As far as agreeing with the SSPX on Vatican II etc., I would not agree with much of what the SSPX says on ecumenical relations with non-Catholics. I applaud the fact that the Catholic Church today is taking steps to improve relations with the non-Catholic communities. On the other hand, I would agree with the SSPX on the imprudence of granting easy marriage annulments. Although marriage annulments were not specifically mentioned in Vatican II, they would be included in the etc. part of what happened after Vatican II. Before Vatican II, people were granted marriage annulments only for extremely serious reasons, such as a spouse failing to reveal that he was already married to someone else, or impotence, and a few other serious reasons. However, after Vatican II, that was all changed in the USA, and people who were married for ten or twenty years and with children were granted annulments on soft and easy grounds which were never accepted before Vatican II. And in many cases, this question would never had come up except that one of the partners had been unfaithful to the marriage. So it is a serious question as to whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is upholding the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage today to the same extent that it did before Vatican II.
The rules for a decree of nullity have not changed. What has changed are that the Canon Lawyers and judges are better educated on what is required to have a valid bond. We did not have as much knowledge about human behavior and human development in the past as we do today.
Another thing that has changed is that people did not know that they could question the validity of their marriage and many people felt very uncomfortable doing so.
Finally, many more people are entering marriage when they should not be. This only increases the number of invalid marriages. In the past, people though it twice before marrying. Today, it’s a sport. Marry today and divorce tomorrow. A person with such a set of values cannot enter into a marriage. The most common problem is people’s attitude toward fertility. So many people enter marriage who are not open to the gift of children. This makes it impossible to have a valid bond. These were not common problems until the second half of the 20th century.
The Church does not dissolve a marriage. She only declares that the bond never existed. There is a system of checks and balances. As soon as the Judge rules that the marriage was invalid the Defender of the Bond has to file an appeal. The marriage is put on trial again. Appeals can continue all the way up to the Signatura.
The Holy Father ruled that the Archbishop Lefebvre was in schism. There a canonical question here that many laymen may not know. The laity does not belong to the SSPX. The Holy Father is directing the laity not to encourage the SSPX.
So if I wanted to attend an SSPX Mass - does this mean I can go to Communion?
Am I in ANY way in trouble for this?
Alex
This was answered by the Vatican. Anyone can attend mass at an SSPX chapel to fulfill their Sunday obligation and because it meets his or her spiritual needs. There is a difference between attending the mass and lending support to the SSPX. If there is an EF mass available within the ordinary jurisdiction, there is no justification to attend mass at the SSPX chapel. In that case, if you do so, then you’re encouraging them to remain in their situation. We cannot do that. We cannot encourage anyone to remain out of communion with the Primacy. The keyword here was stated by Pope Benedict XVI and may lay people never heard this, so they don’t know. Pope Benedict said that the operative word here is “The Primacy”. Catholics have a moral obligation to remain united to the Primacy, not just of Pope Pius X, but united to the current pope as well.
I never saw anything that said they have an invalid Eucharist.
Their Eucharist is valid, but illicit (illegal).
They are given permission to say Mass at the Vatican and I hear in certain other places as well. So effectively it’s not “no ministry” but “limited ministry.”
Canon Law does not prohibit a suspended priest from celebrating mass in private. In private can include people, such as a group of pilgrims. Therefore, the proper authority can grant permission for such a mass.
On the other hand, if you observe, they are never invited to any of the masses at the Vatican such as canonizations, beatifications, or papal masses as the pope travels around the world. You’ll see Eastern Catholics there, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Muslims and Jews. These people are invited. Those who are priests do not concelebrate for different reasons. I don’t know if the FSSP concelebrates when they attend these masses. In any case, they are invited to be part of the congregation, because they are not in conflict with the Primacy.
For each of these situations there are rules and policies that are not made available to the general public, because the Church feels that these are housekeeping matters. The popes feel that the rest of us do not need to know every rule and exception to the rule. If we were to have to learn these, we would all be Canon Lawyers and theologians. This takes us back to the different roles in the Church. The lawyer does his thing and the educator does his thing etc. The layman does his part, the religious does his and the cleric does his and so forth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
