Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on December 05, 2022, 12:29:52 PM
-
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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn1). 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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn2).
In effect, this same Canon Law[3] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn3) 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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn4). 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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn5). 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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn6) 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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn7). We are living in circuмstances where true obedience requires us to disobey[8] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn8), 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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn9).
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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn10).
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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn11). 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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn12).
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.
[1] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref1) Archbishop Lefebvre, Public Declaration on the occasion of the episcopal consecrations of several priests of the SSPX, June 30, 1988.
[2] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref2) Here it is the fundamental axioms of the Church's Law which are at stake: “The Supreme Law of the Church is the Salvation of Souls”, and “The sacraments are for well-disposed men”
[3] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref3) 1917 Code 1917, Canon 1098 ; 1983 Code, Canon 1116.
[4] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref4) Even in the case where there was a doubt as to the existence of this exceptional situation which authorizes the use of the extraordinary form of marriage, it must be emphasized that, according to the Law, the Church would supply for the lack of jurisdiction (1917, Canon 209; 1983 Code, Canon 144), therefore entirely maintaining the validity of the act.
[5] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref5) Archbishop Lefebvre, Le coup de maître de Satan, Editions saint Gabriel, 1977, pp. 5-6.
[6] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref6) Archbishop efebvre, Public Declaration on the occasion of the episcopal consecrations of several priests of the SSPX, June 30, 1988.
[7] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref7) Archbishop Lefebvre, Le coup de maître de Satan, Editions saint Gabriel, 1977, pp. 5-6.
[8] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref8) Archbishop Lefebvre, L’obéissance peut-elle nous obliger à désobéir ?, note of March 29, 1988 in Fideliter, Special Edition of June 29 and 30, 1988.
[9] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref9) C.f. André Sale, La forma straordinaria e il ministro della celebrazione del matrimonio secondo il codice latino e orientale, Pontificia Universita Gregoriana Editions, Rome 2003, pp. 142 to 154: on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, several bishops and cardinals asked for a modification of Canon 1098 in relation to the extraordinary form of marriage. To avoid abuses in the use of this form, they proposed that it should not be used without the spouses having at least attempted to have recourse to the Ordinary, and never against the advice of the latter. Thus, a plan for the modification of the aforementioned Canon was proposed at the 4th Session of the Council: “ [Forma extraordinaria celebrationis matrimonii] Ad valide contrahendum matrimonium coram solis testibus extra periculum mortis, praeter conditiones praescriptas in can. 1098 CIC, requiritur : a) ut petitio Ordinario loci facienda, si fieri possit, omissa non fuerit, vel matrimonium non celebretur nisi post mensem ab interposita petitione sine responsione ; b) ut matrimonium non celebretur contra ordinarii vetitum (Conc. Vatic. II ; Periodus III, in AS 3, pars 8, 1075) [The extrardinary form of the celebration of marriage] To validly contract marriage outside the danger of death and before the witnesses alone, and beyond the conditions prescribed by Canon 1098, it is required: a) that the request which must be made to the Local Ordinary be not omitted, if possible, or that the marriage not be celebrated before one month has elapsed since sending the request and without having received a response; b) that the marriage not be celebrated against the prohibition of the Ordinary”. Following a difficult discussion, the majority of the Conciliar Fathers decided to leave the decision in the hands of the Pope and the Commission for the Revision of Canon Law. This Commission dealt with this point several times (in 1970, 1975, 1978 and 1982), but the discussions were bitter. Finally, Canon 1116 of the New Code substantially reiterated Canon 1098, without introducing the least requirement to have recourse to the Ordinary in order to use the extraordinary form of marriage. The motive for this was to ensure the natural right to marriage in all circuмstances.
[10] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref10) March 13, 1910. the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments declares valid a marriage which is contracted before witnesses alone and where, in order to circuмvent the Law, the contracting parties have gone to a region where the common impossibility exists. C.f. Naz, Traité de Droit Canonique in Can. 1098, Volume II, N° 426, p. 377, Note 2.
[11] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref11) In doing this, we would not intend, however, to endorse the manifest injustice of the new Roman decision, which makes a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X inapt to receive jurisdiction from a Parish Priest, and denies the latter a power which is, nonetheless, ordinary to him.
[12] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftnref12) Archbishop Lefebvre, Public Declaration on the occasion of the episcopal consecrations of several priests of the SSPX, June 30, 1988.
-
Thanks for sharing! It is good to see you posting back here again!:cowboy:
-
Rome recognizes every so-called union yet those traditional Catholics who marry outside the diocese framework? What a shock.
-
"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/
-
"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/
"Sanatio is in principle granted by the Holy See, but also (within certain limits) by the local Ordinary. It should be noted that it may be carried out with the knowledge of the spouses, but also without the knowledge of one or both spouses."
That being the case, it is not only conceivable that ALL SSPX marriages since 1976 (i.e., when Lefebvre and all priests ordained since incurred suspension a divinis, thereby lacking faculties to witness marriages) have been quietly sanated (the wedding parties being unadvised), but even probable:
Why would the SSPX authorities, doubting the validity of all their former marriages, sanate only this one particular marriage?
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.
-
"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/
There seems to be more behind the story than what was presented in that French Resistance forum. As far as I'm aware, the delegation is applied but reasonable time for reply and some other diocesan requirements such as going through pre-nuptial classes (be it done by the diocese or by the SSPX) are to be expected, followed by announcements of the banns. Altogether this usually take many months in advance. If the diocese refuses to give the delegation (unlikely without a good reason, due to the Pope's letter) then the SSPX will usually proceed to perform the marriage. To my knowledge such delegations have never been refused.
The common contention is usually the location of the marriage, be it in a diocesan parish church or in an SSPX chapel. Anti-TLM bishops will normally not allow the marriages to be done in diocesan churches to avoid giving publicity to the TLM and to the SSPX.
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!
The reality is that after the Pope gave ordinary jurisdiction to SSPX priests worldwide for hearing confessions in the Year of Mercy onwards, many "legalistic" Novus Ordo parishioners started going for confessions in SSPX chapels and at the same time were exposed to Tradition and the Traditional Mass in general. Even folks like Fr. Z who took the more legalistic point of view earlier softened his heart and was able to write the following:
On 27 March 2017 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/04/170404d.html) (which had absorbed my old office, the PCED) informed all the bishops of the world that they could give faculties to SSPX priests to witness marriages. As in the case of hearing confessions, marriages require that a priest have the appropriate faculty. There had been considerable debate about the validity of SSPX witnessed marriages. What Francis did removed doubt. The priests can now have the faculty themselves and they can work with a local diocesan priest. Since then, I think most, not all, diocesan bishops have worked with local SSPX priests in this regard and simply given the SSPX priests the faculty.
Something important to note about this is that that letter of the CDF did NOT say that, “Up until now, the marriages witnessed by the SSPX priests were invalid.” The Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera did NOT say that, “Until now, the absolutions given by priests of the SSPX were invalid.” That’s food for thought. That moves the goal posts significantly. We can’t just think of the SSPX priests and confession and marriages in the same way that we did before those grants.
Furthermore – AND PAY ATTENTION because this is really important – suspended priests cannot receive faculties. If the SSPX priests can receive faculties, and they have, all over the place, then they are not suspended!
https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/
-
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?
-
There seems to be more behind the story than what was presented in that French Resistance forum. As far as I'm aware, the delegation is applied but reasonable time for reply and some other diocesan requirements such as going through pre-nuptial classes (be it done by the diocese or by the SSPX) are to be expected, followed by announcements of the banns. Altogether this usually take many months in advance. If the diocese refuses to give the delegation (unlikely without a good reason, due to the Pope's letter) then the SSPX will usually proceed to perform the marriage. To my knowledge such delegations have never been refused.
The common contention is usually the location of the marriage, be it in a diocesan parish church or in an SSPX chapel. Anti-TLM bishops will normally not allow the marriages to be done in diocesan churches to avoid giving publicity to the TLM and to the SSPX.
The reality is that after the Pope gave ordinary jurisdiction to SSPX priests worldwide for hearing confessions in the Year of Mercy onwards, many "legalistic" Novus Ordo parishioners started going for confessions in SSPX chapels and at the same time were exposed to Tradition and the Traditional Mass in general. Even folks like Fr. Z who took the more legalistic point of view earlier softened his heart and was able to write the following:
Greetings Fr.-
I'm not sure why you are saying such delegations have never been refused, when I'm presenting testimony of precisely such a case (unless you are challenging the veracity of the report. On the chance you are, I have posted a request to speak with CMS on the resistance forum for clarification (at which time I will submit your questions): https://resistance.vraiforum.com/t1532-Recherche-du-membRE-CMS.htm
My understanding of this report was that, on the day of the wedding (or some time very close to the date, and probably according to plan, knowing the District would not accept to perform the wedding without the delegation), the wedding couple refused to have their marriage celebrated by the priest who received the conciliar delegation, so this priest stepped aside for one of his undelegated confreres to receive the consents, and that this in turn initiated the application of Fr. Andre/SSPX French District to request a sanation of the marriage.
As for the "reality" of needing to obtain jurisdiction for marriages to assuage the consciences of Novus Ordo refugees, it is hardly believable, for several reasons:
1) The 7 French deans adduce other reasons for its issuance (i.e., removing access to the extraordinary form of marriage, per 1098);
2) It was the SSPX, and not the faithful, who allegedly applied for the sanation (which implies it is the SSPX, and not the faithful, who have doubts about the validity of marriages without conciliar delegation);
3) Would the SSPX make such a request for conciliar delegation out of compassion for the pangs of conscience of recent Novus Ordo refugees, only to cause these same pangs to arise in the souls of longtime SSPX coupless married without delegation (which is certainly the mixed message which is sent, and one of the reasons for the oppossition of the French deans)?
4) The maneuver of Cardinal Muller's guidelines transpires within the context of incremental ralliement in 2017, at which time it was the only significant issue separating modernist Rome and the conciliar SSPX from a legal agreement. Rome had ample time to issue such guidelines prior to the commencement of the rallieement (e.g., 1976-1991), but never did. It only transpires as a final step, and as part of the Fellay-Hoyos agreement to "proceed by stages."
As for Fr. Z, well, yes: Every conciliarist will promote legality and reconciliation, precisely because they choose authority over truth (i.e., the two are no longer joined in Rome, and the conciliarists -and the neo-SSPX- are fooled into believing that authority is the safer harbor than truth, especialy if they can make themselves believe via crimethink that the hermeneutic of continuity provides the magic by which the illusion of rebonding truth and authority transpires).
Presuming I can obtain a clarification from CMS, I will post it here.
Pax tecuм,
Sean Johnson
-
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?
No.
I'm speculating that such might be the case, but that such speculation could be proven or disproven by finding decisions to recent annulment applications, and discovering whether the tribunals has automatically granted annulments for defect of canonical form, or whether they now need to look deeper (for pre-2017 applicants).
I do not know how such information would be obtained, but it would present prima facie evidence one way or the other.
-
Greetings Fr.-
I'm not sure why you are saying such delegations have never been refused, when I'm presenting testimony of precisely such a case (unless you are challenging the veracity of the report. On the chance you are, I have posted a request to speak with CMS on the resistance forum for clarification (at which time I will submit your questions): https://resistance.vraiforum.com/t1532-Recherche-du-membRE-CMS.htm
My understanding of this report was that, on the day of the wedding (or some time very close to the date, and probably according to plan, knowing the District would not accept to perform the wedding without the delegation), the wedding couple refused to have their marriage celebrated by the priest who received the conciliar delegation, so this priest stepped aside for one of his undelegated confreres to receive the consents, and that this in turn initiated the application of Fr. Andre/SSPX French District to request a sanation of the marriage.
As for the "reality" of needing to obtain jurisdiction for marriages to assuage the consciences of Novus Ordo refugees, it is hardly believable, for several reasons:
1) The 7 French deans adduce other reasons for its issuance (i.e., removing access to the extraordinary form of marriage, per 1098);
2) It was the SSPX, and not the faithful, who allegedly applied for the sanation (which implies it is the SSPX, and not the faithful, who have doubts about the validity of marriages without conciliar delegation);
3) Would the SSPX make such a request for conciliar delegation out of compassion for the pangs of conscience of recent Novus Ordo refugees, only to cause these same pangs to arise in the souls of longtime SSPX coupless married without delegation (which is certainly the mixed message which is sent, and one of the reasons for the oppossition of the French deans)?
4) The maneuver of Cardinal Muller's guidelines transpires within the context of incremental ralliement in 2017, at which time it was the only significant issue separating modernist Rome and the conciliar SSPX from a legal agreement. Rome had ample time to issue such guidelines prior to the commencement of the rallieement (e.g., 1976-1991), but never did. It only transpires as a final step, and as part of the Fellay-Hoyos agreement to "proceed by stages."
As for Fr. Z, well, yes: Every conciliarist will promote legality and reconciliation, precisely because they choose authority over truth (i.e., the two are no longer joined in Rome, and the conciliarists -and the neo-SSPX- are fooled into believing that authority is the safer harbor than truth, especialy if they can make themselves believe via crimethink that the hermeneutic of continuity provides the magic by which the illusion of rebonding truth and authority transpires).
Presuming I can obtain a clarification from CMS, I will post it here.
Pax tecuм,
Sean Johnson
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.
-
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.
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:
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.
-
Thanks for posting, Sean.
As the 7 Deans eloquently pointed out, it is the moral, not physical, impossibility of having recourse to Rome that justified the marriages in Tradition for so long without a delegation.
The Romans are habitually using their authority to destroy marriage and destroy the Faith, and while this hostility towards Tradition is only increasing, we see the SSPX seeking to place itself more and more under this corrupt authority.
As a consequence, the SSPX seminarians and young priests are coming more and more to think like priests of the FSSP, for example. They less and less understand the concept of false obedience, Satan's masterstroke that their founder warned them of...
Surely the SSPX is now infiltrated and steered by Freemasons.
-
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:
1. Yes, but he was not the one that received the consents:
"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)."
2. That is not entirely correct: Supplied jurisdiction is also invoked whenever an SSPX priest without delegation receives the consents of the couple to be married (as was the case in the 40 years prior to the 2017 guidelines of Cardinal Muller), as in the present instance.
3. I don't perceive any fault on the part of priest A at all. It is interesting that you do.
Of course, all this is neither here nor there, and misses the target: The fact that a wedding was performed without conciliar deelegation, and that because of that the SSPX felt compelled to initiate a sanation of the marriage (which heavily implies that the SSPX today doubts the validity of its pre-2017 marriages, since they would all suffer the same aleged defect, for the same reason).
-
Surely the SSPX is now infiltrated and steered by Freemasons.
10 years ago, I would have been appalled by the suggestion.
Today, I'm reminded of a statement by Archbishop Lefebvre regarding the possible Masonic affiliation of Pope Paul VI, mentioned by Bishop Williamson in the recent November Kansas interview (paraphrasing):
"It doesn't really matter if he is an actual Freemason. What matters, regardless of one's conclusion on this point, is that he thinks like a Freemason, and consequently, whether he is or isn't a Mason, nevertheless, he's leading the Church in the same direction as if he was a Mason."
What is certain, minimally, is that some priests of the SSPX, accordist in position, have actively collaborated with known Masons in the matter of the SSPX ralliement.
For example, as mentioned both in my book As We Are?, and again in the recent +Williamson interview referenced above, Fr. Gregoire Celier had published in 2007 a book called Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists, which was the playbook of Bishop Fellay's ralliement of the SSPX to unconverted Rome. The book was edited/published outside the SSPX by Jean-Luc Maxence (a self-proclaimed Freemason of the Grand Lodge of France), and even included a Foreword by him.
According to Fr. Celier, the book was fully endorsed by Bishop Fellay, whose position was the same as his own (i.e., as detailed in the book). The French District office them went on a 2-year promotion campaign, in which speaking engagements on Celier's plan were given to half of the priories in France.
Fr. Celier was previously among the GREC priests of the SSPX.
The District sponsorship of Celier's book is reminiscent of a similar sponsorship and book launch occurring in the USA, regarding Fr. Paul Robinson's book (which was also published outside SSPX channels, included a Foreword by a conciliar priest, and contained the enddorsement of modernist historico-critical exegetes, like Fr. Stanley Jaki).
For more information on Fr. Celier, see here at post #69: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/msg646236/#msg646236
-
The law is this:
i) find a priest with faculties;
ii) after 30 days, if no priest is found, find any priest (even one suspended);
iii) if still no priest is available find two public witnesses.
Skip a step and the marriage is invalid.
There was an SSPX priest with delegated faculties who was willing to marry them, but the couple chose one without faculties. Therefore the marriage was invalid. It’s also sounds like the couple didn’t even wait 30 days. The SSPX position is correct.
Mere certitude on the part of the priest is insufficient for validity as the following Rota case shows:
“… a priest assisted at the marriage of one of his brothers, it is similarly to be noted that he acted only because he was certain that he was legally capable so to do. In fact, as further testimony bore out, this priest testified that the basis of this action was the assurance of another of his brothers, a priest, who told him that it was not necessary to seek the delegation of the proper pastor, because everything was already taken care of. But, again, the mere existence of certitude on the part of the priest who assisted was not considered enough. The Rota very carefully examined the details of the case; and, when it verified that the proper pastor did not give, and under the circuмstances could not have given, the proper delegation, it declared the marriage invalid.”
SUPPLIED JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO CANON 209, Miaskiewicz, p..214
-
The law is this:
i) find a priest with faculties;
ii) after 30 days, if no priest is found, find any priest (even one suspended);
iii) if still no priest is available find two public witnesses.
Skip a step and the marriage is invalid.
There was an SSPX priest with delegated faculties who was willing to marry them, but the couple chose one without faculties. Therefore the marriage was invalid. It’s also sounds like the couple didn’t even wait 30 days. The SSPX position is correct.
Mere certitude on the part of the priest is insufficient for validity as the following Rota case shows:
“… a priest assisted at the marriage of one of his brothers, it is similarly to be noted that he acted only because he was certain that he was legally capable so to do. In fact, as further testimony bore out, this priest testified that the basis of this action was the assurance of another of his brothers, a priest, who told him that it was not necessary to seek the delegation of the proper pastor, because everything was already taken care of. But, again, the mere existence of certitude on the part of the priest who assisted was not considered enough. The Rota very carefully examined the details of the case; and, when it verified that the proper pastor did not give, and under the circuмstances could not have given, the proper delegation, it declared the marriage invalid.”
SUPPLIED JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO CANON 209, Miaskiewicz, p..214
I figured this would draw you from your covert.
Canon 209 and "the certitude of the priest" are not germane to the conversation.
At no point has anyone argued that marriages performed without delegation are validated "by the certitude of the priest," but -to the extent canonical justifications are discussed at all- by Canon 1098 and the extraordinary form of marriage.
As the French deans stated, the real justifications are dogmatic and moral (e.g., necessity; epikeia), and the moral (not physical) impossibility of aproaching/obtaining a conciliar priest for delegation.
Were I to acquiesce to your argument, I would be forced to conclude -as you must- that all SSPX marriages prior to 2017 are invalid.
But the truth is, that the same moral impossibility applies to your Steps 1-2 above, thereby justifying the extraordinary form.
-
2. That is not entirely correct: Supplied jurisdiction is also invoked whenever an SSPX priest without delegation receives the consents of the couple to be married (as was the case in the 40 years prior to the 2017 guidelines of Cardinal Muller), as in the present instance.
3. I don't perceive any fault on the part of priest A at all. It is interesting that you do.
Of course, all this is neither here nor there, and misses the target: The fact that a wedding was performed without conciliar deelegation, and that because of that the SSPX felt compelled to initiate a sanation of the marriage (which heavily implies that the SSPX today doubts the validity of its pre-2017 marriages, since they would all suffer the same aleged defect, for the same reason).
I would disagree with you on point 2 as supplied jurisdiction is only invoked whenever ordination delegation cannot be obtained without good reason.
The fact was proper delegation was given to the SSPX priest. Such a delegation does not imply any threats to the Faith as no Novus Ordo marriage ceremony or mass were forced upon the couple.
-
I would disagree with you on point 2 as supplied jurisdiction is only invoked whenever ordination delegation cannot be obtained without good reason.
The fact was proper delegation was given to the SSPX priest. Such a delegation does not imply any threats to the Faith as no Novus Ordo marriage ceremony or mass were forced upon the couple.
Father-
It has already been explained to you (by the 7 deans in the OP, in addition to 40 years of praxis by your own Society) 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.”
If you reject this rationale, then the unavoidable logic of your position dictates that you consider all SSPX marriages from 1976-2017 null and void (like your diocesan colleagues):
To be right today, you had to be wrong for 41 years. Is that the argument you want to make?
If you would reply that receiving the delegation dissipated the state of necessity which formerly existed, tge deans have pre-empted that argument as well, with the quote already provided, which was prefaced with:
“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.”
So we arrive back at the starting point: The Society has been persuaded that it’s marriages were invalid after all (as you suggest here), and this is why they initiated a sanation for one of their faithful married without a delegation.
-
The request to the local ordinary is made by the espoused or sspx priest? Is this now common practice?
-
The request to the local ordinary is made by the espoused or sspx priest? Is this now common practice?
In order to head off local resistance by various priests or faithful (as in the instance above), SSPX delegations are now sought by the SSPX districts.
Today, if you are married in the SSPX, you are implicitly or explicitly consenting to this procedure.
-
Does the SSPX have there own annulment tribunal? Sounds like a a la carte authority menu.
-
Does the SSPX have there own annulment tribunal? Sounds like a a la carte authority menu.
This was never as big a deal for me as it was for some outside the SSPX.
On the one hand, they're not issuing declarations of nullity. They're just responding to the issues their faithful present before them, which require pastoral direction, as best they can (e.g., by appointing certain priests to look these matters over, and give their best judgment/opinion on how the Church would rule in normal/sane times).
In reality, this "canonical commission" isn't doing anything that sedevacantist, Resistance, or independent priests don't do on a regular basis.
Consider this example:
A new parishioner (at SSPX, Resistance, sedevacantist, or independent chapel) comes to the priest and says, "Father, I received an annulment from my former Novus Ordo parish, but I would like to now marry Mrs. X. Am I free to do so?"
The priest (of whatever group) has a duty ex officio et in caritate to advise the soul one way or the other, and not just for the good of the soul, but for his own (for he will either deny this soul marriage unjustly, or he will commit a sacrilege by witnessing an invalid marriage).
It doesn't help that the Society calls this group of advisory priests a "canonical commission," which cannotes to some the usurpation of ordinary jurisdiction (insofar as it may conclude by rendering an opinion which "overturns" -or contradicts- a decision of the competent diocesan tribunal), but this is just window dressing, and not signatory of any claim to jurisdiction.
But render a decision it must, or both faithful and priest become paralyzed (with the only unacceptable "solution" being to submit oneself back to the unreliable decisions of the Novus Ordo tribunals one was trying to escape from).
Once one understands that jurisdiction is for souls, and not souls for jurisdiction (with necessity dispensing from the law, in such measure as is necessary to extricate the soul from grave spiriual necessity), then the advisory opinions of the "canonical commission" make sense.
-
Father-
It has already been explained to you (by the 7 deans in the OP, in addition to 40 years of praxis by your own Society) 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.”
If you reject this rationale, then the unavoidable logic of your position dictates that you consider all SSPX marriages from 1976-2017 null and void (like your diocesan colleagues):
To be right today, you had to be wrong for 41 years. Is that the argument you want to make?
If you would reply that receiving the delegation dissipated the state of necessity which formerly existed, tge deans have pre-empted that argument as well, with the quote already provided, which was prefaced with:
“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.”
So we arrive back at the starting point: The Society has been persuaded that it’s marriages were invalid after all (as you suggest here), and this is why they initiated a sanation for one of their faithful married without a delegation.
Hi Sean,
First of all, I'm not a priest, so please do not call me Father. Just a long-time SSPX chapel mass-goer and observing things in Traddieland.
Second, the state of necessity does not follow that one goes about rejecting the "ordinary" way of doing things, when canonical delegation is given as requested, but only when it is not given without good reason.
If you reject this rationale, then the unavoidable logic of your position dictates that you consider all SSPX marriages from 1976-2017 null and void (like your diocesan colleagues):
To be right today, you had to be wrong for 41 years. Is that the argument you want to make?
This doesn't logically follow, because you completely ignore the fact that SSPX marriages from 1976-2017 are done usually in these steps:
1. Couple or together with the SSPX priest makes a request to the local diocese for marrying. During those years, the ordinary delegation is rarely given, except in the rare case of a diocesan bishop friendly to Tradition.
2. If the delegation is not given within a reasonable period of time or rejected without good reason, the SSPX still proceeds with the marriage invoking supplied jurisdiction. The marriage details are sent to the local diocese or parish of the couple. Whether or not the diocese accepts or enters the marriage details into their records is a separate matter.
Finally, neither the Society nor Rome has ever declared that marriages done before 2017 without the proper delegation were invalid. The claim that all its prior marriages were invalid is preposterous. See https://sspx.org/en/content/29002
The validity of SSPX Marriages
From now on, just as we no longer have to invoke an extraordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions validly, we no longer have to invoke the state of necessity to validly marry couples, unless the bishop opposes the new provisions and refuses the delegation requested by the pope.
This does not mean that the state of grave necessity has come to an end, but only that the authorities of the Church no longer refuse to grant Tradition some means of development. The pre-conciliar Mass was recognized in 2007 as never having been abrogated. The unjust excommunications of the bishops of the Society were lifted in 2009. The non-recognition of the valid ministry of SSPX priests in the sacrament of penance came to an end in 2015. The alleged irregularity of the Society priest, the authorized witness to the sacrament of marriage, has now been lifted, for the good of the spouses.
However, just as the sacrament of penance was not invalidly conferred by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X before 2015, neither were the marriages celebrated without the official delegation of the local bishop or parish pastor.
Indeed, Church law states that in order to be valid, a marriage must be celebrated before the parish priest or his delegate, and in the presence of at least two witnesses (1917 Code, canon 1094; 1983 Code, canon 1108). But the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are not parish priests. That is why some try to pretend that, without a delegation, a priest of this society cannot receive marriage vows. Such a marriage would be invalid because of its lack of canonical form.
But the same Church law also provides for the following extraordinary situation (1917 Code, canon 1098; 1983 Code, canon 1116): “If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience.” If this situation is likely to last at least one month, then the Church declares valid a marriage celebrated before only the witnesses. If a non-delegated priest can be present, he must be called upon to receive the vows. This legislation is a simple application of the fundamental principles of Canon law: The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and The sacraments are for men who are well-disposed.
-
In reality, this "canonical commission" isn't doing anything that sedevacantist, Resistance, or independent priests don't do on a regular basis.
Consider this example:
A new parishioner (at SSPX, Resistance, sedevacantist, or independent chapel) comes to the priest and says, "Father, I received an annulment from my former Novus Ordo parish, but I would like to now marry Mrs. X. Am I free to do so?"
.
Sedevacantist priests would tell such a person that the annulment they received is meaningless. If the original marriage were invalid due to lack of form, such as the person being baptized in the Church and having been married in the First Pentecostal Church, the marriage would be automatically invalid and most sedevacantist priests would recognize that. Or if the first marriage had taken place with someone previous married validly to someone else.
But I'm not aware of any sedevacantist priests that would, in practice, consider a marriage invalid on other grounds, such as due to lack of intention to contract marriage, lack of maturity, intention not to have children, or anything similar.
People with those sorts of cases would be told they cannot contract another marriage because any doubt as to the validity of their first marriage must be resolved in favor of the marriage being valid, and therefore they are not free to marry.
-
Hi Sean,
First of all, I'm not a priest, so please do not call me Father. Just a long-time SSPX chapel mass-goer and observing things in Traddieland.
Second, the state of necessity does not follow that one goes about rejecting the "ordinary" way of doing things, when canonical delegation is given as requested, but only when it is not given without good reason.
This doesn't logically follow, because you completely ignore the fact that SSPX marriages from 1976-2017 are done usually in these steps:
1. Couple or together with the SSPX priest makes a request to the local diocese for marrying. During those years, the ordinary delegation is rarely given, except in the rare case of a diocesan bishop friendly to Tradition.
2. If the delegation is not given within a reasonable period of time or rejected without good reason, the SSPX still proceeds with the marriage invoking supplied jurisdiction. The marriage details are sent to the local diocese or parish of the couple. Whether or not the diocese accepts or enters the marriage details into their records is a separate matter.
Finally, neither the Society nor Rome has ever declared that marriages done before 2017 without the proper delegation were invalid. The claim that all its prior marriages were invalid is preposterous. See https://sspx.org/en/content/29002
Hello Trento-
I think your rendition of the process (1976-2017) is erroneous:
1) It is true that sacramental records were sent -ex post facto- to the diocesan authorities, but requests for delegation?
No.
In my case, because my wife's father was upset about the lack of jurisdiction for SSPX priests to witness the marriage, Fr. Beck asked us if we would like him to request Fr. Echert (i.e., local diocesan biritual indult priest) to come to witness the marriage.
We declined, and that was the end of that.
No delegation or priest with faculties to witness marriages was ever requested, even though he would consented.
Moreover, see the attached SSPX Marriage Form M-2(a), which pre-empted the need to request a delegation (i.e., because of the moral impossibility of requesting delegation from a modernist priest).
In other words, implicit in this process (and the attached form) is the belief that grave inconvenience and necessity persist whether or not the delegation is requested and/or given.
2) Your claim that Rome does not recognize SSPX marriages prior to 2017 as invalid is preposterous: Annulments are given automatically for all such marriages for defect of canonical form, and this was the (disingenuously) stated reason for accepting to be bound by Muller's 2017 guidelines.
-
A general sidenote:
Shortly after the 7 SSPX Deans read their letter from the pulpits of their parishes, Fr. Bouchacourt (SSPX French District Superior) excoriated these priests as "subversives" and of "holding the faithful hostage."
One of the Deans (my former professor of Ascetical and Mystical Theology), Fr. Theirry Gaudray, responded with a subsequent sermon regarding Fr. Bouchacourt's denunciation, and reminded him, the SSPX authorities, and the faithful that:
"All have the duty to defend marital union in its nature, its end and its properties. Moreover, the baptized who confess the sacramental character of Christian marriage must protect the profession of faith which is implied by all matrimonial consent. The future spouses who will be the ministers of this sacrament (a priest does not “marry”) have no right to celebrate it in an equivocal manner. The priests have the duty to remind them and help them to protect themselves from the hustle and bustle of the modernist clergy."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/french-deans-hold-their-ground-and-advance!/
But celebrating the sacrament in an equivocal manner is precisely what they would be doing -against the implicit profession of faith of which Fr. Gaudray speaks- in seeking the delegation from a modernist authority (and this perspective is perfectly consistent with SSPX Marriage Form M-2(a) provided as an attachment in the previous post).
And this is also the essence of the disagreement between Trento and I (and the SSPX and Resistance):
Trento sees no "grave inconvenience" involved in requesting the delegation from the modernist authorities; he sees no necessity in remaining independent of their authority and influence; whereas we see things from the opposite perspective (alongside Archbishop Lefebvre, who exorted this independence for so long as these authorities remain enemies of the faith, and warning us that all these concessions were nothing more than a maneuver).
In this particular maneuver, Fr. Gaudray nails it: Under the pretext of a concession, the real purpose is to deprive the SSPX of the extraordinary form of marriage (at least for those who fall for it, like Trento and most SSPX priests), and thereby bring the SSPX even further under modernist authority.
-
Hello Trento-
I think your rendition of the process (1976-2017) is erroneous:
1) It is true that sacramental records were sent -ex post facto- to the diocesan authorities, but requests for delegation?
No.
In my case, because my wife's father was upset about the lack of jurisdiction for SSPX priests to witness the marriage, Fr. Beck asked us if we would like him to request Fr. Echert (i.e., local diocesan biritual indult priest) to come to witness the marriage.
We declined, and that was the end of that.
No delegation or priest with faculties to witness marriages was ever requested, even though he would consented.
Moreover, see the attached SSPX Marriage Form M-2(a), which pre-empted the need to request a delegation (i.e., because of the moral impossibility of requesting delegation from a modernist priest).
In other words, implicit in this process (and the attached form) is the belief that grave inconvenience and necessity persist whether or not the delegation is requested and/or given.
2) Your claim that Rome does not recognize SSPX marriages prior to 2017 as invalid is preposterous: Annulments are given automatically for all such marriages for defect of canonical form, and this was the (disingenuously) stated reason for accepting to be bound by Muller's 2017 guidelines.
1) The form that you attached mentions in the very first paragraphs that the couple declares to have the "serious difficulty" of going through the ordinary means of getting married with delegation to a Novus Ordo parish priest, that is why supplied jurisdiction is invoked. It's a different scenario from the French story you posted.
2) I read Cardinal Muller's 2017 letter and there is no mention of such automatic annulments for all SSPX marriages prior to 2017. I stand to be corrected if you would kindly point me to the right references.
Do read https://fsspx.news/en/content/30476 for the several scenarios that Cardinal Muller's letter envisaged. Note well "The future spouses do not have a “right” to have their consent received by a priest who happens to be their friend, whereas they do have a definitive right to be married in the traditional liturgy and with fully Catholic theological and moral instruction."
-
Trento sees no "grave inconvenience" involved in requesting the delegation from the modernist authorities; he sees no necessity in remaining independent of their authority and influence; whereas we see things from the opposite perspective (alongside Archbishop Lefebvre, who exorted this independence for so long as these authorities remain enemies of the faith, and warning us that all these concessions were nothing more than a maneuver).
In this particular maneuver, Fr. Gaudray nails it: Under the pretext of a concession, the real purpose is to deprive the SSPX of the extraordinary form of marriage (at least for those who fall for it, like Trento and most SSPX priests), and thereby bring the SSPX even further under modernist authority.
Yes, it seems the main difference between the SSPX and the Resistance are that the Resistance sees ANYTHING coming from Rome as Modernist and to be rejected outright, while the SSPX makes the distinction of what is Modernist and what is traditionally acceptable without harm to the Faith.
With regards to the topic of ordinary jurisdiction for marriage, as you acknowledged even in your own marriage case, the SSPX priest then wouldn't have had a problem consenting to accept the delegation IF GIVEN, because BY ITSELF ordinary delegation that is given poses no harm to the Faith if the couple is given proper Catholic instructions for marriage and not refused the Traditional Matrimony Rites by a fully Traditional Catholic priest.
-
1) The form that you attached mentions in the very first paragraphs that the couple declares to have the "serious difficulty" of going through the ordinary means of getting married with delegation to a Novus Ordo parish priest, that is why supplied jurisdiction is invoked. It's a different scenario from the French story you posted.
2) I read Cardinal Muller's 2017 letter and there is no mention of such automatic annulments for all SSPX marriages prior to 2017. I stand to be corrected if you would kindly point me to the right references.
Do read https://fsspx.news/en/content/30476 for the several scenarios that Cardinal Muller's letter envisaged. Note well "The future spouses do not have a “right” to have their consent received by a priest who happens to be their friend, whereas they do have a definitive right to be married in the traditional liturgy and with fully Catholic theological and moral instruction."
1) The "serious difficulty" has no relation to the inability to obtain delegation or a priest with faculties to witness the marriage, but rather, the moral impossibility of approaching any such priest and/or placing ourselve under his authority;
2) Not sure what you are referring to here. The Vatican considers all 1976-2017 SSPX marriages invalid.
3) Not sure what this article refers to, as nobody is discussing the right to be married by a friend-priest.
-
1) The "serious difficulty" has no relation to the inability to obtain delegation or a priest with faculties to witness the marriage, but rather, the moral impossibility of approaching any such priest and/or placing ourselve under his authority;
2) Not sure what you are referring to here. The Vatican considers all 1976-2017 SSPX marriages invalid.
3) Not sure what this article refers to, as nobody is discussing the right to be married by a friend-priest.
2) Can you provide some references?
3) You need the read the whole article and not just the short sentences I quoted.
-
Yes, it seems the main difference between the SSPX and the Resistance are that the Resistance sees ANYTHING coming from Rome as Modernist and to be rejected outright, while the SSPX makes the distinction of what is Modernist and what is traditionally acceptable without harm to the Faith.
With regards to the topic of ordinary jurisdiction for marriage, as you acknowledged even in your own marriage case, the SSPX priest then wouldn't have had a problem consenting to accept the delegation IF GIVEN, because BY ITSELF ordinary delegation that is given poses no harm to the Faith if the couple is given proper Catholic instructions for marriage and not refused the Traditional Matrimony Rites by a fully Traditional Catholic priest.
Your first paragraph implies that placing oneself under modernist authorities is not harmful to the faith. Yes, we would fundamentally disagree on that point.
Your second paragraph exposes the difference between accordist SSPX priests (such as the one mentioned), and the Seven Deans (and allied congregations who also signed on to the letter.
In both instances, I would ask you to now reflect on whose position -yours or mine; accordist or resistance- better reflects Lefebvre's post-1988 position.
-
Your first paragraph implies that placing oneself under modernist authorities is not harmful to the faith. Yes, we would fundamentally disagree on that point.
Your second paragraph exposes the difference between accordist SSPX priests (such as the one mentioned), and the Seven Deans (and allied congregations who also signed on to the letter.
In both instances, I would ask you to now reflect on whose position -yours or mine; accordist or resistance- better reflects Lefebvre's post-1988 position.
My first paragraph implies no such thing because I merely mentioned that distinctions need to be made. Obtaining ordinary delegation is good by itself provided no concessions to Modernism are involved such as having the NOM or harmful matrimonial instructions imposed upon the couple. Do not read more into something that does not exist.
-
My first paragraph implies no such thing because I merely mentioned that distinctions need to be made. Obtaining ordinary delegation is good by itself provided no concessions to Modernism are involved such as having the NOM or harmful matrimonial instructions imposed upon the couple. Do not read more into something that does not exist.
::)
-
Sean's back!
-
Obtaining ordinary delegation is good by itself provided no concessions to Modernism are involved."
This perspective overlooks the fact that the willingness to subject oneself to uncatholic authority is already a concession, and danger to the faith:
"And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre the characteristic of the Society is, more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which have spread them. How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?
-Letter of the Three Bishops to the General Counsel
If the devil wants to give me soup, and soup is in itself good, and the devil requires nothing more of me that that I request the soup from him, do I endanger my soul by making this request of the devil?
But, but soup is good!
-
This perspective overlooks the fact that the willingness to subject oneself to uncatholic authority is already a concession, and danger to the faith:
"And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre the characteristic of the Society is, more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which have spread them. How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?
-Letter of the Three Bishops to the General Counsel
If the devil wants to give me soup, and soup is in itself good, and the devil requires nothing more of me that that I request the soup from him, do I endanger my soul by making this request of the devil?
But, but soup is good!
It is disingenuous to take the context out of the Letter of the Three Bishops when there are certain factions within the Society then in favor of a practical agreement without first agreeing on doctrine.
There is nothing un-Catholic about obtaining ordinary delegation as this is even mentioned in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Society recognizes those "sitting on the chair of Moses" as Our Lord puts it but resist we should if they attempt to force un-Catholic teachings and a Protestantized mass. Those sitting in authority may act like followers of the devil at times, but to say they are the devil himself makes you no different from rabid Protestants.
-
It is disingenuous to take the context out of the Letter of the Three Bishops when there are certain factions within the Society then in favor of a practical agreement without first agreeing on doctrine.
There is nothing un-Catholic about obtaining ordinary delegation as this is even mentioned in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Society recognizes those "sitting on the chair of Moses" as Our Lord puts it but resist we should if they attempt to force un-Catholic teachings and a Protestantized mass. Those sitting in authority may act like followers of the devil at times, but to say they are the devil himself makes you no different from rabid Protestants.
Hi Trento-
I didn't expect to convince you. Just wanted to show you how your faction has departed from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.
I realize you think that's justified (i.e., you drank +Fellay's KoolAid), and are perfectly content to ignore the founder in deference to his unfaithful successor.
At least you have the honesty to admit your departure (unlike most of your colleagues/side).
Like Fr. Barrielle warned: Religious congregations last about 40 years before they go astray, and require a reform movement to return to fidelity,
You are the former; we are the latter.
-
Hi Trento-
I didn't expect to convince you. Just wanted to show you how your faction has departed from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.
I realize you think that's justified (i.e., you drank +Fellay's KoolAid), and are perfectly content to ignore the founder in deference to his unfaithful successor.
At least you have the honesty to admit your departure (unlike most of your colleagues/side).
Like Fr. Barrielle warned: Religious congregations last about 40 years before they go astray, and require a reform movement to return to fidelity,
You are the former; we are the latter.
I recall this wedding in Canada, where the SSPX couple chose to be married according to these new rules:
(https://i.imgur.com/qCbwLM8.png)
The conciliar priest in his faggy, modernist vestments receives the consent, with SSPX priest (Fr. Vachon) looking on like a dope from a distance (at left).
The ensuing bruhaha elicited a passionate and defensive commentary to The Remnant from the compromised groom, in which he declared that which your faction had been trying so hard to hide (the faithful being more honest than the clergy):
"We no longer have the bitterness of the previous generation."
Indeed, a whole new (branded) toothless spirit had infected the SSPX, just as it first infected the conciliar Chuch (like a communicable disease, passed from the latter to the former), which robbed it of its will to fight; to right the ship; to prefer authority to truth. The salt had lost its savor, and was good for nothing...
But there's no danger of infection, mind you!
Fr. Barrielle's warning (1982): “I am writing this to serve as a lesson for everyone. The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its Founder, it will be lost.”
Fr. Libietis commenting: "Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (the priest chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre to be the spiritual director of his seminary in Ecône) once said that the time it takes for a religious order to start to drift from its founder’s moorings is around 40 years. Today, 40 or so years after the founding of the SSPX, we see serious problems and divisions facing the SSPX (or the NOVUS–SSPX ). When religious orders thus drift away, a reform is usually carried out by some, in order to recapture the original ideals, attitudes and spirit of their founders."
-
"We no longer have the bitterness of the previous generation."
This about says it all. This is precisely what's going on, where the "Tradle" crads no longer feel that there's a battle between Tradition and Modernism, the Modern world.
Those priests who knew what the battle was about, from the trenches and the front lines, as the Conciliar Revolution rolled out ... those are starting to die off, leaving with us those who not only have no clue but who are being boiled in the pot like the proverbial frogs. Most of these Tradle Crads are simply Modernists who prefer the smells and bells.
How else do you get the book of Modernis Heretic Fr. Paul Robinson actively promoted by the SSPX?
-
This about says it all. This is precisely what's going on, where the "Tradle" crads no longer feel that there's a battle between Tradition and Modernism, the Modern world.
Those priests who knew what the battle was about, from the trenches and the front lines, as the Conciliar Revolution rolled out ... those are starting to die off, leaving with us those who not only have no clue but who are being boiled in the pot like the proverbial frogs. Most of these Tradle Crads are simply Modernists who prefer the smells and bells.
How else do you get the book of Modernis Heretic Fr. Paul Robinson actively promoted by the SSPX?
Although the GREC branding plan had already been conceived and commenced a few years prior, +Fellay giving Archbishop Di Noia a platform in the Cor Unum to address all Society priests, exhorting them to drop the sword of combat against Roman modernism, and focus instead on spirituality, was received by the rank and file clergy as marching orders directly from the Superior General.
When the combat ceased, and perplexed faithful began to suspect that the SSPX superiors were forbidding the priests to preach against Vatican II, relations with Rome, and conciliar modernism, the priests were all able to reply with a heavy mental reservation, and say, “My superiors haven’t told me not to preach against those things.”
No, it was +Fellay sending Di Noia’s letter telling you not to. But they certainly got the message, as everyone knows simply from the universal and substantial change in preaching which kicked in after that letter (where it hadn’t already).
The faithful had only to watch in amazement the spectacle and fate of persecuted priests who dared to defy the “request of Di Noia” to know that in fact, topics like Roman modernism which passed for normal yesterday were today off limits.
The new spirit, sown by 15 years of branding, is one which has no problem collaborating with the FSSP, or dioceses; it’s one which secretly hated the old SSPX, and which would walk out the door tomorrow if Francis revoked his quid pro quo jurisdictional concessions (precisely as Dom Laurenco described to the priest of Campos: They will not come to you for reasons of faith, but because the legal obstacles have been removed).
Possibly, when Lefebvre was alive, some of them would have been drawn toward him and truth by his magnetism (while others secretly disagreed all along). But when he died, recalling that nature abhors a vacuum, the magnet of truth -for the leaders of the SSPX especially- was replaced by the magnet of authority: A corrupt Roman authority dislodged from truth).
Then began the long betrayal.
-
I will not go into the subjective point of view of individual laity whom you termed the "SSPX couple" (note - there is no such thing) but will only argue what can be objectively known.
Between 1970 and 1975, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X who had to celebrate a wedding ordinarily asked for and received the necessary delegation from the local pastor. From 1975 on, after the alleged “suppression” of the Society of St. Pius X, this delegation was usually denied the priests of the Society of St. Pius X (except by a few priest friends) under the false pretense that their status in the Church was irregular.
......
Nevertheless, as its name indicates, the “extraordinary form” is outside of the ordinary; it can not become ordinary. It can exist only in the case where the “ordinary form” is not possible. Canon 1094, which deals with the “ordinary form”, is an “absolute” canon, which begins quite clearly: “Only those marriages are valid....” Canon 1098, about the “extraordinary form”, is only a “conditional” canon, which starts: “If...cannot,” and includes still more restrictions, such as “provided it is prudently foreseen....” The absolute and unconditional norm of marriage is therefore the “ordinary form”, whereas the “extraordinary form” is only exceptional, relative, and occasional.
......
The fourth objection insists that agreeing to make use of Cardinal Müller’s Letter would ipso facto be tantamount to putting marriages according to the traditional rite into the hands of the bishops and of the Roman Curia (fierce enemies of Tradition), since these marriages would henceforth depend on the permission that they would grant...or not. This objection would be pertinent only if the Society of St. Pius X absolutely and definitively renounced the usage of the “extraordinary form”. But there are no plans whatsoever to do that. The grave state of necessity created by the crisis in the Church remains more valid than ever, and without any possible doubt it authorizes recourse, if necessary, to the “extraordinary form”. What Cardinal Müller’s letter accomplishes therefore is not a restriction of the possibilities, but rather the addition of the possibility of the “ordinary form”. And since in some cases the use of this “ordinary form” will prove to be difficult or impossible, recourse to the “extraordinary form” will remain perfectly justified. The bishops therefore will not be able to “blackmail” the Society of St. Pius X with regard to its marriages, inasmuch as an unjustified refusal of a delegation, in addition to other objective circuмstances, would altogether authorize the use of the “extraordinary form”, as has been so until now.
.........
The seventh objection assumes that agreeing to marry according to the “ordinary form” while requesting delegation would be a failure to profess the Faith publicly and to criticize the errors of Vatican II. In effect, the state of separation, contradiction, and conflict between Tradition and the “conciliar” Church, manifested by the canonical sanctions and the refusal of the official authorities of the Church to grant to the Society of St. Pius X what would be just and normal (for example jurisdiction, delegation for marriages, etc.), is like a “catechism in pictures” of the crisis in the Church. Upright souls who are seeking the truth, upon observing that the Society of St. Pius X is persecuted while adhering to what the Catholic Church has always taught and done, are led to think correctly that the official authorities of the Church are in error. By marrying according to the “ordinary form” thanks to a delegation received from an “official” bishop, the Society of St. Pius X would weaken in its battle against the errors of Vatican II.
