SSPX update?

[choliks]

Just as we shouldn’t make broad generalizations on diocesan Bishops, we likewise shouldn’t make broad generalizations on SSPX clergy. I have never heard the priest at the SSPX chapel I attend say anything negative about other clergy or the heirarchy. During homilies, he simply preaches the gospel and never spends time discussing relations with Rome, etc, etc.

The Church has not spoken so clearly, for good or for ill. Her statements surrounding the SSPX have been vague. Yes, she has said that the SSPX exercises no legitimate ministry in the Church. But she has also refused to say that going to an SSPX chapel should be avoided when she has been directly asked (there are many letters from the CDF that attest to this). My point is that it is not quite as clear as you state. I think this is probably from compassion and mercy, especially since Pope Benedict is trying to foster unity rather than division.

The irony, of course, is that if the Church were to exercise direct and clear authority as she did prior to Vatican II, the issue with the SSPX would most likely be crystal clear and would probably not favor the SSPX. The vagueness and restraint that the Church uses now, about which the SSPX complain, in some ways allow the SSPX to remain in the gray area they are in.

Absolutely, and I am very grateful that the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has clearly proclaimed that the Tridentine Mass and other traditional sacraments were never abrogated.

• PAX

The way I understand it, it’s the Church who’s waiting on the SSPX. After the preamble (which I imagine was not vague) was sent, different statements from different quarters within the SSPX were made: some positive, some negative. The more vocal came from the negative. Nothing official really came out from Bishop Fellay.

In this case, the Church is not using vagueness, as you pointed out, but patience and restraint.

 

[pnewton]

Just as we shouldn’t make broad generalizations on diocesan Bishops, we likewise shouldn’t make broad generalizations on SSPX clergy.

Grammatically, the statement was not a broad generalization about the SSPX clergy, but about the SSPX organizationally.

 

[Dee_S]

The Church has not spoken so clearly, for good or for ill. Her statements surrounding the SSPX have been vague. Yes, she has said that the SSPX exercises no legitimate ministry in the Church. But she has also refused to say that going to an SSPX chapel should be avoided when she has been directly asked (there are many letters from the CDF that attest to this). My point is that it is not quite as clear as you state. I think this is probably from compassion and mercy, especially since Pope Benedict is trying to foster unity rather than division.

I can agree here:thumbsup:, that the Church and especially Pope Benedict is giving them every chance that can be given in order to heal and bring them back into the fold, as can be seen in this Declaration by Ecclesia Dei of October 29,2012
**DECLARATION OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION “ECCLESIA DEI” **

VATICAN CITY, (VIS) - The following English-language declaration was issued this morning by the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

"The Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ takes this occasion to announce that, in its most recent official communication (6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has indicated that additional time for reflection and study is needed on their part as they prepare their response to the Holy See’s latest initiatives.

"The current stage in the ongoing discussions between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity follows three years of doctrinal and theological dialogues during which a joint commission met eight times to study and discuss, among other matters, some disputed issues in the interpretation of certain documents of Vatican Council II. Once these doctrinal dialogues were concluded, it became possible to proceed to a phase of discussion more directly focused on the greatly desired reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter…

"At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents. After thirty years of separation, it is understandable that time is needed to absorb the significance of these recent developments. As Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI seeks to foster and preserve the unity of the Church by realising the long hoped-for reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter - a dramatic manifestation of the ‘munus Petrinum’ in action - patience, serenity, perseverance and trust are needed".
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/declaration-of-pontifical-commission_29.html

The irony, of course, is that if the Church were to exercise direct and clear authority as she did prior to Vatican II, the issue with the SSPX would most likely be crystal clear and would probably not favor the SSPX. The vagueness and restraint that the Church uses now, about which the SSPX complain, in some ways allow the SSPX to remain in the gray area they are in.+ PAX

That’s for sure imagine if this had taken place around the time of the Inquisition?

As for their canonical status in the Church, it is crystal clear! They are not in full communion with the Church, and therefore cannot exercise any ministry in it. Also their sacraments of Marriage and Confession are invalid because this results in them having no jurisdiction. Which, although they claim otherwise, is the present ‘rule of law’ held to by the Church and no exceptions have been entertained or admitted by Pope Benedict. As for attending mass at an SSPX chapel, it is also clear that it is not allowed.

2009 declaration of no canonical status and no legitimate ministry

In his letter of 10 March 2009 concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”[17]

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]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

(sorry Faithdancer,…to use kwiki again )

 

[JReducation]

I fail to understand why some posters seem to need to defend the SSPX from the Church. I can be very traditional, but I don’t have to defend the SSPX.

1. None of of our popes during the last 50 years are the Borgias. They have been intelligent and saintly men.
2. None have been heretics or insane.
3. People can write everything they can think of to justify the ordination of four bishops, but the only opinion that counts is that of the pope since it is only the pope who makes law and only the pope who can intepret the law. All of those opinions are interpretations of the law. But the fact is that at the end of the day, the only interpretation that is binding is that of the pope. It was Bl. John Paul who told Archibishop Lefebvre that he would not hear his appeal, because the canon that the Archbishop was citing in his defense did not apply to him. Why didn’t it apply to the Archbishop? Because Bl. John Paul decided that he would not allow it to be applied to the Archbishop. St. Boniface IV established that the pope has the authority, from Christ himself, to apply law to some and not to others. If we follow Church tradition, the refusal by Bl. John Paul to consider the canonical claim made by the Archbishop in his defense is consistent with the tradition of Church law.
4. The same thing applies to the sacraments of matrimony and penance. The Church has said that they are invalid except under certain conditions and she has been very specific about those conditions. What is there to argue? Who makes the law about what is and is not valid, an institute, the laity, the clergy or the Magisterium? As Pope Benedict told the SSPX in the Preamble, only he gets to decide what is and is not Catholic tradition. Only he gets to decide what is and is not valid.
5. Years ago the Ecclesia Dei Commission said that attendance at the SSPX masses as discouraged. This has never been retracted. Instead, the Vatican’s negative opinion of the SSPX masses has been subtly mentioned in different documents. In UE the Holy Father said that people who were associated with groups who are not in good standing with the Church or who attend masses celebrated by such groups may not approach the local bishop to request the celebration of the EF.

While he is looking for a reconciliation, he is not capitulating on what his predecessors have said about the Society or about the attendance at mass in an SSPX chapel.

By simply staying alongside the Vatican and avoiding the SSPX, until they are ready to come home, we’re safe from problems with the Church. If we avoid problems with the Church, then we’re pleasing to God. After all, the Church is not asking us to violate the Commandments. It’s asking us to obey the pope on very normal points.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Aramis]

That’s for sure imagine if this had taken place around the time of the Inquisition?

If you’re talking about the Spanish Inquisition… well, let’s just say that they might not have had time to actually repent.

The Holy Inquisition, however, is still present, just not under that name.

(It’s also worth noting that most of the inquisitional burnings were actually done by civil authorities on the basis of church convictions being seen as grounds for immediate guilty verdicts in the civil courts…)

As for their canonical status in the Church, it is crystal clear! They are not in full communion with the Church, and therefore cannot exercise any ministry in it.

Actually, that’s not correctly worded.

They are in communion as Catholics - they can receive the sacraments, but it is only licit for them to do so from ministers with licit ministry.

They are suspended ad divinis, and cannot licitly participate as ministers while suspended. They have “no ministry within the church” - but that doesn’t actually take them out of communion with the church.

Note that this even precludes SSPX clerics serving as MHC’s and Lectors… since those are canonically ministries and those who do them are ministers (even if only lay extraordinary ministers most of the time).

 

[Faithdancer]

To provide a general update here, I would say that progress is still probable. I base that in part on the promise that Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph.Amen. But any progress will be made far from the public eye on a very personal basis. This is what I’ve been saying…we aren’t privy to everything that is being communicated back and forth. There are many inside and outside Catholic Church, as well as those inside and outside the Society who do not want to see a rapport, as sad as that is. That is sad, whichever side the recalcitrant are on. When you walk into an SSPX chapel, you will see priests, seminarians, mothers, fathers, children, teens, grandparents, and great-grandparents with no other agenda than to be Catholic, raise their children Catholic against a world that wants them to be atheist (and worse), shouldn’t that alone be uniting? We divide ourselves while Satan and his atheist followers laugh. and maintain their souls in the state of sanctifying grace. Any prayers you could offer to that end would be much appreciated.You got it!

Thank you for a most thoughtful and conciliatory post, giuseppeT0.

 

[kbf1970060]

SSPX UPDATE
2012 DEC 05
sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_2_12-5_2012.htm

 

[Faithdancer]

SSPX UPDATE
2012 DEC 05
sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_2_12-5_2012.htm

Thanks for posting the link kbf. I actually posted it a few days ago…still waiting on part 3 of 3.

 

[kbf1970060]

Jesus is God. He did not suffer, but how many of us, as Protestants, as Fundamentalists, even as atheists, how many of us, ignorantly, believe Jesus suffered on the cross, because as a man – he must suffer – then: again how many of us, as Protestants, as Fundamentalists, as Protestants, even as atheists learned from fellow atheists, Fundametnalists, Protestants, that God cannot suffer, but what mystery is there in the sorrow, that Jesus agonized in a garden; scourged and crowned with thorns, then carried a cross, and expired on it. It is interesting, that Bishop Fellay mentions this about God, Jesus, that he failed to suffer. How human we are to fail in our interpretation, of these mysteries, that God suffered, and for us.

 

[kbf1970060]

Thanks for posting the link kbf. I actually posted it a few days ago…still waiting on part 3 of 3.

I must have glanced over it.

 

[Faithdancer]

Jesus is God. He did not suffer, but how many of us, as Protestants, as Fundamentalists, even as atheists, how many of us, ignorantly, believe Jesus suffered on the cross, because as a man – he must suffer – then: again how many of us, as Protestants, as Fundamentalists, as Protestants, even as atheists learned from fellow atheists, Fundametnalists, Protestants, that God cannot suffer, but what mystery is there in the sorrow, that Jesus agonized in a garden; scourged and crowned with thorns, then carried a cross, and expired on it. It is interesting, that Bishop Fellay mentions this about God, Jesus, that he failed to suffer. How human we are to fail in our interpretation, of these mysteries, that God suffered, and for us.

hmmmm, where exactly does Bishop Fellay say that Jesus did not suffer? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

SSPX UPDATE
2012 DEC 05
sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_2_12-5_2012.htm

Read it again this morning and it seems that Bishop Fellay can practice sophistry as well as anyone.

I continue to pray for reconcilliation, but I cannot follow the story from SSPX sources any more.

 

[Dee_S]

Actually, that’s not correctly worded.

They are in communion as Catholics - they can receive the sacraments, but it is only licit for them to do so from ministers with licit ministry.

They are suspended ad divinis, and cannot licitly participate as ministers while suspended. They have “no ministry within the church” - but that doesn’t actually take them out of communion with the church.

Note that this even precludes SSPX clerics serving as MHC’s and Lectors… since those are canonically ministries and those who do them are ministers (even if only lay extraordinary ministers most of the time).

I’m not sure of your interpretation perhaps the ‘grey’ area the SSPX inhabits is just that. But, like it or not, they are not in “full communion” with the Church or it’s members. And, that is said by the Pope himself.

 

[Dee_S]

Read it again this morning and it seems that Bishop Fellay can practice sophistry as well as anyone.

I continue to pray for reconcilliation, but I cannot follow the story from SSPX sources any more.

Neither can I. Also, talking from experience, I would be careful about reading anything written by them. They have clever ways of distorting and contradicting the Truth.

"You say that you are subject to the church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of “tradition” that you invoke is distorted."

“1. In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests “torn apart by what is happening in the church,” thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic faith and the essential values of tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the people of God, at least in certain countries. But in your interpretations of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something that misleads the people of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress.”
from POPE PAUL VI’S LETTER TO ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE 1976

This extract from Pope John Paul II also makes the same point:

“But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[Dee_S]

APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO"

• ECCLESIAE UNITATEM
• OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI
  CONCERNING THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI

1. The duty to safeguard the unity of the Church with concern to offer help to all in order to respond appropriately to this vocation and divine grace is incumbent in particular on the Successor of the Apostle Peter, who is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the Bishops and of the faithful (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, * Lumen Gentium, *n. 23; First Ecumenical Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ *Pastor Aeternus, *chap. 3: DS 3060). The supreme and fundamental priority of the Church in every epoch to lead humankind to the encounter with God must be encouraged by the commitment to achieve a witness of faith common to all Christians.
2. In fidelity to this mandate, subsequent to the act of 30 June 1988 with which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre illicitly conferred episcopal ordination upon four priests, on 2 July 1988 Pope John Paul II of venerable memory established the Pontifical Commission * Ecclesia Dei*:"whose task it will be to collaborate with the Bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating the full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individual religious until now linked in various ways to the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre" (John Paul II, Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio datae * Ecclesia Dei *[2 July 1988], n. 6: *AAS *80 [1988], 1498).
3. Along these lines, adhering faithfully to the same duty to serve the universal communion of the Church also in its visible manifestation and making every effort to ensure that all who truly desire unity have the possibility of remaining in it or of rediscovering it, with the Motu Proprio *Summorum Pontificum I desired to extend and to update, by means of more precise and detailed norms, the general instructions already contained in the Motu Proprio * Ecclesia Dei …
4. In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt,** I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church**. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties.** However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry. **
5. Precisely because the problems that must now be addressed with the Society are essentially doctrinal in nature, I have decided 21 years after the Motu Proprio * Ecclesia Dei* and in conformity with what I had proposed (cf. *ibid., *art. 11 781) to rethink the structure of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, linking it closely to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
6. The Pontifical Commission *Ecclesia Dei *will therefore have the following configuration:…
7. With this decision I have wished in particular to show fatherly solicitude to the “Society of St Pius X” in order that it rediscover full communion with the Church.
   I address to all a pressing invitation to pray the Lord tirelessly, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “ut unum sint”.
   *Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 2 July 2009, the fifth year of Our Pontificate. *
   BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html

 

[Rich_C]

I’m not sure of your interpretation perhaps the ‘grey’ area the SSPX inhabits is just that. But, like it or not, they are not in “full communion” with the Church or it’s members. And, that is said by the Pope himself.

I would never argue with the Holy Father, but the phrase “not in full communion” is not very old, as far as I know, and it can mean a lot of things.

I’ve heard it applied to Protestants, because they share a common baptism with us.

I’ve heard it applied to Catholics, because they differ with the pope on a law or article of Faith.

You see how vauge the term is? The pope has every right to use it in his context, but in ours (an Internet discussion) it is often not very useful. I don’t think the post you are referring to was an attempt to defend the SSPX, but merely to show that there are useful distinctions and important technicalities that are not effectively communicated or implied by the phrase “not in full communion.”

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I fail to understand why some posters seem to need to defend the SSPX from the Church. I can be very traditional, but I don’t have to defend the SSPX.

I’m not sure if you are referring to me here, but since I have been posting recently on this thread, I will respond from my point-of-view. I am not defending the SSPX from the Church. I am trying to point out to other posters on CAF that the situation is not as clear as it appears. For all of you who have orthodox Bishops, thriving parishes, the EF available, religious orders flourishing, etc, etc, I want to point out that there are some of us who do not have such things and whose only desire is to attend a parish that is traditional, orthodox, and reverent. I am not an SSPX partisan and in my situation it is very easy to go to a Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest and not become a partisan, since the homilies, etc, never touch on controversial issues.

To reiterate, I am not defending the SSPX from the Church (the Magisterium), but am clarifying the position some of us find ourselves in.

1. None of of our popes during the last 50 years are the Borgias. They have been intelligent and saintly men.

Would it make a difference if they are the Borgias? I wouldn’t think so, as the office of the Papacy which they hold would still be valid and therefore they would be protected from fallibility in the case of morals and doctrines, despite their “colorful” lifestyle (i.e. sin).

1. The same thing applies to the sacraments of matrimony and penance.

Which is why I know many people (myself included) who attend an SSPX chapel for Mass, devotions, etc, but not for penance or matrimony.

As Pope Benedict told the SSPX in the Preamble, only he gets to decide what is and is not Catholic tradition.

I think we need to be nuanced here, which you may be by using “tradition” with a lower-case t, but I still think a clarification is in order. The Popes do not get to decide what is Sacred Tradition anymore than they get to decide what is Sacred Scripture. The office of the Papacy is to defend, interpret, and transmit Sacred Tradition, not change it. By its very definition, Tradition cannot be changed. What Our Lord taught the Apostles is not subject to change.

Please note that I am not arguing one way or another if a Pope has tried to make such changes to Sacred Tradition; I am simply pointing out that he could not do so. I think it is quite clear that “tradition” over the past 40+ years has been heavily tinkered with, and I also think it is clear that the Holy Father wants to bring that tinkering under control and bring back some of the “traditions” that were so fruitful in the past.

1. Years ago the Ecclesia Dei Commission said that attendance at the SSPX masses as discouraged. This has never been retracted. Instead, the Vatican’s negative opinion of the SSPX masses has been subtly mentioned in different documents. In UE the Holy Father said that people who were associated with groups who are not in good standing with the Church or who attend masses celebrated by such groups may not approach the local bishop to request the celebration of the EF.

And yet, when directly asked a few weeks ago if attendance at an SSPX Mass fulfills Sunday obligation, the CDF did not respond with a clear yes or no, but rather avoided the very direct question by responding with a quote from the Holy Father which the questioner had most obviously already read and pondered (and hence was asking for a clear answer). Why this deferment on the part of the CDF? If the situation is a clear as you are presenting, then the CDF could have easily said: negative. But since they didn’t, I respectful submit that the situation is not as clear as you present, brother, since the CDF does not take the stance that you do. Personally, I think Church is holding the SSPX in a gray area for a purpose. I can guess that it would be to continue to try to foster unity and avoid further division. This last round of talks between Rome and the SSPX helped flesh out the sedevacantists in their midst and resulted in the removal of Bishop Williamson, which is a very good thing. Perhaps the Church figures that more talks and a little more time will allow a further cleaning of the house and removal of obstacles for reconciliation.

It could also be out of compassion and understanding of those of us who find ourselves in difficult situations when it comes to orthodox teaching and appropriate liturgy.

By simply staying alongside the Vatican and avoiding the SSPX, until they are ready to come home, we’re safe from problems with the Church.

And yet the Vatican has continually sided with laity who have come under ecclesiastical penalty from their Bishops for attending the SSPX, by declaring excommunications invalid, etc. Again, my point is that things are not crystal clear. For your situation and life, brother, perhaps they are, which is a wonderful thing for you. But for others, it is not, and the Church has not been as clear as she could have been, and for good reason, too. In other words, please try to see things from the point-of-view of those who are not SSPX partisans but who attend a Mass celebrated by the SSPX because of the reasons I listed above.

If we avoid problems with the Church, then we’re pleasing to God.

Absolutely.

• PAX

 

[kbf1970060]

Read it again this morning and it seems that Bishop Fellay can practice sophistry as well as anyone.

I continue to pray for reconcilliation, but I cannot follow the story from SSPX sources any more.

It is good the mass is discussed throughout this thread. I wonder what further updates to it will be made through subsequent councils, amending Vatican II. I cannot follow it any longer, but trust my reconcilliation to Vatican I, is an answer of God, to your prayer of reconcilliation.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It is good the mass is discussed throughout this thread. I wonder what further updates to it will be made through subsequent councils, amending Vatican II. I cannot follow it any longer, but trust my reconcilliation to Vatican I, is an answer of God, to your prayer of reconcilliation.

KBF, yes if you have reconcilled yourself fully to the Church and the authority of Vactican II, than my prayers have been in part answered!

God bless you greatly.

 

[Faithdancer]

Time to go to work, planning out youth ministry catechism. Trust me when I say that my cathechetical efforts will always “err” on the side of conservative, orthodox Catholicism. No kid who comes out of youth group or Confirmation classes I teach will be confused about Catholic teachings on abortion, same sex “marriage,” experimentations/innovations in the Mass, etc. etc. They will be taught respect for the EF Mass, whether or not they’ve ever attended one (very few have). They will also be taught to have respect and tolerance for those who are currently not in full communion with Rome but are otherwise devoutly Catholic. And they will understand how to read and reference the Bible via chapter and verse, not page number (my current issue with some kids!).