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 during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society. Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass [....][††]
The excerpted text doesn't prevent a Novus Ordo
bishop, d.b.a. "Local Ordinary", from making other decisions
that the C.D.F. letter did not
list. After Vatican II, "collegiality
" of bishops means that a N.O.
bishop can do nearly anything he wants, without fear of criticism--never mind punitive action--from the Vatican[‡]. And it's widely known that the N.O.
is afflicted by a "crisis of vocations
". So what if, e.g., the N.O.
bishop decides to ignore the clear direction from the C.D.F., and refusing to assign a N.O.
"priest" (therefore of doubtful Orders[†]), refuses to delegate authority to the SSPX priest, and instead dispatches a "permanent" deacon
or even a lay "extraördinary" minister?Oh!
The C.D.F. didn't specify that the bishop's delegate would be a man
. Why should readers assume that the C.D.F. decree would be revised to restrict the delegate to the only sеx allowed for Catholic priests, if "Francis" Bergoglio lives long enough to issue the postulated eventual decree that admits women
to the N.O. clergy
"? Imagine the scandal if a genuinely traditional SSPX priest were being given commands by a sternly feminist deaconess at a heavily attended wedding, and he was allowing such public disrespect because SSPX clergy no longer dared to displease the N.O.
Or what if the Novus Ordo
bishop, again lamenting the "crisis of vocations
", decides that the only "insofar possible
" option for providing a N.O.
delegate to the wedding of an SSPX couple is to perform the wedding at 1 of his N.O. diocesan "churches"
. So the engaged couple would have to arrange their wedding schedules
to accomodate the N.O.
"church". Whose rental for the wedding would coïncidentally provide revenue
for the diocese over and above whatever diocesan fees
must be paid by the engaged couple to apply for the diocesan delegate
. And likely endure a required N.O. prewedding class
[†], which quite plausibly would eventually "welcome" sodomite couples
, and feature that papal blockbuster "Amoris laetitia
Altho' the N.O.
Church of Vatican II is referred to from time to time on C.I. as the "institutional
Catholic Church", civil law--at least in the U.S.A.--does not
grant it exclusive legal control over marriages identified as "Catholic". Perhaps it's an important legal issue in countries or other jurisdictions that impose a mandatory church-support tax on their citizens or legal residents.
Note †: As already pointed out by the otherwise-anonymous "Psalm 129", above in this C.I. topic): The meddlesome involvement of N.O.
clergy, therefore clergy of doubtful orders, "should make the couple truly apprehensive". I am amazed at the audacity of claiming that a couple that arranges for an SSPX-administered wedding would have "any uncertainty regarding the validity" of the resulting sacrament of matrimony
. Assuming that the hypothetical engaged couple has confidence in the Orders of their SSPX priest (i.e., confidence that he's not
priest who was admitted to SSPX without the benefit of conditional reördination
Note ††: This issue is also discussed elsewhere on CathInfo, e.g.:
> (orig. April 04), <https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-marriages-reflections-on-a-staggering-development-by-sean-johnson/
> (orig. April 05).
Note ‡: Unless, of course, what that N.O.
bishop wants accomodates, endorses, promotes, or defends traditional Catholicism. Especially if he dares to take action on it under "Humble Francis" Bergoglio.