SSPX Update - Redux

[JReducation]

Brother? I need to know before Sunday

This is a complicated piece of law here, because there are two things at play here.

On the one hand, we have the statement by the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which many people either misunderstand or would rather not know. Like all documents that come out of the Vatican the comments by the Commission are no different. There are points that are not put into print in order to give the bishops and religious superiors some latitude, but the message is in the nuance.

The Commission has always said two things.

1. A Catholic can fulfill his or her Sunday obligation by attending mass at an SSPX chapel.

This is based on Canon Law, which says that a Catholic fulfills his or her Sunday obligation by attending mass at any Catholic church where the mass is celebrated validly.

Here is the glitch. This law did not have in mind groups like the SSPX, that have no legal right to celebrate the mass. No law can give anyone permission to do what is illegal or to support what is illegal. That’s illogical.

This law was written to address the question that came up concerning the Eastern Catholics who live in countries where there are no Eastern Catholic churches. It also addresses the big question that many Latin or Roman Catholics have about giving Holy Communion to infants. In some Roman Catholic parishes, when parents approached Holy Communion with their infant and asked for Holy Communion for the infant, it was denied to the child, even though the priest knew in advance that the child is Eastern Catholic. Eastern Catholic babies have the legal right to receive Holy Communion, because they are full members of the Catholic Church, unlike the children of Roman Catholics who have not received all of the Sacraments of Christian Initiation.

To make it clear to everyone, the law said that any Catholic fulfills his Sunday obligation at any Catholic church and can receive Holy Communion, if it is lawful for him or her to do so. Lawful means in a state of grace and also having made one’s first Holy Communion.

The Commission cannot say that the attendance at the SSPX mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation, because the SSPX mass is Catholic and Catholics can attend a Catholic mass anywhere. This leads to the second point that the commission made in its statement.

 

[JReducation]

1. Attendance at masses in SSPX chapels is discouraged.

The reason being that the celebration is illegal. The priest celebrating the mass knows that what he’s doing is illegal. He is doing it with full knowledge. Objectively, it appears that the priest himself is committing a sin in celebrating a mass that he has no right to celebrate.

This leads to another point, which is what many bishops are observing. A priest who celebrates a sacrament when the Church’s law clearly says that he may not do so, is operating out of a schismatic mindset. He is making a statement that says, “The law does not apply to me.”

If the law does not apply to you, why not? Do you have an indult? The answer is, no. Do you belong to one of the other Catholic churches? The answer is, no. Do you belong to the Church that prohibits you from celebrating the mass? The answer is, yes.

OK, then you should not be celebrating this mass. Doing so is an act that makes a very loud statement that between you and the Primacy there is a schism, because you’re not on the same page.

This is what the bishops fear. They fear that the faithful will adopt the same mindset that they can be Catholic and be in a “mental schism” with the Holy Father. The term “mental schism” is mine. I couldn’t find a better term.

Now we come to another point in Canon Law. The bishop is the highest ranking authority in the local Church. This is made a reality by a number of things.

First, it is Catholic tradition that a diocese is a Church and that the diocesan bishop is its lawful head.

Second, it is also Catholic tradition, albeit not often stated, that there is college of bishops to which every bishop belongs, including the bishop of Rome. As long as the bishop remains united to the college, he retains his office and the powers that go with that office.

Third, because of his office, the bishop can command the faithful of his diocese not to attend mass at the SSPX chapel. Even though they can fulfill their Sunday obligation there. The law does not say that they have a right to do so. The law says they CAN.

There is a difference between CAN and RIGHT. In law, they do not mean the same. In law, can means that you are free to do something until someone in authority says that you can no longer do it. Whereas a right is something that no one in authority can take away from you unless you forfeit it, as is the case of the priests of the SSPX. They have forfeited their right to celebrate the sacraments through disobedience and by committing a crime.

Remember, in Canon Law there are no misdemeanors. If you break the law, it’s a crime. Roman law is very simple. Are you a criminal? Not always. Is the act a crime? If it violates the law, yes it is.

To wrap it up. One can fulfill his Sunday obligation at an SSPX mass. The priests of the SSPX operate out of a schismatic mindset. This is why the bishops refer to them as schismatic, which is different from saying that the entire SSPX is in schism. The laity that attends mass at the SSPX and that supports the SSPX continues to be under the authority of its diocesan bishop, not the bishops of the SSPX. The SSPX is neither a diocese nor a prelature. Laymen who believe that they can flaunt the commands and directives of their diocesan bishops to follow those of the SSPX bishops have a big surprise at the last judgment. The diocesan bishop is the head of the Church to which you belong, not the bishops of the SSPX. Therefore, the diocesan bishop can prohibit the attendance at the SSPX masses.

I have never seen a bishop prohibit it. I have seen many bishops strongly discourage it and express strong disapproval.

Remember this. Not only are the priests of the SSPX suspended, but they are present in the bishop’s diocese without his permission. They have NO MORAL or LEGAL RIGHT to minister to his people. As long as that diocese has priests who are incardinated or religious orders with permission to bring priests into the diocese, there is no urgent or justifiable reason for a Catholic to go outside of the diocese for his sacraments.

Canon Law does not justify the argument that “I can’t stand the abuses at the NO parish.”

Canon Law says, “Too bad. Live with it. The Church does not revolve around you. Others live with it. The Church will get around to fixing the problem; but in the meantime, we can all offer a little sacrifice as penance for our sins.”

There is no place in Canon Law that says that one may violate the law, because someone else violates it first. To support a priest who is celebrating a mass illegally, because another priest violates a rule in the GIRM cannot be justified. This is the whole argument of ends and means. At the end of the day, the violation of rules in the GIRM do not render the mass ilicit, unless the consecration is invalid. However, being a suspended priest and a priest who is** trespassing **in a bishop’s territory does make the mass ilicit, because it’s in Canon Law. It’s a double infraction.

 

[benjohnson]

The problem is that Rome is now duplicitous.

From my own experience, as a Lutheran, Rome has been very forthright with us in telling us in charitable terms what we are doing wrong. Frankly, from an outsiders viewpoint, Rome now speaks in one clear voice.

As far as I can see, at no point in history, has it been easier to discern true Catholic thought. I can walk to local Catholic bookstore and spend the rest of my life reading a very consistent Catholic message.

The condition of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome is in a very fragile condition and its because of liberalism and modernism.

I don’t doubt that at all, but would add that we are all in a fragile condition because of modernism and secular liberalism.

In my opinion, the most dangerous of modern thoughts that has infected me: The idea that each individual is wise enough to discern the truth for themselves.

 

[Lormar]

Brother Jay, thank you for that thorough response.

I will tell you though that the way the average SSPX supporter will respond to that is to point to the final Canon Law - the salvation of souls is the supreme law - in order to justify what they do. How would you address that?

Praying much for you, Brother.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Dear Brother, Thank You. That helps very much. I will show your response to my family.

I would also very much like to hear your response to Lormar’s question above.

God Bless You for taking the time with all of this.

 

[GloriaMaria]

In my opinion, the most dangerous of modern thoughts that has infected me: The idea that each individual is wise enough to discern the truth for themselves.

I will pray for you! I think we all struggle very much with this in one way or another.

 

[Lormar]

From my own experience, as a Lutheran, Rome has been very forthright with us in telling us in charitable terms what we are doing wrong. Frankly, from an outsiders viewpoint, Rome now speaks in one clear voice.

As far as I can see, at no point in history, has it been easier to discern true Catholic thought. I can walk to local Catholic bookstore and spend the rest of my life reading a very consistent Catholic message.

I don’t doubt that at all, but would add that we are all in a fragile condition because of modernism and secular liberalism.

In my opinion, the most dangerous of modern thoughts that has infected me: The idea that each individual is wise enough to discern the truth for themselves.

