#106: Compromise (SSPX Marriages Invalid, According to the SSPX)
If the conciliatory SSPX, after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, began to doubt the existence of the state of grave public and general spiritual necessity (which has not only permitted, but compelled the existence of its apostolate against the unreasonably opposed will of the modernist authorities),
then it was only a matter of time before it lost confidence in its own apologetics, and the doctrine of necessity in particular:
If there is no state of necessity, then how can SSPX sacraments, which depend upon the issuance of jurisdiction for validity (e.g., marriages, confessions) be valid, since it is precisely the request of the faithful trapped in the state of necessity from which supplied jurisdiction springs?
No necessity = no supplied jurisdiction.
So it was inevitable that the SSPX, now doubting the existence of the state of necessity, and having lost sight of the magnitude of the present crisis in the Church at large (and in Rome in particular), should begin to doubt the state of its own sacraments, and consequently move to remedy this perceived defect.
As a result, I was not surprised to learn that in France, Fr. Andre of the SSPX District office now requests of the various diocesan authorities the delegation to receive the consents of the spouses for all marriages, and more than this, considers SSPX marriages performed in the absence of this delegation to be invalid.
Here is the story, as recounted on the French Resistance forum by “CMS:”
Last year, a wedding took place in a French priory of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
This marriage had been prepared by a priest of the priory, and he 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 the situation qualified as a "state of necessity".
But since it is a union celebrated within the framework of the Fraternity, the preparatory file had to go through the Office of Canonical Affairs of the District of France (Father Jean-Paul André), which applied the internal directives in force since 2017, and referred the matter to the diocese territorially competent to request the delegation in favour of the priest who had prepared the engaged.
But what was probably not foreseen in this case (or not quite certain)... is that the delegation was indeed granted by the diocese, and this by name for the benefit of the priest in question!
On the day of the wedding, faced with the problem and assuming the logic of his position - supported by the engaged - this priest preferred to "give up his place" to one of his confreres, to express his refusal of the diocesan delegation.
This is how the marriage took place: the priest holding the delegation remained in retreat, and it was his confrere who received the consents "outside the delegation", i.e. under the regime of "supplied jurisdiction" (which is satisfied with the assistance of the two witnesses for the validity of the marriage).
Upon learning 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 Fraternity to regularize this marriage, a posteriori!
It is a sanatio in radice, literally a "healing" (restoration) at the "root" (origin) of a cause of disability. The procedure in question effects the revalidation of marriage while exempting the spouses from the renewal of their consent, by allowing, through a legal fiction, to consider the sacrament as valid since 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 may be carried out with the knowledge of the spouses, but also without the knowledge of one or both spouses.
Scope of the procedure in the case under consideration:
The use of a sanatio in radice for this marriage means that the person in charge of canonical affairs of the FSSPX, and the Superiors of the Fraternity (Suresnes? Menzingen?), in concert with the diocese or the competent Roman dicastery, considered that the marriage was null and void because of the absence (or because of refusal) of the diocesan delegation, and that it was not possible in these circuмstances for the second confrere to invoke the state of necessity.
The "conciliar" ecclesiastical authority and the Fraternity therefore considered it necessary, by mutual agreement, to validate this "void" marriage.
1°) The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X no longer allows priests to refuse diocesan jurisdiction for marriages. Such a refusal (clearly manifested) thus officially invalidates their marriages, and moreover testifies, for their hierarchy and for Rome, to a "schismatic" spirit.”
As I stated above, this was all entirely predictable, such that in 2017, upon the issuance of Cardinal Muller’s “pastoral guidelines” regulating SSPX marriages, I could already state the obvious:
“Finally, and it cannot be emphasized enough, what must be retained is that by not opposing these pastoral guidelines, and submitting to them, Menzingen is implicitly acknowledging the invalidity of its own marriages (and this in turn helps facilitate the conciliar motive of inculcating doubt about the validity of the sacrament in the clergy and laity, as a means of garnering support for the canonical agreement).
This latest sad episode from the French District follows only two years after the issuance of the April 2017 guidelines, and it is clear that most SSPX priests now fear to operate outside the confines of ordinary jurisdiction: Their loss of grasp upon the magnitude of the present crisis has robbed them of confidence in the applicability of supplied jurisdiction, and therefore trapped them into compliance with modernist diocesan authority, lest that jurisdiction be withheld.
But, excepting this particular case, Menzingen has been exceedingly stealthy (and skillful) in hiding these doubts from the faithful. Its new modus operandi is described in this post:
Note that a sanatio in radice (i.e., radical sanation) is not the same thing as convalidation of a marriage. In convalidation, the couple makes new vows (i.e., a renewal of consent), presumably in front of a delegated/authorized witness, and this makes the marriage valid from that moment. In a sanatio in radice (which is what happened in France), the couple need not even be aware that the Holy See (or bishop) has retroactively "healed" the marriage from the beginning, or, 'in the root" (ex tunc).
Within the context of the ralliement of the SSPX, obviously, convalidation would be much more disruptive, since it would necessitate individual couples approaching their bishops all over the world, and acknowledging by the very act of their convalidation that they believe their SSPX marriages to be doubtful or invalid.
This in turn calls out the SSPX, since it would beg the question: Why have we faithful been lied to and deceived into becoming fornicators? It would run the risk of engendering resentment toward the SSPX from its own faithful.
To avoid all that (and to save face), sanatio in radice is the way to go: It can be done without anyone ever being the wiser, or any public proclamation ever being made.
It is rumored that this was done in Campos (though I have yet to succeed in uncovering any docuмentation to support this claim, it was told me by an SSPX priest).
Because of that rumor, I contacted the local Archbishop of St. Paul (Archbishop Hebda), announced I was married by the SSPX in 2007, and inquired as to whether there been any radical sanation of pre-2017 SSPX marriages.
In his response, the conciliar Archbishop sticks to his guns:
The pre-2017 marriages of the SSPX are invalid, and there has been no sanatio in radice of these marriages.
In short, it seems that Rome reserves that final lure until AFTER the final capitulation:
No sanatio in radice until the betrayal is finalized (i.e., it wants to keep the psychological pressure up in the now-doubting SSPX clergy, who in turn pass their scruples along to the faithful, just as Rome planned).
In short, the precedent is now established in France, and conceded by the Society: SSPX marriages celebrated without delegation of the diocesan authority, are invalid.
But SSPX marriages prior to 2017 were celebrated without the diocesan delegation, for which logical consistency demands of the Society that they likewise recognize the invalidity of those marriages (or did the state of necessity mysteriously vanish in 2017 under Francis the Destroyer?).
That you and I know (despite the new policies of a quivering and doubting SSPX) those marriages to have been valid by supplied jurisdiction is beside the point. The point is that those of us who retain the old SSPX position must now defend it, not merely against Rome, but against the neo-SSPX, who now gives every indication of conciliar infection:
In such measure as they are incorporated into conciliarism, they become its agent, and the enemy of Tradition.
Flip ahead to entry #64, titled, “The State of Necessity Recedes?”http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t969-Du-nouveau-sur-les-mariages-FSSPX.htm
CMS means supplied jurisdiction.https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-implies-pre-2017-marriages-invalid/
Who can forget Bishop Fellay’s August 24, 2016 Australian conference, in which he repeatedly states that Francis offer of a deal “is not a trap?” (This video has since been removed, but was available here: