enough apparently (an unbelievable assertion). People are attending Mass other places. Other people are promising to leave if the “modernists” make the 11am Mass too contemporary.

What’s being lost in the shuffle is, who would support the school if even 1/3 of the parish left? That’s a huge deal, to educate young people in the Catholic way of life, to continue the traditions and carry the ball when we are gone. Who will carry on the catechetical programs, retreats, Catholic identity, outreach to the poor, hospital visits. Some of these programs require a critical mass and a community bound up in support of one another.

So for me, attending a Mass with a bunch that screams “division” is not remotely an option, in fact in my heart, that would be sinful. I would be detracting from the community I live in, that needs my help. The community that is necessary to carry on the required work here. It may be different in other areas, I don’t know.

Our music director is sucking it up and taking one for the Lord, trying to keep his mouth shut. He is a great example for me. No matter how bad the divisiveness gets, how"hokey" the contemporary Mass gets, I am committed here to the these people.
 
St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.”

So - assuming that there are other, licit masses being celebrated in the OP’s general area (whether EF or OF), my point is this, and I do think the OP’s question can be pretty simply answered from a good ol’ fashioned Catholic point of view without having to scrutinize complicated “Vatican documents” that may or may not be out of date: how can it be a good thing to attend a mass that is celebrated without the permission of (and most likely, against the wishes of) the local bishop?

To my point of view (and I more often attend the EF than OF these days, by the way), it can’t be.

Otherwise, how is that obedient? How is that pleasing to God? How is it good for your soul?
 
Leon_Bloy said:
St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.”

So - assuming that there are other, licit masses being celebrated in the OP’s general area (whether EF or OF), my point is this, and I do think the OP’s question can be pretty simply answered from a good ol’ fashioned Catholic point of view without having to scrutinize complicated “Vatican documents” that may or may not be out of date: how can it be a good thing to attend a mass that is celebrated without the permission of (and most likely, against the wishes of) the local bishop?

To my point of view (and I more often attend the EF than OF these days, by the way), it can’t be.

Otherwise, how is that obedient? How is that pleasing to God? How is it good for your soul?
Click to expand...
You have a few things going on here at the same time. Let’s try to sort through them.

The documents are not outdated. Outdated would be that they have been replaced by more recent statements. That is not the case. The Church holds that the SSPX mass is valid, but illicit.

The idea of fidelity to the bishop is an essential one in the life of every Catholic. You cannot be Catholic and bypass the bishop, even if you don’t like him.

There can be situations where the attendance at the EF mass is of special benefit to the individual’s soul. The Church has no rule against attending mass at the SSPX chapel, provided that one is not pulled into the schismatic mentality of some of the folks there. The Church acknowledges the danger of contamination, but does not prohibit the attendance. Therefore, the person is not acting contrary to obedience. Contrary to obedience would be if the bishop issued a prohibition. When a bishop issues a prohibition, personal opinions and desires are suspended. The bishop need not be talking dogma or morals to exercise authority over his diocese. This is the part that today’s Catholics need to remember. Infallibility is not a requirement for authority. Authority must be obeyed unless it is in conflict with the Commandments. Even Bishop Fellay admitted that the Church is not asking traditionalists to violate the Commandments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
You have a few things going on here at the same time. Let’s try to sort through them.

The documents are not outdated. Outdated would be that they have been replaced by more recent statements. That is not the case. The Church holds that the SSPX mass is valid, but illicit.

The idea of fidelity to the bishop is an essential one in the life of every Catholic. You cannot be Catholic and bypass the bishop, even if you don’t like him.

There can be situations where the attendance at the EF mass is of special benefit to the individual’s soul. The Church has no rule against attending mass at the SSPX chapel, provided that one is not pulled into the schismatic mentality of some of the folks there. The Church acknowledges the danger of contamination, but does not prohibit the attendance. Therefore, the person is not acting contrary to obedience. Contrary to obedience would be if the bishop issued a prohibition. When a bishop issues a prohibition, personal opinions and desires are suspended. The bishop need not be talking dogma or morals to exercise authority over his diocese. This is the part that today’s Catholics need to remember. Infallibility is not a requirement for authority. Authority must be obeyed unless it is in conflict with the Commandments. Even Bishop Fellay admitted that the Church is not asking traditionalists to violate the Commandments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understood what I said.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
All Catholics should also remember that they should never contribute financially to the SSPX or other schismatic groups.
Click to expand...
That is not true. The Vatican has stated that it is fine to attend their Masses and to contribute financially.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top