SSPX and Marriage

[white_sheep]

and thats the catch
you do not need dispensation to be married by a Catholic priest
since you need a dispensation to be married by a SSPX priest…
1 + 1 = 2

also, if both of you are Catholics, you will definitely not be granted a dispensation. the dispensation will only happen if one party is not Catholic

Whatever the situation with the SSPX is, NO ONE has denied that their Holy Orders are valid, merely illicit. So their priests really are priests.

Someone who is as informed on this topic as you are has surely heard what the Magisterial pronouncements on the SSPX have been. Yet you continue to hold opposing opinions on the matter, what does that make you?

 

[choy]

Whatever the situation with the SSPX is, NO ONE has denied that their Holy Orders are valid, merely illicit. So their priests really are priests.

Someone who is as informed on this topic as you are has surely heard what the Magisterial pronouncements on the SSPX have been. Yet you continue to hold opposing opinions on the matter, what does that make you?

yes, and the pronouncement is that at this point in time they are not in full communion with the Church. that makes them NOT Catholic. the same with Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants who are not in full communion with the Church

unless there’s been a more recent pronouncement of full communion that i might have missed. my point is, unless they are in full communion with the Church, they are not Catholics. validity of Orders has nothing to do with it, the Orthodox have valid Orders, yet are not Catholic. and you know why? they’re not in communion with the Pope. simple as that

 

[Corki]

and thats the catch
you do not need dispensation to be married by a Catholic priest
since you need a dispensation to be married by a SSPX priest…
1 + 1 = 2

also, if both of you are Catholics, you will definitely not be granted a dispensation. the dispensation will only happen if one party is not Catholic

While I am not sure about the dispensation issue, you bring up a good point. Lay people do not belong to the SSPX; it is a priestly association. Even when the priests were considered more formally in schism, it was just the priests. The lay people involved who might be seeking marriage are members, not of the SSPX chapel they attend, but of the Catholic parish in whose borders they reside. The Catholic pastor is the one who has to do all the paperwork involved with marriage and that includes deciding who can witness the vows - a parish priest, a visiting priest, a deacon or a non-Catholic minister (in the case of a mixed marriage).

I don’t think you could get a dispensation to be married in front of a SSPX priest any more than you could get dispensation to be married in front of a laicized priest. The latter is close in status to the SSPX priest - validly ordained but without faculties to act as a priest.

 

[choy]

While I am not sure about the dispensation issue, you bring up a good point. Lay people do not belong to the SSPX; it is a priestly association. Even when the priests were considered more formally in schism, it was just the priests. The lay people involved who might be seeking marriage are members, not of the SSPX chapel they attend, but of the Catholic parish in whose borders they reside. The Catholic pastor is the one who has to do all the paperwork involved with marriage and that includes deciding who can witness the vows - a parish priest, a visiting priest, a deacon or a non-Catholic minister (in the case of a mixed marriage).

I don’t think you could get a dispensation to be married in front of a SSPX priest any more than you could get dispensation to be married in front of a laicized priest. The latter is close in status to the SSPX priest - validly ordained but without faculties to act as a priest.

there are people who attend SSPX parishes exclusively. i don’t know what their canonical status with the Church is though. would the Church treat them the same way they would treat former Catholics who would attend Orthodox parishes? while the Vatican has asked Catholics not to attend SSPX parishes, i don’t know if there’s any form or discipline to those who would remain to do so. although they would have to go to confession for missing mass, as an SSPX mass would not fulfill the Sunday Obligation

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Re excusing oneself by arguing technicalities and loopholes in canon law reminds me that one of the Psalms says something to the effect that one should not play word games with God; He is much better at those games than man will ever be. It is something along the line: With the humble He is merciful; with the clever He is more clever.

 

[dans0622]

If one says that SSPX priests are not Catholic, then what, precisely, has each and every SSPX priest done that results in being outside of the Catholic Church? If we go the schism route, what act of schism has each and every one of them committed? The simple fact of being ordained a priest? That is not necessarily a schismatic act. Who are we to “formally declare” that they are all schismatic? Even the bishops of the society are not formally declared schismatics.

Also, if we say the priests are not Catholic, then what about the die-hard laity? They can certainly be as schismatic as any cleric.

I will echo what “Rosary Crusader” said before: If we say the priests are “not Catholic,” then by what right can we bind them to the observance of canon law? It seems to me that it is because they *are *Catholic that we demand that they observe canon law regarding faculties, canonical form, etc. The comparison was made to Protestant “clergy” and the Orthodox–we do not require them to observe canon law and they can validly witness the marriage of “their own” people. Perhaps an answer would be “Well, the laity are bound by canon law regarding marriage laws, not the priest.” I would ask–by what standard are we to say the laity who frequent SSPX churches are Catholic and bound by canon law but the priests are neither?

Anyway, it seems much more reasonable to just stay with the fact that the priests of the SSPX are irregular and have no faculty to witness the marriage of Catholics, the same as any other suspended Catholic priest. To take the leap of also saying they are not Catholic isn’t supported by statements of the Holy See or solid argumentation.

Dan

 

[white_sheep]

yes, and the pronouncement is that at this point in time they are not in full communion with the Church. that makes them NOT Catholic. the same with Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants who are not in full communion with the Church

unless there’s been a more recent pronouncement of full communion that i might have missed. my point is, unless they are in full communion with the Church, they are not Catholics. validity of Orders has nothing to do with it, the Orthodox have valid Orders, yet are not Catholic. and you know why? they’re not in communion with the Pope. simple as that

If they aren’t Catholic then why does attending their service fulfill one’s Sunday obligation?

 

[curlycool89]

If they aren’t Catholic then why does attending their service fulfill one’s Sunday obligation?

I don’t know where you got that idea from. Attending an SSPX mass does not fulfill your Sunday obligation. If you search the AAA forum, you’ll find a dozen answers that all say that (here’s one to start).

If there is a licit Catholic Mass nearby (offered in any rite in any form), then you are obligated to attend it on Sunday (you may also attend a SSPX mass just like you can also attend say a Lutheran service). If there is no licit Mass nearby, then your obligation is dispensed anyways, so going to a SSPX mass in that case is the same as going to a Sunday Celebration of the Word (ie a communion service). Although it would probably be closer to say in that case that it’s like going to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy when there’s no licit Catholic Mass.

I would ask–by what standard are we to say the laity who frequent SSPX churches are Catholic and bound by canon law but the priests are neither?

Because if they are baptized Catholics then they are bound by the Church’s rules for marriage (just a FYI, Pope Benedict has closed the loophole that actually allowed people to formally leave and validly marry outside the Church. Now if you were baptized Catholic you are under the Church’s jurisdiction for life no matter if you stay Catholic or become a militant atheist).

But I think that’s a side argument anyways. I think comparing them to suspended or laitized clergy is more accurate. The argument that they don’t have faculties to witness a Catholic marriage is a much more important point.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

They are suspended, therefore their faculties are suspended. Without faculties, they cannot validly marry Catholic couples without a dispensation. Period. That is everything. You can dance around the issue all you want, but SSPX priests have no faculties.

Seriously, you’re own quote is proof:

Which part of “prohibited from exercising their priestly functions” is not clear to you? Marriage is a priestly function, so being prohibited means they can’t do it unless a proper dispensation from form is obtained from a couple’s bishop; the same dispensation required to be married in front of a justice of the peace or a protestant minister.

Please read the posts from the beginning before commenting. Your post, in context of the conversation, is completely irrelevant. Nobody in this thread has ever said the SSPX has faculties.

The conversation is now on: Suspended does not equate to invalid or non-Catholic.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

yes, and the pronouncement is that at this point in time they are not in full communion with the Church. that makes them NOT Catholic. the same with Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants who are not in full communion with the Church

Wrong. That makes them Catholic w/o a Diocese. The SSPX, if you would read a little on the subject, is in a class unto it’s own.It’s not a protestant sect anymore than St. Athansius was a protestant. Every single Church or protestant sect you just stated is protestant and/or schismatic - denies the papal office and one or more infallible dogmas.

my point is, unless they are in full communion with the Church, they are not Catholics.

Please cite some canon, catechism, or papal pronouncement backing you on this. “Full” and “partial” communion has been likened to pregnancy - either you are or you aren’t.

validity of Orders has nothing to do with it, the Orthodox have valid Orders, yet are not Catholic. and you know why? they’re not in communion with the Pope. simple as that

Right! They’re not Catholic because they’re schismatics. Now, either accuse SSPX of being schismatics and be done with it or retract your calumnies. And, as I said before, if SSPX is truly schismatic then they’re outside the jurisdiction of the Church anyway and none of the Church’s laws apply. The reason the Church’s laws apply are precisely because they are Catholic.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I don’t know where you got that idea from. Attending an SSPX mass does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

He got that idea from the Vatican - imagine that. (see the links I posted on the previous page).

If you search the AAA forum, you’ll find a dozen answers that all say that (here’s one to start).

Catholic answers is not any more of an authority than I am. The Pope’s PCED has already stated on numerous occasions that it does fulfill the Sunday obligation and faithful do not sin by attending. Catholic Answers does a disservice to people honestly looking up information on the subject by leaving up their dated opinions - which even then were not in line with what was coming from the Vatican.

 

[white_sheep]

I don’t know where you got that idea from. Attending an SSPX mass does not fulfill your Sunday obligation. If you search the AAA forum, you’ll find a dozen answers that all say that (here’s one to start).

If there is a licit Catholic Mass nearby (offered in any rite in any form), then you are obligated to attend it on Sunday (you may also attend a SSPX mass just like you can also attend say a Lutheran service). If there is no licit Mass nearby, then your obligation is dispensed anyways, so going to a SSPX mass in that case is the same as going to a Sunday Celebration of the Word (ie a communion service). Although it would probably be closer to say in that case that it’s like going to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy when there’s no licit Catholic Mass.

I got the idea from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei(recently retired). He was the man in charge of the whole affair with the SSPX and what he said goes. Even before 2005 he had issued letters and given interviews stating that the SSPX are not in schism and that attendance at a mass at one of their chapels does fulfill one’s Sunday obligation and is not sinful. There really isn’t a higher authority on the matter, except the man now filling his old role, who has not spoken against these things.

I do not attend an SSPX chapel though one is nearby. I am honest enough to actually read the letters from someone like Cardinal Hoyos instead of just making my own magisterial pronouncements. Before then it was my opinion that they were schismatic, now I know better.

 

[choy]

If they aren’t Catholic then why does attending their service fulfill one’s Sunday obligation?

no it doesn’t

 

[choy]

Wrong. That makes them Catholic w/o a Diocese. The SSPX, if you would read a little on the subject, is in a class unto it’s own.It’s not a protestant sect anymore than St. Athansius was a protestant. Every single Church or protestant sect you just stated is protestant and/or schismatic - denies the papal office and one or more infallible dogmas.

wrong, sorry. communion is important to be one with the Church. if you’re not one with the Church, then you’re outside the Church

Religious Orders are not under the diocese, but they’re Catholic. unless of course they decide to take their own course and cease being communion with the Church, which the SSPX are at the moment

Please cite some canon, catechism, or papal pronouncement backing you on this. “Full” and “partial” communion has been likened to pregnancy - either you are or you aren’t.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_warns_against_society_of_st._pius_x_ordinations/

Right! They’re not Catholic because they’re schismatics. Now, either accuse SSPX of being schismatics and be done with it or retract your calumnies. And, as I said before, if SSPX is truly schismatic then they’re outside the jurisdiction of the Church anyway and none of the Church’s laws apply. The reason the Church’s laws apply are precisely because they are Catholic.

whatever they are, they are currently not in full communion with the Church. that means they’re not Catholic. to be Catholic is to accept the Church and ALL its teachings in entirety.

 

[white_sheep]

wrong, sorry. communion is important to be one with the Church. if you’re not one with the Church, then you’re outside the Church

Religious Orders are not under the diocese, but they’re Catholic. unless of course they decide to take their own course and cease being communion with the Church, which the SSPX are at the moment

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_warns_against_society_of_st._pius_x_ordinations/

whatever they are, they are currently not in full communion with the Church. that means they’re not Catholic. to be Catholic is to accept the Church and ALL its teachings in entirety.

You do not accept the Church’s teachings on the SSPX. Ergo, you are not Catholic.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here is a link to a letter from HH Benedict XVI discussing the status of the SSPX. Please note that the letter is posted directly on the Vatican’s own website and is signed by Benedict himself (not just someone acting in his name). It was issued in March 2009.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Here are a few relevant passages

…The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. 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.

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith…

Let’s think about that for a second. How can a community possibly “return to full communion” if that community is not at present outside of full communion? Does the Roman Pontiff labor under some misunderstanding that the SSPX is not in communion with him, when in fact they are? Who better to decide “who is in communion with the Pope?” than the Pope himself?

Please note also the Pope’s words “coming from the [SSPX]…to full communion with the Pope” There is a clear distinction here between the SSPX and the Church. He does not say “from the SSPX to the local diocese” or some similar words. He clearly says from the SSPX to the Church.

We can’t have it both ways. A community is either Catholic and in complete communion and unity with the Church, including, above all, the Roman Pontiff, or it is not. Given that the Roman Pontiff is calling for a “return to full communion” we must necessarily draw the conclusion that such communion does not exist at the present time. The only alternative to that is to say that Pope Benedict is in error about the status of the SSPX.

Later in that same letter, the Roman Pontiff says the following:

Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful?

For those who say that the SSPX includes only clerics and not laity: again, I ask if the Roman Pontiff misunderstands the status of this community? While formal membership as such is (as I understand it) limited to clergy, that does not change the fact that laity are de facto “members” of this community which is presently outside of full communion with the Catholic Church.

Lest there be any misunderstandings (or misrepresentations of what I’m saying here), it is not my intention to attempt to prove that any particular person is excommunicated. Whether or not individual persons (lay or cleric) are themselves excommunicated is not for me to say. The community of the SSPX is not in communion with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church–that much is made clear by the Pope’s letter. Excommunication applies to individuals, not communities; meaning that a community cannot “be excommunicated”, only individuals who belong to a community. So while we cannot say that “the SSPX is excommunicated” we certainly can say that “The SSPX community is not in communion with the Church.” Whether or not individual persons who have some affiliation with the SSPX have been excommunicated is a different matter.

 

[Corki]

If they aren’t Catholic then why does attending their service fulfill one’s Sunday obligation?

I think for the majority of Catholics, it doesn’t. There is a letter floating around where a Vatican official told an individual that due to his specific circumstances he could fulfill his Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass. I don’t think anyone (other than the SSPX themselves) has generalized that to everyone.

Most Catholics have options to go to Mass other than at an SSPX chapel and, if they are concerned about Sunday obligation, should attend those licit Masses.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

to be Catholic is to accept the Church and ALL its teachings in entirety.

Which is why the greatest danger of heresy and schism is actually found in the rank and file Catholic Churches where heresy goes unchecked and anything goes. By your definition, which I don’t dispute, my local Priests (under the Bishop) are not Catholic and I’m not allowed to attend their services. You just gave the justification why people attend the SSPX in the first place - because SSPX accepts ALL of the teachings of the Catholic Church but rejects this torturous ‘spirit of the council’ and the novelties which are not part of the deposit of Faith. And SSPX is not the only one - FSSP does just as well although their polemics are more subdued - but they’re saying the same thing.
"white sheep:

If they aren’t Catholic then why does attending their service fulfill one’s Sunday obligation?
no it doesn’t

no it doesn’t

There is a letter floating around where a Vatican official told an individual that due to his specific circumstances he could fulfill his Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass. I don’t think anyone (other than the SSPX themselves) has generalized that to everyone.

Actually, concerning the letter, the opposite is true. There was only one letter which was to an unknown source, under unknown circumstances, which did not have permission to be published, once upon a time - which stated the Sunday obligation was not met. Nobody knows anything about this letter, whether it’s authentic, who it was to, or the guy’s circumstances. All the other letters (and there’s quite a few of them) have stated the opposite and the one I’ve repeatedly referenced here on this thread was written by a journalist, Brian Mershon, with the intention and permission to be published by the PCED and it says that you can attend SSPX Masses and fulfill your Sunday obligation. That is the most official statement we have on this subject. Here it is below and if you’re still in doubt you can google Fr. Z’s blog where he featured the letter as well.

renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/080711

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Let’s think about that for a second. How can a community possibly “return to full communion” if that community is not at present outside of full communion? Does the Roman Pontiff labor under some misunderstanding that the SSPX is not in communion with him, when in fact they are? Who better to decide “who is in communion with the Pope?” than the Pope himself?

Nobody has stated the SSPX is in full communion. It’s certainly imperfect at the moment (at least exteriorly) but the SSPX not being in full communion is not to say that they’re not in communion at all as are schismatics and protestants. If you read the passage you quoted again you’ll find that the Pope repeatedly says (at least three times) they’re in the Church but their "ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church." Meaning they are exercising ministries within the Church just not legitimate ones. A non-Catholic exercises no ministry whatsoever in the Church - legitimate or not.

 

[Timothysis]

If you read the passage you quoted again you’ll find that the Pope repeatedly says (at least three times) they’re in the Church but their "ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church." Meaning they are exercising ministries within the Church just not legitimate ones. A non-Catholic exercises no ministry whatsoever in the Church - legitimate or not.

If you rephrase it you can say that the “sspx are exercising illegitimate ministries in the Church.” So, where does that leave us???