The Orthodox are in a state of schism, whereas the SSPX are in a canonically irregular state. Thus, the Orthodox aren’t bound by Canon Law, but the SSPX is. If the SSPX formally broke away from Rome in a formal schism, they wouldn’t still be canonically bound by Canon Law.
There’s also a little complication called jurisdiction.
Not true. SSPX priests and bishops are validly ordained. That is why their Eucharist is valid and fulfills a Catholic’s Sunday obligation.
I doubt that the deacon would be given permission by his Bishop to do that. if permission was given, all would be well?
Makes sense. I was thinking perhaps if he’s a friend or relative of the family or something. Of course, he couldn’t say the Nuptial Mass.
That is very odd. Is he therefore saying that this priest is not a validly ordained priest simply because he celebrates the OF Mass? What then is his position on the Pope who also is an ordained priest who celebrates the OF Mass?
Surely he would need jurisdiction from the person’s diocesan parish priest or bishop, which would seem very unlikely (if even possible).
I doubt someone who is that attached to the SSPX would allow that, even if it could be possible from the diocese. I don’t believe a deacon could/can witness a wedding in the old form.
Mongo,
Well, he says he’s not a sedevanticist… Or at least did at one point. I think his actual positiin might be that he doesn’t think priests are validly ordained if they were ordained using the new rite. Since several of our priests are young… You know, I don’t think he’s been very clear about why, but he refused to even set foot into our chapel, since it was recently consecrated.
In which case he is well out of line with what the Church teaches on that issue. That would mean that the sacraments are invalid in a large percentage of Catholic churches and that the tabernacles in a very large number of Catholic churches contain nothing but bread. The SSPX themselves do not believe that.
I didn’t say the only witness.
Yeah, it’s pretty extreme. Personally, I think that knowing that, and knowing that he theeefore must think that the rest of us are pretty much idolotrers when we adore the Blessed Sacrament, should have been enough of a “stay away”! But, since people marry Protestants, she was still sort of unsure. No option of being validly married would take care of that.
No, if a dispensation from form has been granted the Catholic priest is not a witness. He may be there (though no Catholic need be for validity) but he’s not there in any official capacity.I didn’t say the only witness.
Aren’t some marriages witnessed by more than one minister, for example, a mixed marriage performed in some hotel lobby by a rabbi with a Catholic priest present?
Actually I attended such a wedding once. People were asking about the validity of their marriage and the explanation was that “Don’t worry, there’ll be a Catholic priest there.” In fact, he sat at my table and, as the first speaker, gave blessings to the married couple and said grace from there. So maybe it wasn’t official capacity per se but it assured those in attendance everything was okay. I would say many if not most people have no clue about dispensations and whatever else is involved.
Yes. The SSPX are Catholic and are considered so by the Vatican. SSPX priests are Catholic priests, absolutely. They are suspended and without canonical status due to issues of disobedience, but they are most definitely within the Catholic Church and are therefore subject to Church law and instruction, including Canon Law.
Their explanation was in error, then. They presumed – wrongly – that ‘presence of a priest’ = ‘validity’. If that were the case, then no one married in a Catholic church would be able to receive a declaration of nullity…Phemie:
Actually I attended such a wedding once. People were asking about the validity of their marriage and the explanation was that “Don’t worry, there’ll be a Catholic priest there.”
It wasn’t. No matter what he did at the reception, it didn’t have any bearing on his role (or, as it were, the lack thereof) at the wedding itself.
It probably did. However, was he the parish priest for one of the spouses? If he were simply a family friend, and wasn’t involved in the marital prep in any way, then his presence meant nothing, vis-a-vis validity.
Boy, ain’t that the truth! (And yet, so many of us speak as if we’re experts, even if the only thing we’re ‘expert’ in is our understanding of our own single particular case – or our mum’s, or our brother’s, or our friend’s-neice’s-daughter’s…!)
Once upon a time I would have said that his very presence meant that he believed the marriage to be valid or he wouldn’t be there. Then I attended the marriage of a family friend that I and the priest present knew was invalid because the groom had not received his final decree of nullity and the couple was getting married by a judge without a dispensation from form. I attended in order not to lose my best friend. The priest gave a beautiful blessing about how wonderful it was that they were married!?!It probably did. However, was he the parish priest for one of the spouses? If he were simply a family friend, and wasn’t involved in the marital prep in any way, then his presence meant nothing, vis-a-vis validity.
Keep in mind the SSPX bishops and priests have no ministry in the Catholic Church, even if certain sacramental actions are valid (and illicit). In other words, the Church says it is seriously wrong for those priests to offer public Masses, and seriously wrong for laity to attend.
The Church says it is permissible for the faithful to attend SSPX Masses, under certain circumstances.