This objection confuses the reality of the radical opposition between the Catholic Faith and the errors of conciliar liberalism with certain concrete situations that may accidentally manifest it. In the 1970’s, Tradition had taken refuge in makeshift shelters; then, in most localities, they bought or built a church: is anyone going to say that the battle for the Faith grew lukewarm as a result? When a priest of the Society of St. Pius X requests the use of a shrine for a pilgrimage, is anyone going to say that the battle for the Faith is diminished if he obtains permission, as compared with a refusal to grant it? When Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges that the old rite was never abolished, is anyone going to say that the defense of the traditional liturgy by the Society of St. Pius X and the heroic resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre to preserve it are discredited as a result? And so on.
........
-
I will not go into the subjective point of view of individual laity whom you termed the "SSPX couple" (note - there is no such thing) but will only argue what can be objectively known.
Between 1970 and 1975, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X who had to celebrate a wedding ordinarily asked for and received the necessary delegation from the local pastor. From 1975 on, after the alleged “suppression” of the Society of St. Pius X, this delegation was usually denied the priests of the Society of St. Pius X (except by a few priest friends) under the false pretense that their status in the Church was irregular.
......
Nevertheless, as its name indicates, the “extraordinary form” is outside of the ordinary; it can not become ordinary. It can exist only in the case where the “ordinary form” is not possible. Canon 1094, which deals with the “ordinary form”, is an “absolute” canon, which begins quite clearly: “Only those marriages are valid....” Canon 1098, about the “extraordinary form”, is only a “conditional” canon, which starts: “If...cannot,” and includes still more restrictions, such as “provided it is prudently foreseen....” The absolute and unconditional norm of marriage is therefore the “ordinary form”, whereas the “extraordinary form” is only exceptional, relative, and occasional.
......
The fourth objection insists that agreeing to make use of Cardinal Müller’s Letter would ipso facto be tantamount to putting marriages according to the traditional rite into the hands of the bishops and of the Roman Curia (fierce enemies of Tradition), since these marriages would henceforth depend on the permission that they would grant...or not. This objection would be pertinent only if the Society of St. Pius X absolutely and definitively renounced the usage of the “extraordinary form”. But there are no plans whatsoever to do that. The grave state of necessity created by the crisis in the Church remains more valid than ever, and without any possible doubt it authorizes recourse, if necessary, to the “extraordinary form”. What Cardinal Müller’s letter accomplishes therefore is not a restriction of the possibilities, but rather the addition of the possibility of the “ordinary form”. And since in some cases the use of this “ordinary form” will prove to be difficult or impossible, recourse to the “extraordinary form” will remain perfectly justified. The bishops therefore will not be able to “blackmail” the Society of St. Pius X with regard to its marriages, inasmuch as an unjustified refusal of a delegation, in addition to other objective circuмstances, would altogether authorize the use of the “extraordinary form”, as has been so until now.
.........
The seventh objection assumes that agreeing to marry according to the “ordinary form” while requesting delegation would be a failure to profess the Faith publicly and to criticize the errors of Vatican II. In effect, the state of separation, contradiction, and conflict between Tradition and the “conciliar” Church, manifested by the canonical sanctions and the refusal of the official authorities of the Church to grant to the Society of St. Pius X what would be just and normal (for example jurisdiction, delegation for marriages, etc.), is like a “catechism in pictures” of the crisis in the Church. Upright souls who are seeking the truth, upon observing that the Society of St. Pius X is persecuted while adhering to what the Catholic Church has always taught and done, are led to think correctly that the official authorities of the Church are in error. By marrying according to the “ordinary form” thanks to a delegation received from an “official” bishop, the Society of St. Pius X would weaken in its battle against the errors of Vatican II.
This objection confuses the reality of the radical opposition between the Catholic Faith and the errors of conciliar liberalism with certain concrete situations that may accidentally manifest it. In the 1970’s, Tradition had taken refuge in makeshift shelters; then, in most localities, they bought or built a church: is anyone going to say that the battle for the Faith grew lukewarm as a result? When a priest of the Society of St. Pius X requests the use of a shrine for a pilgrimage, is anyone going to say that the battle for the Faith is diminished if he obtains permission, as compared with a refusal to grant it? When Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges that the old rite was never abolished, is anyone going to say that the defense of the traditional liturgy by the Society of St. Pius X and the heroic resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre to preserve it are discredited as a result? And so on.
........
Nonsense.
As the Deans stated:
"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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn9).
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."
That the SSPX initiated sanation proceedings for a marriage it considered invalid for failure to obtain the delegation proves that the SSPX consider that it has now lost access to the extraordinary form of marriage by the promulgation and acceptance of these guidelines.
-
Nonsense.
As the Deans stated:
"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] (https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php#ftn9).
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."
That the SSPX initiated sanation proceedings for a marriage it considered invalid for failure to obtain the delegation proves that the SSPX consider that it has now lost access to the extraordinary form of marriage by the promulgation and acceptance of these guidelines.
The context you used to generalize on the matter of delegation wasn't an "if else" scenario. I would be convinced by your arguments if you could show me a case where the SSPX did not receive the delegation with an objectively good reason and still refused to proceed with the extraordinary form.
-
The context you used to generalize on the matter of delegation wasn't an "if else" scenario. I would be convinced by your arguments if you could show me a case where the SSPX did not receive the delegation with an objectively good reason and still refused to proceed with the extraordinary form.
That the Society believes refusal to acccept delegation results in nullity is all the proof one requires to demonstrate the correctness of the Deans' position (i.e., that the issuance of these Guidelines was a maneuver to deprive the SSPX of the extraordinary form, and place control of SSPX marriages under modernist authorities, but which only works to the degree one thinks like Trento, instead of like the Deans).
This in turn also evinces that the neo-SSPX superiors no longer believe (as the Deans do) that, "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."
-
That the Society believes refusal to acccept delegation results in nullity is all the proof one requires to demonstrate the correctness of the Deans' position (i.e., that the issuance of these Guidelines was a maneuver to deprive the SSPX of the extraordinary form, and place control of SSPX marriages under modernist authorities, but which only works to the degree one thinks like Trento, instead of like the Deans).
This in turn also evinces that the neo-SSPX superiors no longer believe (as the Deans do) that, "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."
How can it be dogmatic when canon law pertains to discipline and in the scenario you cited there is nothing dogmatic involved other than "changing one's mind on the day of the wedding to try and make a point"?
-
How can it be dogmatic when canon law pertains to discipline and in the scenario you cited there is nothing dogmatic involved other than "changing one's mind on the day of the wedding to try and make a point"?
Necessity is a doctrine, not a discipline (i.e., a cause excusing from obedience to superiors and/or positive laws).
That it is mentiond in Canon law is not because necessity is a disciple, but because as a component of moral theology, it is one of the sources of the canon law.