IN THIS ARTICLE, THE SSPX PRIOR OF LYON, FRANCE, CRITICS THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROME AND THE SSPX ON MARRIAGES.  IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE JULY-AUGUST BULLETIN OF THE PRIORITY OF THAT CITY.

 SOURCE
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/

 Often the law, in giving a general rule of action, also provides for the exception that will not fail to arrive, as certain circuмstances are likely to prevent its application.  But as the adage says: the exception confirms the rule.  That is to say that far from destroying the rule, the exception shows that to repeal the law, particular, unusual conditions are required.  The law is also promulgated for what normally happens and is intended to frame a situation in its usual exercise.

 For it seems that we could easily take exception by rule, as desires for reality.  It would seem to see that reading some comments on the Roman dispositions towards us, regarding the marriages.  The Roman docuмent foresees that the normal rule is that it is not a priest of the SSPX who receives the consents of the spouses of the Tradition, but a conciliar priest.  The rule promulgated by this legislative docuмent is therefore to deprive priests of the SSPX of the possibility of receiving the consents of the marriages of their faithful.  It seems difficult to consider this as an advantageous rule, and it is dangerous to say that Rome recognizes our marriages, for she would do so to the extent that we do not take an active part, so to speak.

 Of course, the docuмent also provides for the exception, which is formulated in these terms: "where this is not possible".  The faculty for a FSSPX priest to receive marriage consent is actually foreseen, but marginally and after leaving the case to the diocesan bishop.  This means a very inconvenient situation that will be created for both the families and the priests of the Fraternity if these dispositions should be applied.  Obviously it will be easy to put some bishops in the dark to apply the law in the sense of the exception, but it must be remembered that an exception provided by law remains an exception.  That the general law applies and that relying on the exception will remain somewhat fragile, uncertain and marginal.  Not to mention that the legislator - all coincide in this - legislates by a jealous application of Vatican II and tolerates with reluctance the Tradition, as it is pronounced on the other hand Roman docuмent.  By comparison we must note that the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission has already made changes in the Fraternity of St. Peter and the IBP on its exclusive use of the traditional Mass, which was written in its statutes and validated by the present Rome.  If this authority can change what it has already accepted to ratify in the same statutes of an institute, how not to think that it can modify the interpretation based on the exception?

 The canon 1098 that we use for marriage in the extraordinary form is linked to the situation of state of necessity.  All recognize that this state of necessity remains, even aggravates.  It is therefore normal to use this fee as long as the crisis persists.  The duration of this terrible crisis of faith and morality does not depend on us, but it gives us the right to use the extraordinary form habitually, without it being necessary to force confrontation with such a bishop or priest.  The state of necessity is not an exception, but the reality to which we are confronted.  Acting as if everything was right in the state of crisis would bring about the practical negation of the state of necessity, then the abandonment of the fight of faith, as we see very frequently in the "Ecclesia Dei" movements.  Consistency between traditional principles and practice should be maintained.

 Likewise, before the new code of canon law was introduced, Monsignor Lefebvre could recommend recourse to the local priest to receive consents, but not later, since to make marriages dependent on the new code of canon law (directly or indirectly) would be to approve This dangerous code, out of the erroneous principles of Vatican II.  Except as an exception.  It's always the same thing: rule is no exception!  They are not invested without serious prejudice.

  Fr. François-Xavier Camper