Ben, your last paragraph is right on the money. I will, as a Catholic, go one step further. Not a few individual Catholics have become their own magisterium. They decide when and if the Holy Father is right instead of submitting their personal opinions and judgments to his wisdom which he alone has as Supreme Pontiff of the Church.

I am afraid that many of us, myself included, have much to relearn regarding correct Catholic thinking. That is why Brother Jay is such a gift to this forum which his thorough and easy to understand posts.

 

[GloriaMaria]

The Commission has always said two things.

1. A Catholic can fulfill his or her Sunday obligation by attending mass at an SSPX chapel.

This is based on Canon Law, which says that a Catholic fulfills his or her Sunday obligation by attending mass at any Catholic church where the mass is celebrated validly.

Here is the glitch. This law did not have in mind groups like the SSPX, that have no legal right to celebrate the mass. No law can give anyone permission to do what is illegal or to support what is illegal. That’s illogical.

.

Brother, does this mean that, for instance, if the SSPX were to consecrate more Bishops and put themselves and the lay people that attend into real schism that the Vatican still would say that you could fulfill your Sunday Obligation (according to this Canon) at one of their Masses?

 

[JReducation]

Brother, does this mean that, for instance, if the SSPX were to consecrate more Bishops and put themselves and the lay people that attend into real schism that the Vatican still would say that you could fulfill your Sunday Obligation (according to this Canon) at one of their Masses?

If they were to go into schism, they would no longer be Catholic. They would be in the same position as the Orthodox, Old Catholics, Polish National Catholic Church, Chinese National Catholic Church and others that I can’t remember.

They are all apostolic, because they have apostolic succession. But they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore, a Catholic cannot fulfill his Sunday obligation at one of their masses.

You fulfill your Sunday obligation by

a. Attending a valid mass

b. Worshiping with your Church.

There is an individual and communal dimension to liturgy. Therefore, we have a responsibility to God and to the community.

 

[JReducation]

Brother Jay, thank you for that thorough response.

I will tell you though that the way the average SSPX supporter will respond to that is to point to the final Canon Law - the salvation of souls is the supreme law - in order to justify what they do. How would you address that?

Praying much for you, Brother.

“There is no salvation outside the Church.”

The law is correct. The highest duty of the Church is to save souls. The SSPX is not the Church. Christ cannot save you if instead of moving closer to the Church you move further from the Church.

 

[Julia_Mae]

To wrap it up. One can fulfill his Sunday obligation at an SSPX mass.

But you are only to do that if you have no other choice:

Moral impediment

In 1995, it declared it “morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these (the SSPX) Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing”, and added that "the fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called ‘Tridentine’ Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses."[12] The Commission recognized the validity of the ordination of the SSPX priests, but added that they were prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because of not being properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See. It also said that the Masses they celebrated were valid but illicit, but the lack of proper faculties on the part of the SSPX priests meant that celebrations of Penance and Matrimony under their auspices were invalid. The Pontifical Commission reaffirmed various of these statements in 2003.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-12
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

This isn’t a matter of saying, “Well, I could go here or there or the other place, I think I’ll go to the other place.” That’s not the situation. It’s hard to imagine a place in the Western world where no other Mass is available - not convenient, but available at all, and only the SSPX is.

People looking for an excuse to go to the SSPX are exhibiting the schismatic mindset. I believe they are also making themselves part of an occasion for sin for the celebrant.

 

[GloriaMaria]

But you are only to do that if you have no other choice:

This isn’t a matter of saying, “Well, I could go here or there or the other place, I think I’ll go to the other place.” That’s not the situation. It’s hard to imagine a place in the Western world where no other Mass is available - not convenient, but available at all, and only the SSPX is.

People looking for an excuse to go to the SSPX are exhibiting the schismatic mindset. I believe they are also making themselves part of an occasion for sin for the celebrant.

The mindset can get very complicated. Sometimes attending doesn’t have anything to do with the politics of the form of the Mass at all. Honestly, it’s not always a schismatic mindset.

 

[JReducation]

But you are only to do that if you have no other choice:

This isn’t a matter of saying, “Well, I could go here or there or the other place, I think I’ll go to the other place.” That’s not the situation. It’s hard to imagine a place in the Western world where no other Mass is available - not convenient, but available at all, and only the SSPX is.

People looking for an excuse to go to the SSPX are exhibiting the schismatic mindset. I believe they are also making themselves part of an occasion for sin for the celebrant.

The mindset can get very complicated. Sometimes attending doesn’t have anything to do with the politics of the form of the Mass at all. Honestly, it’s not always a schismatic mindset.

I believe that the Church acknowledges that some people have a hunger that is satisfied through the Tridentine Form. At the same time, the Church wants to protect Catholics from contamination. That’s where the point is made that if there is no good reason to attend mass at an SSPX chapel or other in a similar state, then one has a moral obligation to stay away.

I stop and think about the things that some of their priests have said about the Church, the people at the Vatican and even the pope. I often wonder if they always thought this way. Maybe they were attracted to the SSPX because they were traditionalists, not because they were hostile toward Rome. Yet, years later, when they speak they do so with such hostility and without inhibitions that it’s sad.

That makes me think that it can happen to anyone. We’re all human.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The mindset can get very complicated. Sometimes attending doesn’t have anything to do with the politics of the form of the Mass at all. Honestly, it’s not always a schismatic mindset.

It’s still, IMO, a selfish thing to do: I want what I want. Regardless of intention, it’s still participating in and encouraging the disobedience of the celebrant. You know I’d like a Mass that isn’t a dog and pony show aimed at displaying what a fabulous speaker/singer the priest is. But that’s what I have. And no matter how irritating he is, if the only other choice was an SSPX service, no matter how reverent, I’m not going. Because loyal to the Magisterium, really means something and needs to be taken seriously.

If people stopped showing up, how long do you think the SSPX would hold out? Going to their Masses is a very bad thing to do - for them. So how about people put their personal desires second and the welfare of the SSPX first, and just go to your local parish?

 

[Dee_S]

I stop and think about the things that some of their priests have said about the Church, the people at the Vatican and even the pope.** I often wonder if they always thought this way.** Maybe they were attracted to the SSPX because they were traditionalists, not because they were hostile toward Rome. Yet, years later, when they speak they do so with such hostility and without inhibitions that it’s sad.

(my bold)

Sadly, the answer is “YES” - they did always think in a hostile way. In the name of “tradition” a great many unspeakable things *have and are *being said to the present day.

These and the *mentality of sedevacantism *had their origin in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself, who generated a tidal wave of disobedience to authority that continues to leave much destruction in its wake:

"This Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, A NEW CHURCH which they call themselves the "CONCILIAR CHURCH…

“All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”…they enter into the schism.”

"… To use the laws, the institutions and the authority to annihilate the Catholic Faith and to no longer communicate life, is to practice spiritual abortion or contraception. Who would dare to say that a Catholic worthy of his name could cooperate in a crime worse than corporal abortion?"

"That the heresy come to us from someone that be as elevated in dignity as possible,…, if it appears certain to us that the faith which was taught by the Church for twenty centuries cannot contain error, we have much less of an absolute certitude that the Pope be truly Pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and invalid election are some causes which could make it happen that a Pope never was one or would cease to be one."

"Because in fact a serious problem is being posed to the conscience and to the faith of all the Catholics since the beginning of the pontificate of Paul VI. How is it that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside at the destruction of the Church, the most profound and the most widespread in history to occur in so little space of time…"
*Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre in Écône, of August 2nd, 1976 and published in the French magazine Le Figaro, August 4, 1976. *

Extracts from the Letter of Pope Paul VI October 11, 1976 to Archbishop Lefebvre:
*
“After the particularly serious actions that you have performed, We have once more asked you to reflect before God concerning your duty…We have waited a month. The attitude to which your words and acts publicly testify does not seem to have changed”*

“You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against ecclesial communion - words and gestures that you have never retracted!”

