Has SSPX reconciled with Rome?
#11
(01-30-2018, 06:57 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-29-2018, 12:19 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: They can validly and legitimately witness marriages, ...

MM, cite, please? I'm on an FB page where someone has just said, '
Their (the SSPX) marriages are invalid. And the result is fornicating relationships'

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/04/04/new_pastoral_provisions_for_sacrament_of_marriage_for_sspx/1303274


In several dioceses, as a result of this, the diocesan bishops either habitually grants the delegation for individual cases, or has permanently granted it.

I also know of several bishops who either gave SSPX the "delegation" previous to this for marriages, or routinely granted SSPX faithful dispensation from canonical form, so there would be no question with their marriages. So, even before this "Pastoral Provision" cited, this simplistic statement is false by over-extension.

Also Canon 1060 requires that an apparent marriage be considered as valid until a tribunal proves it invalid. So even if all SSPX marriages were actually invalid (they are not), it would not be in the competence of anyone except a tribunal to make this judgement and they could only do this in individual cases.
Reply
#12
Thanks. The article had been brought up, but the Canon sheds a whole new light on the question.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#13
(01-30-2018, 09:43 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Thanks. The article had been brought up, but the Canon sheds a whole new light on the question.

Previously the SSPX relied on what is called "Extraordiary Canonical Form" which is detailed in Canon 1116.

Quote:Can.  1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:

1/ in danger of death;

2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.

Grave inconvenience can be moral or physical. It is less than a moral or physical impossibility, which is what is required for General Absolution or a less-than-integral individual confession (Cf. Canon 960).

Yet you will find that most moral theologians give fairly wide berth when it comes to such things, so the standard "all SSPX marriages are invalid" is contrary to the principles found in most moral theology manuals. For instance Fr. Francis Halligan, O.P. in his Administration of the Sacraments (a standard American textbook on moral theology) says that if another confessor cannot be found to confess integrally without grave inconvenience, and the confession is necessary, and what integrity can be maintained is, then physical impossibility (lack of physical strength, defect of speech, lack of time, ignorance or forgetfulness) or moral impossibility (great scrupulosity, dander to one's life, risk of giving scandal or falling into grave sin, or danger of the public infamy) will allow this non-integral confession.

A fortiori, since the standard for marriage is not impossibility, but inconvenience, lesser causes allow the "extraordinary canonical form".

But again, the argument against SSPX marriages always failed when applied to individual marriages, not only because of Canon 1060, but because plentiful examples could be cited of occasions where an SSPX priest received the delegation or when a bishop gave dispensation from canonical form, so there would be no doubt in these marriages. In short, no one would know which SSPX marriages had these benefits, or whether the Extraordinary Canonical Form applied, so Canon 1060 would demand an tribunal investigation in most cases, and not such rash statement as "all SSPX marriages are invalid and those people are fornicating".
Reply
#14
(01-29-2018, 02:09 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: What Magister is saying is that they are not fully reconciled with Rome - officially.  There are also not in schism by any real definition.  That's the "Cliff's Notes" version.   :D

Thank you,
Reply
#15
I understand; however, my main concern and question is whether or not the Society has reconciled with Rome. And if not, what is the main issue that keeps the reconciliation from taking place? This should concern the laity, if they are true followers of the Catholic Faith and take part in the Society's Sacraments.
Reply
#16
(02-01-2018, 08:19 PM)Laetitia Wrote: I understand; however, my main concern and question is whether or not the Society has reconciled with Rome. And if not, what is the main issue that keeps the reconciliation from taking place? This should concern the laity, if they are true followers of the Catholic Faith and take part in the Society's Sacraments.

No, it shouldn't be a concern for the laity.

The Society is a quasi-religious institute, actually a Society of Apostolic Life. The laity are not members of the SSPX. Even for the members, the superiors are the ones who have concern for the details of the relations with the Holy See. These alone have the duty of state, thus virtues, to handle the matter.

The concern for the laity is to sanctify their soul.

The "Society's Sacraments" are the Sacraments of the Church. They do not belong to the Society in any way, nor does the Society claim them in some way. Society priests offer those Sacraments at the request of the faithful.

Because their present status may be of concern for Catholics, the Society does explain their present situation quite well in their own literature. Only they can speak for themselves. No one here can tell you what they thing, because none of us here speak for the Society. If you want to know look at what literature the Society has put out on the situation.

If the information you seek is not there, and you still think you need answers then contact the Society. If that still is not productive then it's not something that concerns you.

Why would a third party be of any value in answering your question accurately? Rather, more likely a third party will proffer their own opinion or rumors rather than accurate information.

Also, there is no "reconciliation" to be done. The matter is one of canonical status and structure. The Society has constantly shown its willingness to meet with the officials of the Holy See and enter into discussions regarding a doctrinal declaration and even a canonical structure. They are clearly not outside the Church, which means they are inside the Church, which means they are in a canonical limbo. One "reconciles" when one has done something wrong. If they did do something wrong in 1988, that matter was already dealt with. What remains is not to fix some fault on the Society's side, but to implement a normal canonical structure so that the Society can be recognized as legitimate. Only the Pope can settle the canonical status that the Society, so it's just a matter of waiting for him to provide that structure.

So if you want to know what is delaying a regularized canonical structure (not a "reconciliation"), you can look at the Society's literature to see what is holding things up, you could ask the Superior General (or someone else in authority in the Society), or you could phone Pope Francis and ask which he has not yet granted a normal canonical structure.

No one here can provide the truth of that answer to you, because none of us here has it.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, The Tax Collector
Reply
#17
Quote:No, it shouldn't be a concern for the laity.

The Society is a quasi-religious institute, actually a Society of Apostolic Life. The laity are not members of the SSPX. Even for the members, the superiors are the ones who have concern for the details of the relations with the Holy See. These alone have the duty of state, thus virtues, to handle the matter.

The concern for the laity is to sanctify their soul.

The "Society's Sacraments" are the Sacraments of the Church. They do not belong to the Society in any way, nor does the Society claim them in some way. Society priests offer those Sacraments at the request of the faithful.


My goal is to sanctify my soul. The Society is a "tool" to sanctify ones' soul.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)