fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm
I don’t think anyone who reads this will be in “positive and probable doubt,” as I believe it is negated as soon as one learns that the Priest does not have the proper jurisdiction. If you were ignorant of any of the problems with jurisdiction, I think the Church would supply the governance.
Just because I don’t want to be accused of anything…what part of this is “bull”? BTW, I don’t think I quoted any canon law in this thread. I posted a direct quote from the protocol that Lefebvre signed which actually showed that the marriages were considered invalid even before the excommunications. Do you have something from the 1918 canon that contradicts this? I believe the 1918 code also calls for priests to have jurisdiction to confer this sacrament.
Canonically one requires an official witness from the Church (bishop, priest, deacon as ordinary witnesses and, under certain special conditions, the bishop can appoint a lay person). Catholics are bound to canonical form (and have been since before the 1917 codex iuris under the laws of Justinian). As such, they do require an official witness, and that witness must have competence to be a witness. That competence is granted by the local ordinary or the pastor of the church where the marriage is to take place. If this is missing the marriage is invalid due to lack of canonical form.
The Priest is a valid priest, that is not the issue, but he lacks jurisdiction that can only be given by the local ordianry.
And canonically, if a couple believes they cannot in good conscience approach a priest with “normal faculties” to perform the marriage, then a marriage before witnesses is fully canonical and valid. I happen to know that this is how the SSPX “does” marriages these days. The priests are not official representatives but bystanders until the marriage is accomplished by the parties in question and then the priest blesses the marriage. Sure, it’s a legalism, but it’s a legalism done for the benefit of the couple and future children so that one of the partners can’t later decide they can leave the marriage – kids and all – because they’ve had the epiphany that “it was never a valid marriage anyway.”
Actually, no, it would not be all right since you have legal obligations to them from a civil standpoint.
They are valid priests but as soon as they are ordained they are suspended a divinis because of the irregular status of their ordaination.
If the SSPX wouldn’t call itself “Catholic” it would not be a big deal and the Church would treat them as if they were in the same class as the Orthodox
Errors? What “errors?” Since an ecumenical council cannot teach error there are no errors from Vatican II. To claim there are is to deny Church teaching and to throw the entire history of the Church into question.
AS far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the marriage is invalid when celebrated in this fashion – lack of form is the canonical reason.
What are the canonical requirements for form?
This is wishful thinking on the part of SSPX.
There is no danger of imminent death, and not liking a priest with jurisdiction does not count as grave inconvenience. And §2 negates that reasoning. A priest or a deacon can always be found (at least in the U.S.). And the fact that the SSPX try and come up with such convoluted ways around what is a clearly black and white issue makes me think there are few times when “common error” would allow for “ecclesia supplet.” I just don’t think any couple would accept that it is usual for a Priest to only be there for blessing and not for being an official Church witness. If they think something in unusual, then there is not perfect ignorance, and there cannot be common error
That is a straw man. You need a dispensation to marry a non-catholic or someone outside of the Church. (Can. 1118 §1, §2, §3) And, yes we should be worried about this. These Priests are lying to the couple if they tell them it is fine, and the couple is not truly married if they know the priest is in an irregular state.
The canonical requirements are that one be married before a bishop, priest or deacon who has faculties (delegation) to witness the marriage and that the marriage take place in a church, chapel or oratory. Bishops have delegation anywhere in their diocese, priests and deacons generally receive delegation for the parish to which they are assigned. If they are asked to perform a marriage elsewhere then they get delegation from the pastor in whose territory the marriage will take place.