"You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divines. You do not explicitly express your acceptance of the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See - and this constitutes the basis of the problem - and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend"

“Ambiguity results from the 'duplicity of your language.”
"Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness…"

"But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself - which you call the “Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency - and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradiction.”
*
***“We cannot accept this erroneous judgment, this unjustified accusation, nor can We tolerate that the Lord’s Eucharist, the sacrament of unity, should be the object of such divisions (cf. I Cor. 11:18), and that it should even be used as an instrument and sign of rebellion.”
**jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

 

[JReducation]

Note to our Brother Jay:

Brother Jay, Archbishop DiNoia sounds a lot like you!

Or should I say you sound a lot like him?

That’s quite a compliment. His Excellency is quite a scholar. Thank You and a very spiritual man too.

 

[Dee_S]

:harp:nice to have you back again Brother…

Here is an update I came across this morning, it makes a sad point:

"The Vatican’s chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told the French Catholic newspaper “La Croix” that the letter was not an official document but a “personal appeal” by Di Noia.

The archbishop wrote that “while hope” for full reconciliation “remains strong,” the Vatican engagement with the SSPX is at risk of becoming a “well-meaning but unending and fruitless exchange.”

In his letter, Di Noia also called on the group to abandon their “divisive tone or imprudent statements,” as well as their “harsh and counterproductive rhetoric.”
washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/vatican-admits-stalemate-in-talks-with-traditional-sspx-group/2013/01/22/59d03746-64d8-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html

"While Di Noia said in the letter that the Vatican’s relations with the SSPX “remain open and hopeful,” he also said the Vatican would not and could not continue forever to remain silent when SSPX leaders misrepresent what is taking place in the discussions or publicly reject positions still supposedly being discussed with the Vatican.

“A review of the history of our relations since the 1970s leads to the sobering realization that the terms of our disagreement concerning Vatican Council II have remained, in effect, unchanged,” the archbishop wrote.
ncronline.org/news/vatican/archbishop-di-noia-urges-sspx-take-new-attitude-unity-talks

 

[JReducation]

:harp:nice to have you back again Brother…

Here is an update I came across this morning, it makes a sad point:

"The Vatican’s chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told the French Catholic newspaper “La Croix” that the letter was not an official document but a “personal appeal” by Di Noia.

The archbishop wrote that “while hope” for full reconciliation “remains strong,” the Vatican engagement with the SSPX is at risk of becoming a “well-meaning but unending and fruitless exchange.”

In his letter, Di Noia also called on the group to abandon their “divisive tone or imprudent statements,” as well as their “harsh and counterproductive rhetoric.”
washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/vatican-admits-stalemate-in-talks-with-traditional-sspx-group/2013/01/22/59d03746-64d8-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html

"While Di Noia said in the letter that the Vatican’s relations with the SSPX “remain open and hopeful,” he also said the Vatican would not and could not continue forever to remain silent when SSPX leaders misrepresent what is taking place in the discussions or publicly reject positions still supposedly being discussed with the Vatican.

“A review of the history of our relations since the 1970s leads to the sobering realization that the terms of our disagreement concerning Vatican Council II have remained, in effect, unchanged,” the archbishop wrote.
ncronline.org/news/vatican/archbishop-di-noia-urges-sspx-take-new-attitude-unity-talks

I already knew that the letter is a personal letter. It saddens me very much to know that we may lose so many Catholics and what could be good Catholic priests and brothers, because of their bull-headedness.

Unofficial word circulating is that the Holy Father has said that nothing more can change regarding the official position on Vatican II, the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the CCC and the Church’s position on the Jewish people and the Covenant.

Even though this is unofficial commenting here and there, I believe that there is truth to this, because it was the Pope himself who changed the terms of the Preamble from what Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay had agreed to what Bishop Fellay says is there now.

Of course, the Vatican has not told us what’s in the Preamble. Bishop Fellay has not read it to us either. He comments on it and paraphrases parts of it. Apparently, from what I’ve been reading, all the way from Pope Paul VI to Pope Benedict XVI, the issue has never been the liturgy or the Council per se, but doctrine.

Pope Paul VI, Bl. John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict XVI have always said to Archbishop Lefebvre and to his successors that the SSPX’s understanding of tradition and the theology of the Church is in error. Apparently, the message has been the same since Day One: "Accept Vatican II as a valid council. Accept all of the documents and all that they contain as error free. Accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the official catechism of the Church. Accept the revised version of the missal as valid AND licit. Accept the revision of Canon Law. And accept that only the pope, not Archbishop Lefebvre, not the laity, not the bishops can decide what is and is not part of Tradition, with a capital T.

I recently read that Bl. John Paul had told them something that I have been saying for a long time. Apparently, he reminded the Archbishop, that he (the Pope) was not bound by any previous pope, saint, Doctor of the Church or council as the Archbishop claimed, but only by divinely revealed moral law and dogma. I believe that this may have been a letter written on his behalf by then Cardinal Ratzinger.

In any case, it upset many in the SSPX, SSPV and other groups in similar situation. One of their defenses is to constantly quote Thomas Aquinas. To be told that Thomas cannot bind a pope, despite the fact that he was brilliant, deflates any argument that tries to corner the Pope using his writings.

I said this before as well. St. Thomas was a genius, but the Church has never said that it embraces every word that Thomas ever wrote. Some remain Thomas’ thoughts. Thomas was humble enough to accept this. That’s why he’s a saint, not because he was smart.

Why the Archbishop should need to be reminded of this is beyond me. Everyone who studies theology and Canon Law knows it. This is an ancient doctrine of the Church, expounded further by St. Boniface and again by Vatican I.

It was also stated by Vatican I that besides the obligation to give an assent of faith on matters of faith and morals, Catholics must also assent to the authority of the pope on all matters pertaining to discipline and governance without exception. I have often explained this as the rights of authority to govern. This seems to be a real problem here. The SSPX and now its offspring, SSPX-SO cannot seem to accept their moral obligation to obey in matters of discipline and governance.

I sincerely hope that they will see Archbishop DiNoia’s good faith and try to reach back to him as he is trying to reach out to them. I’m sure that despite the fact that the letter was a personal one, the Archbishop knew what it would be made public. Therefore, he would not write anything that would upset Pope Benedict or Archbishop Mueller. In other words, if these are the Archbishop’s feelings on the matter, they surely cannot contradict the Holy Father’s feelings. After all, he works for the Pope.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It’s still, IMO, a selfish thing to do: I want what I want. Regardless of intention, it’s still participating in and encouraging the disobedience of the celebrant. You know I’d like a Mass that isn’t a dog and pony show aimed at displaying what a fabulous speaker/singer the priest is. But that’s what I have. And no matter how irritating he is, if the only other choice was an SSPX service, no matter how reverent, I’m not going. Because loyal to the Magisterium, really means something and needs to be taken seriously.

If people stopped showing up, how long do you think the SSPX would hold out? Going to their Masses is a very bad thing to do - for them. So how about people put their personal desires second and the welfare of the SSPX first, and just go to your local parish?

Wow and really insightful way to look at things! I have always said that reconcilliation is important because it is good for the souls of the SSPX, but didn’t take that to the logical conclusion you have.

Coupling that with Archbiship DiNoia’s statement about the charism of Archbishop Lefebvre being to form priests and not to maintain any particular form of the Mass, it makes sense that we do what we can to uphold that charism by not leading those priests astray.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Brother Jay, thanks again for a very insightful explanation! This statement jumped out at me.

Catholics must also assent to the authority of the pope on all matters pertaining to discipline and governance without exception.

This is applicable to us all, and I wanted to highlight it both for those one the “right” and “left” who are disobedient, but also for us in the middle who think we are obedient, but stray sometimes in terms of issues of discipline and goverance (witness all the threads looking for ‘infaliable’ statements on issues of prudence but where the Pope has spoken clearly on what he’d prefer us to do. )

Lots of things for me to ponder this morning in cold cold cold Va! :winter: