Quote Dear Faithful,

On April 4 last, the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission published a letter from its President, Cardinal Müller, in relation to marriages celebrated by the priests of the SSPX. Explicitly approved by the Pope who ordered its publication, this docuмent intends to regulate marriages celebrated within the framework of Catholic Tradition.

Following this letter, a vast communication campaign emanating from very different quarters would like to make us believe that, by this gesture, the Pope purely and simply recognizes the marriages which we celebrate, and even that he recognizes the validity of all the marriages which we have celebrated to date. The reality is, alas, very different.

Since this matter intimately affects you, since it concerns your family, your children who are of an age to get married, and your future, we are duty-bound to enlighten you both on the true significance of this Roman docuмent as well as our attitude towards it.

The obvious validity of our marriages

As you know, for forty years now, the Roman authorities have been refusing to recognize the validity of the marriages which we celebrate, and this despite the Law of the Church.

Certainly, this Law envisages that the Sacrament of Matrimony be celebrated in the presence of the Parish Priest or his delegate, as well as before at least two witnesses[1]. This is what is called the canonical form of marriage, necessary for its validity. However, since the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X are neither Parish Priests nor delegated by them, certain people maintain that the marriages they celebrate are invalid, due to lack of canonical form. This is the motive for which both Roman and diocesan tribunals do not hesitate to declare these marriages invalid. However, in doing so, they oppose the most fundamental Law of the Church[2].

In effect, this same Canon Law[3] foresees the case where “it is not possible to have or to go to find an assistant who is competent according to the Law, without a great inconvenience”. If such a situation were foreseen to last thirty days, in this case Ecclesiastical Law recognizes the right of the future spouses to validly and licitly exchange their consent before lay witnesses alone; therefore without either the Parish Priest or a priest delegated by him. However, for the act to be licit, these future spouses must call on any other available priest, if this is possible. A marriage thus celebrated is done so according to what is called the extraordinary form. It is under this form that we have been both validly and licitly receiving the exchange of your marriage vows for the past forty years, without there being any possibility of doubt.

The State of Necessity

Because, as you know, there can, alas, be no doubt concerning the extraordinarily dramatic situation through which the Church is currently passing[4]. For, ever increasingly in our own day, the Church is undergoing what Archbishop Lefebvre was accustomed to call “Satan's masterstroke”. This “masterstroke” consists in “spreading revolutionary principles by the authority of the Church Itself”[5]. In effect, we see Church authorities, from the See of Peter right down to the Parish Priest, undermining the Catholic Faith via a deviant humanism which, placing the cult of conscience at the pinacle, dethrones Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, the Kingship of Christ over human societies is simply unknown, or even combatted, and the Church is gripped by that liberal spirit which especially manifests itself in Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism and Collegiality. Through this spirit, it is the very nature of the Redemption carried out by Our Lord Jesus Christ which is called into question, it is the Catholic Church, unique Ark of Salvation, which is de facto denied. Catholic Morality itself, already shaken in its foundations, is being overthrown by Pope Francis, for example when he explicitly opens the way for the divorced and “remarried”, living as a married couple, to receive Holy Communion.

This dramatic attitude of the Ecclesiastical authorities brings about a real state of necessity for the faithful. In effect, there is not only a great inconvenience, but even moreso a real danger in placing one's salvation in the hands of pastors who are imbued with this “adulterous”[6] spirit, detrimental to both Faith and Morals. We have no other choice but to protect ourselves from such an authority because it “is in a situation of permanent incoherence and contradiction” and because “so long as this ambivalence has not been dissipated, disasters will multiply in the Church”[7]. We are living in circuмstances where true obedience requires us to disobey[8], because “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5, 29).

As long as this ambivalence of the Ecclesiastical authorities has not been dissipated, the great inconvenience foreseen by Canon 1098 will equally persist, and the celebration of marriages according to the extraordinary form will therefore be justified.

Furthermore, since Matrimony (like all the sacraments) implies a profession of Faith, we cannot go against the right which the faithful have to the sacraments by imposing on them a minister who habitually carries out his ministry in the adulterous direction officialised at Vatican II, while they have the possibility of referring to a priest who is unscathed by this prevarication in the Faith.

The significance of the Roman docuмent

The true significance of the Roman docuмent appears in light of these principles. Persisting in the disastrous line of Vatican II, the Roman authorities simply intend to deprive you of the extraordinary form of marriage by denying the state of necessity. Therefore, this docuмent wants to oblige you to have recourse for your marriage to a diocesan priest, only leaving the priests of the SSPX with the possibility of celebrating the Mass which follows the ceremony. The Ecclesia Dei Commission foresees in effect that, “ insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties [...], followed ... by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society”.

It is only “where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, [that] the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society”. In other words, it is only if there is a case of necessity (whose nature we do not know, because it is no longer the grave damage which the liberal spirit causes to the Catholic Faith) that the Bishop may give delegation to a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. Every other marriage celebrated by a priest of the SSPX without explicit delegation of the Ordinary will continue to be considered invalid by the current holders of the supreme authority.

Apart from the fact that such a decision is as unjust as it is null, it is also a further violation of the spirit of the Law. The Ecclesia Dei Commission permits itself to do what even the New Code of Canon Law had not, that is to place the extraordinary form of marriage under the control of the Ordinary, and this at the expense of the natural right to marriage[9].

Our marriages, most certainly valid yesterday, today and tomorrow

So long as this dramatic state of the Church and the destructive ambivalence of Its highest authorities last, we will continue for our part to use the extraordinary form of marriage, without allowing ourselves to be unduly controlled by the Ordinary.

We will, therefore, continue to validly and licitly celebrate your marriages in our churches and chapels, as we have done up to now, referring for this to Canons 1098 of the Old Code and 1116 of the New, irrespective of any prior understanding with the Ordinary.

To those who object that such a practice would henceforward be invalid since the Ecclesiastical authorities are offering a possible delegation of the Ordinary, we reply that the state of necessity which legitimates our way of doing things is not canonical, but dogmatic, and that the impossibility of having recourse to the current authorities is not a physical, but a moral one. We simply do not want to abandon those souls who, driven by circuмstances, confide in our ministry. They have not fled the prevaricating authorities in order for us to impose them upon them during one of the most important ceremonies of their life. Besides, those who make such an objection show that they know very little about Church Law, which reasons in precisely the opposite manner. In effect, the latter allows the faithful to volontarily place themselves in a case of necessity in order to contract a marriage according to the extraordinary form, even though they have the possibility of doing otherwise[10].

In the case where certain faithful would obtain from a Parish Priest the possibility of having their marriage celebrated in his Parish church, we would stick to our wise customs which have been established over time. Insofar as this Parish Priest is habitually well-disposed towards the Tradition of the Church and would allow us to preach the sermon, we can see no objection to him receiving the marriage vows according to the Traditional Ritual, while leaving a priest of our Society to celebrate Mass[11]. But we will refuse to celebrate Mass in the case where, delegation having to be given, it is refused to us and given instead to an Ecclesia Dei priest, for example.

For the good of the Sacrament of Matrimony, for the good of your families, for the good of your souls, neither do we intend to submit the judgment of your marriages to an Ecclesiastical jurisdiction whose tribunals declare certainly valid marriges to be null, under the false pretext of a lack of psychological maturity on the part of the contracting parties. We know, besides, to what extent these same tribunals ratify de facto Catholic divorce by means of the simplified procedure for marriage annulments which has been promulgated by Pope Francis. That is why we will continue to only recognize as ultimate judge of these questions the Saint Charles Borromeo Canonical Commission, which the Society of Saint Pius X had to establish precisely because of these certainly invalid declarations of nullity.

Conclusion

Finally, permit us to express our great astonishment at the reaction to this Roman decision. The Personal Prelature which is being dangled before the eyes of the Society of Saint Pius X was supposed to recognize us as we are, and to maintain our independence vis-à-vis the local Ordinaries. However, the first decisions taken consist in unjustly submitting our marriages to these very Ordinaries, while tomorrow the opening of any new Houses will have to meet their approval. This shows to what extent double-speak reigns supreme not only in the domain of Faith and Morals, but even in these canonical matters.

Also, in this Centenary Year of the apparitions of Fatima, we invoke the Immaculate Heart of Mary, not so that She will end our canonical situation which is judged irregular by some, but so that the Church may be freed from Its Modernist occupation and that the highest authorities may once more find the path followed by the Church up to Vatican II. Then our bishops will be able to place their episcopacy in the hands of the Sovereign Pontiff[12].

May 7, 2017,

Father David ALDALUR, Dean of Bordeaux Region
Father Xavier BEAUVAIS, Dean of Marseille Region
Father François-Xavier CAMPER, Dean of Lyon Region
Father Bruno FRANCE, Dean of Nantes Region
Father Thierry GAUDRAY, Dean of Lille Region
Father Patrick de LA ROCQUE, Dean of Paris Region
Father Thierry LEGRAND, Dean of Saint-Malo Region

Also signed this letter :

Reverend Father JEAN-MARIE, Superior of the Society of the Transfiguration, Mérigny, France.
Reverend Father PLACIDE, Prior of the Benedictine Monastery of Bellaigue, France.
Reverend Father ANTOINE, Guardian of the Capuchin Monastery of Morgon, France.

"The true significance of the Roman docuмent appears in light of these principles. Persisting in the disastrous line of Vatican II, the Roman authorities simply intend to deprive you of the extraordinary form of marriage by denying the state of necessity."

In France (and likely everywhere else now too), all SSPX marriages now first receive a delegation by the conciliar authorities: No delegation, no marriage.

According to one account on the French Resistance forum, a couple (and their local SSPX priest) attempted to circuмvent the new requirement, and were married without having first received the conciliar delegation.  Once the District caught wind of this, they determined the marriage was invalid, and applied with the diocese for a sanatio in radice, after the fact.

Note that according to the report, it was not the married couple who applied for the sanation, but the SSPX.

This seems to imply that the Society -regardless of whatever it says to the contrary to its faithful- doubts the validity of its former marriages. 

Recall that the Society claimed that it was accepting Cardinal Muller's guidelines regulating marriages to resolve the doubts of the faithful.  But it is not the faithful running to the dioceses for the sanation of marriages performed without delegation!

PS: For more details on this story, see post #160 here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/105/   

Proof can easily be found: Are marriages performed in SSPX chapels prior to 2017 still being automatically annulled for defect of canonical form?

If not, you know what happened.

Sorry, I might have missed this detail.

Are you saying that there is evidence that pre-2017 SSPX marriages are no longer considered invalid, or are you speculating that it might be the case? I see the question was asked in 2019 and the answer was "still invalid". What example do you have that this is no longer the case?

Pending the response from CMS, here is his full account (from the link provided yesterday).  His final "Conclusions" are his own, and included only for the sake of completeness, but this more complete account of the facts (and especially the parts highlighted in red font) seem to provide the missing details "Trento" was looking for:



A new "level" in the rallying to Rome: the emblematic case of marriages - The "conciliar" canonical regime now imposed on SSPX priests and spouses

Summary of the facts:

Last year, a wedding took place in a French priory of the Society of Saint Pius X.

This marriage had been prepared by a priest of the priory, and he had agreed with the bride and groom to dispense with the delegation of jurisdiction of the local bishop, and to conclude the marriage according to the "extraordinary form" provided for by canon law in a situation qualified as a "state of necessity."

But since this was a union celebrated within the framework of the Society, the preparation file nevertheless had to go through the Office of Canonical Affairs of the District of France (Fr. Jean-Paul André), which applied the internal guidelines in force since 2017, and referred the matter to the territorially competent diocese to request the delegation in favor of the priest who had prepared the engaged couple.

But what was probably not foreseen in this case (or not quite certain)... is that the delegation was indeed conceded by the diocese, and that nominally [i.e., by name -SJ] in favor of the priest in question!

The day of the wedding arrived, faced with the problem and assuming the logic of his position - supported by the bride and groom - this priest preferred to "give up his place" to one of his confreres, to show his refusal of the diocesan delegation.

This is how the marriage took place: the priest who was the delegate remained in the background, and it was his colleague who received the consents "outside the delegation", i.e. under the regime of "supplied jurisdiction" (which is satisfied with the assistance of two witnesses for the validity of the marriage).

When Suresnes learned of the incident, the priest was reprimanded. But the matter did not end there...

We now learn that a canonical procedure has been implemented by the Society to regularize this marriage, a posteriori!

It is a sanatio in radice, literally a "healing" (putting in order) at the "root" (the origin) of a cause of invalidity. The procedure in question revalidates the marriage while dispensing the spouses from renewing their consent, allowing, by a juridical fiction, the sacrament to be considered valid from its conclusion (cf. R.P. Héribert JONE, Précis de Théologie morale catholique, Salvator - Casterman).

Sanatio is in principle granted by the Holy See, but also (within certain limits) by the local Ordinary. It should be noted that it can be carried out with the knowledge of the spouses, but also without the knowledge of one or both spouses.

Scope of the procedure in this case:

The recourse to a sanatio in radice for this marriage means that the person in charge of canonical affairs of the SSPX, and the Superiors of the Society (Suresnes? Menzingen?), in concert with the diocese or the competent Roman dicastery, considered that the marriage was null because of the absence (or because of the refusal) of the diocesan delegation, and that it was not possible under these conditions for the second confrere to validly invoke the state of necessity.  [Note: The French Deans explicitly reject this argument in their Letter in the OP -SJ]

The "conciliar" ecclesiastical authority and the Fraternity therefore, by common agreement, considered it necessary to validate this "null" marriage.

The priest who had prepared the marriage was informed, but it is not known what his attitude was towards his hierarchy. In any case, to this day, we have no knowledge of a public protest on his part.

Nor do we know, at this stage, whether the married couple themselves have been informed of the canonical action opened on their case, and if so, whether they have been given the faculty to oppose in conscience this "regularization", in view of the canonical, but above all doctrinal, stakes of such a procedure in the present context of a Church in crisis and of the Fraternity in the process of "rallying"!...

Conclusions (provisional):

1°) the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X no longer allows its priests to refuse diocesan delegation for marriages. From now on, in the eyes of their hierarchy, this (clearly manifested) refusal renders invalid the marriages concluded by these priests outside this delegation. Moreover, for the Society, as for Rome, such behavior shows a "schismatic" spirit.

Consequently, the observation also applies to the sacrament of penance, in the case where the priest claims to continue to absolve the faithful under the regime of "supplied jurisdiction", as practiced in the SSPX until 2015. NB: several priests in ministry in Brittany, including the Prior of Lanvallay, Father Thierry Legrand, have nevertheless held this position in response to questions from a faithful; they should therefore make it publicly known that their absolutions conferred under these conditions are henceforth invalid in the judgment of their Superiors (as they were for the "official" Church since the Founder's suspense a divinis in July 1976)

2°) If it is confirmed that their marriage was originally (in radice) affected by a defect of nullity according to the Society, the married couple concerned by the example reported above should in principle manifest their just indignation and their public opposition to this pseudo-legal regularization accomplished "on their behalf", but against their will, by the SSPX in connection with the diocese and with Rome.

3°) The seven signatories (ex-Prior Deans) of the letter on the marriages of May 7, 2017 have not yet reacted at the present time. In principle, however, they should do so on pain of disowning their signatures of the time, because the implementation of this new regularization procedure constitutes an irrefutable sign that the neo-FSSPX no longer accepts marriages celebrated under the regime of supplied jurisdiction ("extraordinary form") when the local bishop has given delegation.

4°) the subtle distinctions which are attributed to Father de Jorna, and which until recently made it possible to justify the refusal of delegations given by the bishops when they were given in conditions deemed unacceptable by the Society (for example: delegation accompanied by "forms" from the diocese conveying a "conciliar" doctrine incompatible with the principles of Catholic marriage) no longer seem to be practicable, and it would be welcome if the Superior of the District of France would have the priestly honesty to make a definitive clarification on the subject.

The day of the wedding arrived, faced with the problem and assuming the logic of his position - supported by the bride and groom - this priest preferred to "give up his place" to one of his confreres, to show his refusal of the diocesan delegation.

I'm not sure I understood exactly the responses.

1. Was a delegation given to a Society priest? Yes or no?

2. Supplied jurisdiction is only invoked if the delegation is refused or not given without good reason. Even before 2012, the Society has always to my knowledge submitted marriage details to the diocese or territorial parish of the couple.

3. If the delegation was given to priest A, but priest B was swapped based on this scenario, then the main fault is on the part of priest A because he only decided to so on the day of the wedding: