SSPX and Marriage

[Alr1987]

when searching on the internet i found this question/answer-

“Q:Is it OK for Catholics to have their marriage witnessed by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X?
A:According to the Code of Canon Law, Catholic marriages ordinarily must be witnessed by the local ordinary or the parish priest, or by a minister—usually a priest or deacon—delegated by them to do so (canon 1108 §1). Because SSPX priests do not have faculties from the Church to witness Catholic marriages, Catholics may not have their marriage witnessed by an SSPX priest.”

Is this true because I don’t believe it is, the Pope himself stated that SSPX itsn’t in schism or excommunicated and that any preist has the right to say the Traditional Latin Rite, in fact doesn’t the Pope himslef say the Traditional Latin Mass on occasion?

Is this to say that if i get married in a Traditional Catholic Church under the Traditional Latin Mass my marriage wouldn’t be valid?

 

[Joe_5859]

when searching on the internet i found this question/answer-

“Q:Is it OK for Catholics to have their marriage witnessed by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X?
A:According to the Code of Canon Law, Catholic marriages ordinarily must be witnessed by the local ordinary or the parish priest, or by a minister—usually a priest or deacon—delegated by them to do so (canon 1108 §1). Because SSPX priests do not have faculties from the Church to witness Catholic marriages, Catholics may not have their marriage witnessed by an SSPX priest.”

Is this true because I don’t believe it is, the Pope himself stated that SSPX itsn’t in schism or excommunicated and that any preist has the right to say the Traditional Latin Rite, in fact doesn’t the Pope himslef say the Traditional Latin Mass on occasion?

Is this to say that if i get married in a Traditional Catholic Church under the Traditional Latin Mass my marriage wouldn’t be valid?

Yes it is true.

There is a key distinction between not being excommunicated and having priestly faculties. Simply because they are valid priests and are not excommunicated does not mean they licitly have been given the necessary faculties to function as a priest. They are two separate things.

 

[pnewton]

Note that the article states that they do not have faculties, not that they are excommunicted or in schism. I would recommend that you contact your diocese for a dispensation from form, if you are interested.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

See Canon Law, specifically

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

My wife’s uncle, from another diocese, officiated at our marriage. He had to obtain authorization from my wife’s pastor.

 

[ljubim]

Is this to say that if i get married in a Traditional Catholic Church under the Traditional Latin Mass my marriage wouldn’t be valid?

I’m not sure about the rest of the question, but the SSPX are not the only ones who say that traditional liturgy, in fact you could say that they’re in the minority. Don’t forget the FSSP, the ICRSS, and all of the independent diocesan priests who use this form.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Although I wouldn’t recommend marriage by a SSPX Priest (especially if FSSP is available) it doesn’t mean all the marriages performed by them are invalid or that there aren’t situations where it may be necessary to do so. The Church supplies jurisdiction for the sacraments by a censured Priest when a Catholic requests them for any just cause (canon 1335) since the ultimate law of the Church is the salvation of souls.

Below are the relevant canons and following those are a few links discussing the issue. John Salza does a nice job of explaining the principles of common error, while refuting Jimmy Akins comments on the same topic (see link).

1. Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

---

Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.

**§2. **The same norm is applied to the faculties mentioned in cann. 882,883,966, and 1111, §1.

scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/
sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm

 

[MarkThompson]

Below are the relevant canons and following those are a few links discussing the issue. John Salza does a nice job of explaining the principles

That doesn’t work. Their canonical disability to perform marriage isn’t due to a censure, it’s due to lacking priestly faculties.

 

[PaulinVA]

I would argue that asking for a sacrament from a priest that you know does not have facilities is wrong.

For a priest who knows he doesn’t have facilities to perpetuate the fraud that does is wrong.

 

[choy]

I would argue that asking for a sacrament from a priest that you know does not have facilities is wrong.

For a priest who knows he doesn’t have facilities to perpetuate the fraud that does is wrong.

i’m pretty sure the SSPX have facilities
they still have their parishes



i think you meant “faculties”

 

[PaulinVA]

i’m pretty sure the SSPX have facilities
they still have their parishes



i think you meant “faculties”

Firefox and spellcheck…

 

[RosaryCrusader]

That doesn’t work. Their canonical disability to perform marriage isn’t due to a censure, it’s due to lacking priestly faculties.

Yes it does work - if it works for a censured Priest then an uncensured one is even better. According to what you just wrote if you were on your deathbed and there was a suspended Priest and an unsuspended one (both without jurisdiction) you would have to choose the suspended one for canon 1335 to ‘work’. Come on now!

Regardless, canon 144 states Ecclesia suplet in matter of common error.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I would argue that asking for a sacrament from a priest that you know does not have facilities is wrong.

Au Contraire, canon law allows for such for “any just cause.” If it’s an unjust cause - then yes - I would have to agree with you but in that case it doesn’t matter because an unjust cause is an unjust cause - faculties or no faculties it’s wrong.

 

[choy]

Yes it does work - if it works for a censured Priest then an uncensured one is even better. According to what you just wrote if you were on your deathbed and there was a suspended Priest and an unsuspended one (both without jurisdiction) you would have to choose the suspended one for canon 1335 to ‘work’. Come on now!

Regardless, canon 144 states Ecclesia suplet in matter of common error.

the thing about marriage is that the Sacrament does not come from the priest. the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony are the two people getting married, they confer the Sacrament on one another. and for the Sacrament to be valid, it should be done in front of a representative of the Church, which normally is the priest or deacon. in extreme cases (distant, far away lands with no regular priest or deacon) it could be someone else duly appointed by the Bishop. now, how can SSPX priests represent the Church if the Church doesn’t even recognize them as part of it?

 

[choy]

Although I wouldn’t recommend marriage by a SSPX Priest (especially if FSSP is available) it doesn’t mean all the marriages performed by them are invalid or that there aren’t situations where it may be necessary to do so. The Church supplies jurisdiction for the sacraments by a censured Priest when a Catholic requests them for any just cause (canon 1335) since the ultimate law of the Church is the salvation of souls.

Below are the relevant canons and following those are a few links discussing the issue. John Salza does a nice job of explaining the principles of common error, while refuting Jimmy Akins comments on the same topic (see link).

scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/
sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm

i agree that its not invalid outright, but its also not a Catholic wedding
much like that two protestants who get married by a protestant minister has a valid marriage. we cannot expect them to get married in the Catholic Church. its just not a Catholic wedding. if a Catholic gets married in a Protestant Church, then its invalid in the eyes of the Church. same with a Catholic getting married in the SSPX. if you go to an SSPX parish full time, then its valid within the SSPX but not considered fully Catholic. but if you’re Catholic and get married in an SSPX parish, then it would be invalid.

 

[pnewton]

Yes it does work - if it works for a censured Priest then an uncensured one is even better. According to what you just wrote if you were on your deathbed and there was a suspended Priest and an unsuspended one (both without jurisdiction) you would have to choose the suspended one for canon 1335 to ‘work’. Come on now!

Regardless, canon 144 states Ecclesia suplet in matter of common error.

In matters of common* error*, not deliberately avoidance of canon law. The SSPX canon lawyers that argue this point seem to miss this distinction, which is why Catholic canon lawyers found in the diocese will not agree. The arguement proves too much. If the Church supplies in case of deliberate disregard of canon law, then it applies everywhere and canon law and Catholicism in general becomes irrelevant. This is the reason I believe that the canon lawyers who oppose the SSPX canon lawyers are correct in this matter.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

the thing about marriage is that the Sacrament does not come from the priest. the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony are the two people getting married, they confer the Sacrament on one another. and for the Sacrament to be valid, it should be done in front of a representative of the Church, which normally is the priest or deacon. in extreme cases (distant, far away lands with no regular priest or deacon) it could be someone else duly appointed by the Bishop. now, how can SSPX priests represent the Church if the Church doesn’t even recognize them as part of it?

The Church does recognize SSPX as part of it. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re saying that out of lack of knowledge and not out of spite.

 

[curlycool89]

Au Contraire, canon law allows for such for “any just cause.” If it’s an unjust cause - then yes - I would have to agree with you but in that case it doesn’t matter because an unjust cause is an unjust cause - faculties or no faculties it’s wrong.

How does “I don’t care what the Church says, I’m getting married by whoever I choose” qualify as a just cause? It think the words I’m looking for here are “self-centered”.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

i agree that its not invalid outright, but its also not a Catholic wedding
much like that two protestants who get married by a protestant minister has a valid marriage. we cannot expect them to get married in the Catholic Church. its just not a Catholic wedding. if a Catholic gets married in a Protestant Church, then its invalid in the eyes of the Church. same with a Catholic getting married in the SSPX. if you go to an SSPX parish full time, then its valid within the SSPX but not considered fully Catholic. but if you’re Catholic and get married in an SSPX parish, then it would be invalid.

Not quite right. Canon law allows the act of governance and jurisdiction to take place. It would be a Catholic wedding. Canon law does not apply to non Catholic acts.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

In matters of common* error*, not deliberately avoidance of canon law. The SSPX canon lawyers that argue this point seem to miss this distinction, which is why Catholic canon lawyers found in the diocese will not agree. The arguement proves too much. If the Church supplies in case of deliberate disregard of canon law, then it applies everywhere and canon law and Catholicism in general becomes irrelevant. This is the reason I believe that the canon lawyers who oppose the SSPX canon lawyers are correct in this matter.

You can argue against this canon but would be arguing against canon law commentary which states otherwise - which Salza address in the link I provided. Nevertheless there is canon 1335 which allows for the reception of sacraments for any just cause. A ‘just cause’ would be determined by the individual. The Church allows the widest possible access to the sacraments which is why under special circumstances the new code even allows for a Catholic to receive some sacraments from nonCatholic Churches where those sacraments are valid (ie. Eastern Orthodox). It would be silly to say you can receive the sacraments under certain circumstances from schismatic nonCatholic Churchs but not from Catholic Priests who are only lacking a mandate.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

How does “I don’t care what the Church says, I’m getting married by whoever I choose” qualify as a just cause? It think the words I’m looking for here are “self-centered”.

Who said that mentality would be a ‘just cause?’ Are you just trying to provoke?:dts: