SSPX and Marriage

[Joe_Kelley]

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.

If one was baptized Catholic then one is bound by the Catholic canon law on marriage, even if they no longer attend the Catholic Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

As far as I know, canon lawyers are still debating whether people who have baptized into or have otherwise directly joined the SSPX are subject to disciplinary Catholic canon law.

However, when people who have been baptized into or have otherwise joined the Catholic Church get married by an SSPX priest, their marriage is invalid due to defect of form. It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the priest, so Ecclesia Suplet is irrelevant. As choy correctly points out, the Catholic Church allows not just priests, but also deacons and occasionally lay people, to assist at the marriage of Catholics. So if Ecclesia Suplet applied, then Catholics who were ignorant of canon law and chose to get married by a Justice of the Peace would likewise be validly married.

In the case of danger of death, extraordinary form applies:
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.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

From the Vatican’s website:

In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

The priests do not have faculties to witness a wedding. Anyone baptized Catholic is bound to observe canonical form and thus cannot be validly married by a SSPX priest.

The Ordinary can delegate, for a just reason, anyone to witness marriage vows and under that scenario an SSPX priest could be delegated under the same canons that allow a JP or Protestant minister to be delegated…

 

[pnewton]

You can argue against this canon but would be arguing against canon law commentary which states otherwise .

And with canon commentary, depending on which one you believe. I told you my reason for doubt. Obviously those close to the SSPX have their reasons.

What I do not want to see is an apologist’s argument for the SSPX that persuades someone to roll the dices with the sacraments. That is why I want the other opinion of canon law presented.

No one should take my word for this. Contact your diocese and get an opinion from them, or better yet a simple dispensation. Why violate canon law and hope that you fall ignorantly into error and manage to get by without trying the simple, straight-forward approach?

 

[MarkThompson]

And with canon commentary, depending on which one you believe. I told you my reason for doubt. Obviously those close to the SSPX have their reasons.

What I do not want to see is an apologist’s argument for the SSPX that persuades someone to roll the dices with the sacraments. That is why I want the other opinion of canon law presented.

Yes, it’s this rolling the dice with the sacraments that blows my mind. “Well,” people seem to say, “I read on a website that there are loopholes in the canon law; the Church says one thing but SSPX apologists say they’re wrong, so I guess that’s good enough for me to trust my soul to.”

 

[choy]

If one was baptized Catholic then one is bound by the Catholic canon law on marriage, even if they no longer attend the Catholic Church.

technically true, but if a Catholic decides to become a protestant then how can he be bound by Canon Law? and even if he is, would he care?

 

[choy]

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.

it cannot be a Catholic wedding unless it happens in a Catholic Church with a valid witness of the Church (priest or deacon). so how can a SSPX marriage be valid if the Church itself withdrew the faculties of the SSPX priests. technically it can happen with a dispensation, but i doubt it would be granted

 

[choy]

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.

i know what the state of the SSPX is with the Church. technically it is not part of the Chuch the same way as the Orthodox are not part of the Church, or the Old Catholics, etc

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

technically true, but if a Catholic decides to become a protestant then how can he be bound by Canon Law? and even if he is, would he care?

According to recently amended canons, simply being baptized Catholic binds the individual to canonical form for life. They might not care but the Church does not recognize their marriage as valid if it takes place outside of canonical form.

 

[FrDavid96]

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 relevant information here is that SSPX priests are NOT Catholic priests, and they do NOT have faculties to minister as Catholic priests. No matter how one tries to manipulate canon law, the fact is that these priests have no faculties, and therefore they cannot officiate at a marriage when at least one party is Catholic unless the local Catholic bishop grants a dispensation.

 

[FrDavid96]

i know what the state of the SSPX is with the Church. technically it is not part of the Chuch the same way as the Orthodox are not part of the Church, or the Old Catholics, etc

Yes, the SSPX is “technically” not part of the Church…

…Just as Texas is “technically” not part of Canada.

(Nothing personal Choy, I do understand what you meant.)

 

[RosaryCrusader]

And with canon commentary, depending on which one you believe. I told you my reason for doubt. Obviously those close to the SSPX have their reasons.

What I do not want to see is an apologist’s argument for the SSPX that persuades someone to roll the dices with the sacraments. That is why I want the other opinion of canon law presented.

No one should take my word for this. Contact your diocese and get an opinion from them, or better yet a simple dispensation. Why violate canon law and hope that you fall ignorantly into error and manage to get by without trying the simple, straight-forward approach?

Like I said in my first post I do not normally encourage anyone to get married by SSPX - especially if there is an alternative like FSSP. However, I think it justified (and canon law says so) when the alternative is a Diocesan Priest who will put the eternal salvation of the couple at risk by saying it’s okay to contracept, pre-marital cohabitation will be alright, or coercing a couple to use NFP etc… And yes, there are plenty of those cases - I have first, second, and third hand experience with them (yes, I’m a three handed Barnum and Bailey kind of man.)

So ordinarily I agree with you. But things aren’t ordinary these days. There is a clear and present crisis which changes the dynamic of things. To side with the Diocese at one point in time meant you were Arian. I don’t think things are much different these days - some people are fortunate to live in a good diocese - others not.

I think this is all I’m going to comment on this thread - it’s been done over and over again so no need to do it again.

Let’s RUN the RACE! Time is short.

 

[choy]

Yes, the SSPX is “technically” not part of the Church…

…Just as Texas is “technically” not part of Canada.

(Nothing personal Choy, I do understand what you meant.)

Father, i’m just saying it that way because i don’t want to undermine the fact that they do have some priests and bishops with valid orders

 

[choy]

Like I said in my first post I do not normally encourage anyone to get married by SSPX - especially if there is an alternative like FSSP. However, I think it justified (and canon law says so) when the alternative is a Diocesan Priest who will put the eternal salvation of the couple at risk by saying it’s okay to contracept, pre-marital cohabitation will be alright, or coercing a couple to use NFP etc… And yes, there are plenty of those cases - I have first, second, and third hand experience with them (yes, I’m a three handed Barnum and Bailey kind of man.)

that doesn’t justify it
a priest with the proper faculties, regardless of their own personal sins, would still be better that a priest without, regardless of how faithful they are to the faith. besides, if they are indeed a good priest, wouldn’t they be faithful to the Church and be obedient?

 

[curlycool89]

Like I said in my first post I do not normally encourage anyone to get married by SSPX - especially if there is an alternative like FSSP. However, I think it justified (and canon law says so) when the alternative is a Diocesan Priest who will put the eternal salvation of the couple at risk by saying it’s okay to contracept, pre-marital cohabitation will be alright, or coercing a couple to use NFP etc… And yes, there are plenty of those cases - I have first, second, and third hand experience with them (yes, I’m a three handed Barnum and Bailey kind of man.)

Well I’m glad that you’re all willing to throw thousands of good priests under the bus because of a few bad apples. It’s just like the liberals and the priest sex abuse scandal, except this time we’re hearing it from the right.

So ordinarily I agree with you. But things aren’t ordinary these days. There is a clear and present crisis which changes the dynamic of things. To side with the Diocese at one point in time meant you were Arian. I don’t think things are much different these days - some people are fortunate to live in a good diocese - others not.

It’s not a universal rule of debating (yet), but I think stooping to the level of insulting your opponents should be an automatic loss (like Goodwin’s Law).

You have deliberately compared modern diocesan priests to well known heretics and insinuated in the process that all of us defending them are also heretics. I don’t think it’s out of line of me at all to demand an apology from you to myself and all (including a priest!) who were involved here. That was plane rude and uncalled for.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

The relevant information here is that SSPX priests are NOT Catholic priests, and they do NOT have faculties to minister as Catholic priests. No matter how one tries to manipulate canon law, the fact is that these priests have no faculties, and therefore they cannot officiate at a marriage when at least one party is Catholic unless the local Catholic bishop grants a dispensation.

Fr. David, What authority can you claim to say they’re not Catholic Priests? What about my local Priests who condone contraception and female priestesses? Are they Catholic but the SSPX Priests are not simply because they maintain the things Catholics have always maintained and haven’t been given a mission yet? You’re saying things contrary to what His Holiness has said and the Ecclesia Dei commission. So Please, on what authority do you slander your fellow Priests with an accusation of not being Catholic?

No one is trying to manipulate canon law except for those who will apply it to every case out there EXCEPT for the SSPX. The only excommunicable offense is to be a member of the SSPX. No one is saying they have faculties - they do have supplied jurisdiction according to the canons listed when a member of the faithful approach them for any just cause. Denying this is putting one dangerously at odds with the Church’s laws.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Well I’m glad that you’re all willing to throw thousands of good priests under the bus because of a few bad apples. It’s just like the liberals and the priest sex abuse scandal, except this time we’re hearing it from the right.

It’s not a universal rule of debating (yet), but I think stooping to the level of insulting your opponents should be an automatic loss (like Goodwin’s Law).

You have deliberately compared modern diocesan priests to well known heretics and insinuated in the process that all of us defending them are also heretics. I don’t think it’s out of line of me at all to demand an apology from you to myself and all (including a priest!) who were involved here. That was plane rude and uncalled for.

Unfortunately I cannot apologize for someone hastily reading my post, failing to understand it, then hastily posting a comment of their own. Please re-read my post before demanding any sort of apology.

 

[FrDavid96]

Like I said in my first post I do not normally encourage anyone to get married by SSPX - especially if there is an alternative like FSSP. However, I think it justified (and canon law says so) when the alternative is a Diocesan Priest who will put the eternal salvation of the couple at risk by saying it’s okay to contracept, pre-marital cohabitation will be alright, or coercing a couple to use NFP etc… And yes, there are plenty of those cases - I have first, second, and third hand experience with them (yes, I’m a three handed Barnum and Bailey kind of man.)

So ordinarily I agree with you. But things aren’t ordinary these days. There is a clear and present crisis which changes the dynamic of things. To side with the Diocese at one point in time meant you were Arian. I don’t think things are much different these days - some people are fortunate to live in a good diocese - others not.

I think this is all I’m going to comment on this thread - it’s been done over and over again so no need to do it again.

Let’s RUN the RACE! Time is short.

No, canon law does NOT say that it’s justified. You are “advising” the OP to enter into an invalid marriage. Hopefully the OP will have enough sense not to do that based on an internet forum, but as a matter of principle, this is not a very sound thing to do.

A Catholic who gets married by a non-Catholic minister (priest or otherwise) is not validly married unless the bishop grants a dispensation.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

No, canon law does NOT say that it’s justified. You are “advising” the OP to enter into an invalid marriage. Hopefully the OP will have enough sense not to do that based on an internet forum, but as a matter of principle, this is not a very sound thing to do.

A Catholic who gets married by a non-Catholic minister (priest or otherwise) is not validly married unless the bishop grants a dispensation.

I didn’t advise the OP to get married in the SSPX - as a matter of fact I advised against it - twice. Please re-read the posts prior to making any accusations.

And yes, Canon 1335 clearly states that even an excommunicated Priest can “for any just cause” provide a sacrament or sacramental. Do you deny this?

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.

And I would still like to hear by what authority you claim SSPX Priests are not Catholic Priests.

 

[curlycool89]

Unfortunately I cannot apologize for someone hastily reading what was not there. Please re-read my post before demanding any sort of apology.

And yet there was no other reason to include it in your post besides the reason I gave. It adds nothing to the discussion but to lump those against you with heretics. It’s absolutely classless.

If it doesn’t mean anything then retract it. Otherwise stop dragging priests through the mud. You might want to read the sticky for this forum, because there’s a ban on making derogatory remarks about the clergy, which you have clearly insinuated. You might want to read it.