According to Vatican Radio:
The Holy See has established new provisions for the celebration of the Sacrament of Matrimony by members of the faithful who are attached to the Society of Saint Pius X.
Below is a letter [text in boldface] from Cardinal Muller instructing Ordinaries as to the provisions along with my commentary [regular text].
Your Eminence,
Your Excellency,
As you are aware, for some time various meetings and other initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion. Recently, the Holy Father decided, for example, to grant all priests of said Society the faculty to validly administer the Sacrament of Penance to the faithful (Letter Misericordia et misera, n.12), such as to ensure the validity and liceity of the Sacrament and allay any concerns on the part of the faithful.
Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself…
Two things stand out: First, the emphasis is in the original (“for the time being”), which suggests that, at least insofar as Rome is concerned, the deal is all but done.
Secondly, given that the stated intent is to “reassure the faithful” concerning SSPX marriages – even as “canonical irregularity” still exists (i.e., nothing has changed in this regard) – this amounts to acknowledgement that these marriages have always had “validity and liceity.”
In other words, the Society’s long held claim of supplied jurisdiction is beyond dispute.
Surely, the vociferous public detractors of the Society (like Michael Voris & Company), who have delighted in telling anyone who will listen that their marriages are invalid, will be issuing a correction at any moment now (as soon as they finish digesting that crow).
…the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions.
This letter only authorizes “the possibility” of granting faculties; it does not explicitly order anything. Should one expect certain bishops to withhold it?
Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.
For the sake of clarity, a “regular priest” is a religious (Dominican, Franciscan, etc.) priest (one who is under a rule, Latin: regula).
Notice as well the affirmation concerning the Mass as offered by a Society priest.
This indicates Rome’s acknowledgement that the Society’s Masses have also always been valid and licit.
Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.
While some will find cause for concern over the role of the Ordinary in granting faculties; as if this suggests that the Society will be held hostage by the local bishop even after regularization, I wouldn’t make too much of it.
No less than three times, the letter states that the intent is to reassure the faithful with respect to validity; it is not ordered to toward making the sacrament valid. There’s a difference.
Yes, but Rome can’t be trusted! Look at what they did to the FSSP!
I get it, but in the present case, at this moment, the contents of the letter are all we have.
Certain that in this way any uneasiness of conscience on the part of the faithful who adhere to the Society of St. Pius X as well as any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage may be alleviated, and at the same time that the process towards full institutional regularization may be facilitated, this Dicastery relies on Your cooperation.
The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 24 March 2017, confirmed his approval of the present letter and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 27 March 2017.
Notice that there is a second intent stated here; namely, to move the process of regularization along.
If find this rather curious…
All indications to this point have been that regularization is imminent. If that is so, why is Rome going to the trouble of issuing these provisions now?
Insofar as the dialogue between the Society and Rome is concerned, all of the concessions have come from the latter; e.g., acknowledging that the documents of Vatican II are neither doctrinal nor binding, and formally granting jurisdiction to hear confessions.
Yes, the Society issued a very weak statement concerning Amoris Laetitia. They chose not to call it by its proper name; heresy. I’ve been very vocal in my criticism of it, but I’m unwilling to call it a “concession;” as if to accuse the SSPX of making a deal with the Devil.
In any case, in these provisions concerning marriage, we have another “concession” on Rome’s part.
Why this? Why now?
Perhaps the Society specifically requested this provision from Rome as a show of good faith before they take the next step. After all, Bishop Fellay did speak of needing reassurances that the SSPX will be accepted “as they are.”
Or perhaps the SSPX no longer believes that a suitable agreement is possible and simply took the opportunity to secure this reassurance for their faithful knowing that they will remain in their present state for the foreseeable future.
Who knows?
If nothing else, this latest development suggests to me that an agreement is not truly imminent, and if that is the case, clearly the reluctant party is the SSPX.
Regarding the concluding sentences of the article, I don’t think this can be considered an assurance that the SSPX could “remain as they are.” As they are now, they do not require or even consider the involvement of the local bishop. This letter requires his consultation and involvement to a greater or lesser degree, depending on his “benevolence.”
How could this be the precursor to the personal prelature when it involves the local ordinary? Haven’t we been told that the benefit of that arrangement is to circumvent the need to involve the local ordinary?
If this is part of the agreement, then it appears to me that Rome has tipped its hand. If this is what the SSPX can expect from “regularization,” then we are right to be quite concerned about it.
Is the carrot getting bigger?
In Spain (& I believe in Europe generally) they do indeed require the OK from the local Bishop in order to even say TLM in his Diocese. That is why they are not known here at all & I was told by the SSPX priest who drove from Fatima to Poland regularly that they couldn’t be a presence among us for this reason.
Whilst I would very much like to welcome the Traditional Orders I would not want them to be puppets for PF & do not like the sound of this drip drip effect of how he is offering regularisation. Either they are Catholic or not. For a Pope & Hierarchy that shows such great respect to Martin Luther et al, it is unacceptable for them not to grant full communion to the SSPX without string attached. When the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is made then the Old Rite will return, along with all the Sacraments, Devotions & proper catechesis. It can’t be long now & I expect this Centenary Year of Fatima will also be a Year of Surprises.
“Secondly, given that the stated intent is to “reassure the faithful” concerning SSPX marriages – even as “canonical irregularity” still exists (i.e., nothing has changed in this regard) – this amounts to acknowledgement that these marriages have always had “validity and liceity.”
Come again? If the marriages were already valid then this process would not be necessary. Couples who have married before SSPX or Sedevacantist independent priests are objectively living in a state of grave sin for having sexual relations with someone not his or her spouse. Period.
And this isn’t just my opinion. I happen to know 2 couples who received “automatic annulments” from the diocese simply because they married in front of an SSPX priest without faculties. The automatic annulment was granted on the basis of “lack of canonical form”. Case closed.
It occurs to me, Ganganelli, that the famous footnote 351 in Amoris Laetitia may have been intended, inter alia, as a lifeline for such couples until an arrangement of this sort was worked out…
Sometimes Pope Francis can be quite amusing. =)
Come on Ganga, you would marry them in the Old Rite if they asked, whether you had Franks permission in writing or not. think of the civil process, they Signed a Register. According to your “theory they live in sin”. Wow, they have a civil document, which you witnessed – remember all the weddings you officiated at?
The people are “married in law” and in fact! Show me the sinfulness or intent to sin? You did what the Church has always done. Joined them in marriage. Or have you stopped sowing seed, just some sorts of seed huh?
Great spiritual advise in your tool box!
I quite agree. Almost 21 years ago I was married in an SSPX chapel before a suspended priest who is quite possibly the finest priest I’ve ever known. When I left traditonalism I never sought to have my marriage convalidated. I’m married. Period.
Ana.I love reading your thoughts on these issues.I,too,am a Traditionalist down to my boots.I wouldn’t trust The Bergoglio with a bag of chips!
I don’t understand your comment. I’m not a priest so I’ve never officiated at any wedding.
But yes, according to current Church discipline, if a Catholic marries before a justice of the peace, Protestant, Orthodox, or a “traditionalist” Catholic without faculties, that couple is objectively living in concubinage and not marriage due to “lack of canonical form”. And that’s why I say Thank God for Pope Francis and AL and may he and his successors finally put an end to “checkbox” Catholicism.
Ganga – any uneasiness ,,the faithful might have. Oh really.
IS that the same adulterer or fornicator..at a “new penitential rite- NO light?” firmed in his deplorable state, now tripping the pews fantastic, knowing his uneasiness has been relieved.? The Cardinal said so. He heard it on the radio…
Straight to the standing communion in the hand with the big cookie or Clown show?
Or is that “uneasiness just for SXXP ers on the honeymoon” with the fresh paperwork?
How caring this Emperor is despite his lack of clothing…beggars belief…Who is the joker? Franco the Humble? I wonder if he will clear that up.”
” Life is but a joke, said the Joker to the thief, there must be someway out of here….Dillon et al…
Prof Q, we are not amused at this sick drivel they keep posting, they hope no one will spook the horses is the underlying purpose, until Fellay is in the BAG..
Too late…
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
More like Amoris Laetitia and the Francis Speedy-Annulment Process make it clear that not even Catholic priests possessing all da canonical requirements TM and copyrights and Official Nintendo Seal of Approvals even know whether the couples they are marrying are valid or not because consciences and misunderstandings or something might invalidate it from the get-go because of knowing well the rules but not understanding them in such a way that might not even be uncoverable for several years until a special hand-holding interior ‘discernment’ process occurs just oh so conveniently after they’ve remarried and moved on!
Hopefully Gags isn’t getting his commentary and learnings about Amoris Letitia from the same sources he gained his understanding of the Papacy, because frankly Amoris Letita itself speaks of the human conscience as being quite literally ‘God on Earth’ because “It can do so much more” and “it (sin) may be what God Himself wants and is calling for from a person after all!”
So when Gags thanks “God” for all this, we now know what he really means by ‘God’!
Gotta end that ‘checkbox’ Catholicism! Might as well get rid of the Pope and the Eucharist and all that believing in the Crucifixion and Resurrection stuff. It’s standing in the way of our glorious new Catholicism where you can find salvation by coloring outside the margin on a multiple choice spreadsheet!
Here’s Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, explaining “full communion” (2003):
“…and a Catholic is either fully in communion or not in communion. There can be no degrees.
Not so in the modern church, that officially admits varying degrees of communion, or partial communion, which exists in those “separated churches” that “have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation”, that are “means of salvation” and whose members are “in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, §2). The consequence of this is that the Catholic Church is considered as an inner circle in the wider concept of “church” in which it subsists. The further one goes from the center of unity, via a series of widening concentric circles, the less is the “communion”, but nevertheless all these religious groupings are in some way “related” to the Catholic Church, in some way a part of the whole idea of church. Such a perspective is certainly a practical denial of the doctrine “Outside the Church, no salvation”.”
Fr. Stehlin, SSPX, in his book “Who are you O Immaculata”:
“Whatever one may think about the publication of the third secret of Fatima, there is no longer any doubt as to its essential contents: the almost total destruction of the Church and a heretofore unprecedented number of apostate souls is the work of the second beast, which is incarnate, so to speak, in a new world religion that leads entire nations into the great apostasy in the name of a false ecumenism. Heaven’s response, however, is the same: the Immaculate Heart of Mary! In this mystery the response is especially important for the members of the endangered Church itself. Despite his obscure intentions, every offensive of the devil only goes to show even more clearly the greatness of Our Lady of Victory. That is why heresies develop at first at a dizzying pace: so that at the moment of the worst trial, when it appears that the truth has been crushed irrevocably, the Immaculata will triumph over them all without exception. In this triumphant role of the Vanquisher of All Heresies, the Immaculata appears particularly as the Mediatrix of all graces of conversion. As Co-Redemptrix she puts an end to the “abomination of desolation in the holy place” and causes the sacrifice of our redemption, the Mass of all times, to illuminate the world once again with its eternal splendor. The Mediatrix of all graces of conversion ends the era of false ecumenism. The privileges of her universal motherhood and queenship destroy the cult of humanity, unmask the utopia of the Masonic paradise on earth and show once again the value of the last things, including especially the unending beauty of the heavenly fatherland. By offering her Immaculate Heart as a “refuge”, Our Lady of Fatima gives the world the means to overcome even the very worst temptation, namely apostasy from the faith – a means without which mankind would be completely defenseless against the “demonic wave that is sweeping the world”.”
It is wrong for the SSPX to justify their position by playing the trump card ” the first law is the salvation of souls” every time they claim supplied jurisdiction. You can’t recognize the Magisterium and then say you’ll do whatever you think is best even in disregard and contempt for the lawful authority. Perhaps they could take a lesson from the CMRI.
Dear Ana Milan,
Could one of Our Lady’s first surprises in this Centenary Year of Fatima be that She has revealed Her 3rd Secret of Fatima to us now?
A handwriting expert (from Madrid, Spain) has just recently affirmed the authenticity of the Sister Lucy’s handwriting in the “Third Secret’ of Fatima as post on Tradition in Action in 2010 and now posted again just a few days ago.
Please read these links. To me they are AMAZING!
Our Lady circumvents all modernists to reveal to Her little children what She wishes to reveal!
God will have His Way! And so will His Mother!
–
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g32ht_Analyst.htm
–
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g33ht_Decipher.htm
Dear Ermylaw. You ask: “How could this be the precursor to the personal prelature when it involves the local ordinary?”
The answer is simple if you care to look up Canon law in relation to a Prelature. The prelature ‘parishes’ become ‘Rectoral Churches’ and the rector must still ask the permission of the local ordinary to perform a marriage (or for that matter, give extreme unction and a bunch of other things normally carried out in an SSPX chapel). A prelature does not = full autonomy from the local ordinary.
As far as Rome’s letter goes, there is no gesture of good will here, just an attempt to create the impression of one so all of us in Traddieland are fooled into thinking (like Bp fellay) that Papa Francis is our fweeend.
Local ordinaries have always had the power to do exactly what this letter suggests they MAY do. Many children ago, my wife and I were married, witnessed by an SSPX priest, in an SSPX chapel, followed by nuptual Mass by the same SSPX priest, with FULL PERMISSION OF THE LOCAL ORDINARY! We did not need supplied jurisdiction…
then again…If this new letter has any real meaning, the consequence must be that my local ordinary was somehow acting in a way he shouldn’t have and maybe my marriage is invalid after all… oh dear… worry, worry… what shall we do?
Please pray for the repose of the soul of John Vennari, editor of Catholic Family News, who passed away this morning. He was a true warrior for Christ and a faithful son of Mary. Please keep his wife and three children in your prayers.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord!
Who cares what Bergolio says, the man is not Catholic let alone Pope. You R&R trads are just as bad as the neo-Caths you so thoroughly condemn. Both your camps live a contradiction. Pope St Pius X defined the heresy of modernism and today its running rampant in the “church.” Yet you both keep calling it Catholic. At least the progressive libs are consistent. They acknowlege the rupture at V2 and the need for the NO. They make no bones about it and no explanations to justify themselves. They simply say it had to be done to adapt to the modern world. The neos and R&R camps are stuck trying to stick round pegs in square holes. Enough already. There is a Schism and an Apostasy. Its time to wash our trad hands of modernist Rome and move one. Great Schisms have happened before and the true Church survives.
Hello Rand,
This reality of two churches, One Church, and another church, is indeed real, as it has being. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which prevails until the end of time, as established and commanded by the Son of God Incarnate. The other, utterly unholy, apes the One True Church as it apes Her authentic and singular Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, vacating the Mass of utterly any sense of Holy Sacrifice. This unholy thing preaching an anti-Gospel as the anti-Church, while at once masquerading as the One True Church, has indeed destroyed the Catholic religion, as religions are ideological resting in the mind of man. The Church and Her Faith are of Divine origin, immutable and inscrutable from Her essence and Her Mysteries. All the while this anti-Church fully retains the power over the edifice of the Church, the flesh if you will, which seals the deception into the intellects of the blind, in their embrace of this unholy thing as though it is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. This is the penultimate masquerade, the double entendre’ par excellence, the summa and summit of deception, that which could only have been accomplished by Satan, at once parlayed in a time as this, as ours, this great apostasy. The True Church has always taught that the time of the anti-Christ would have to occur in the midst of the great apostasy as otherwise the son of perdition would be fully recognized for the incarnation of evil that he is. What the Church has also taught is that most will be deceived by him, not recognizing him for who he is. Those poor souls will have received the “operation of error” in lieu of grace, which they have freely rejected, a gift both freely given and completely undeserved. No spiritual vacuum can exist thus. This operation of error prohibits them from seeing the Truth, as those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Thanks be to Almighty God. Is the person of the anti-Christ in our midst? Perhaps this centenary year of our Blessed Lady of Fatima will shed some light on this question, while never before in the bimillenial history of the Church, has She found Herself to be in such chaos, hidden right before our eyes.
In closing, the SSPX would appear to be submitting itself, since its inception as a stand in the Truth, into the authentic Magisterium of the One, True Church, while as there is One Church there is One authentic Magisterium. The other a deception as this can only remain as res ipsa loquitur for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Thanks be to Almighty God. In caritas.
Vade retro, Donatus.
May his soul rest in peace.
Having spent three and half years in the seminary years ago, and having to take an entire year of Canon Law courses, all Catholics must remember that, in the Latin (Roman) rite of the Catholic Church under Canon Law, the man and woman who give their mutual free, valid consent to marry one another effect the Sacrament of Marriage. The priest only officially witnesses such along with at least one other witness.
Rome is not giving or saying anything here through Cardinal Mueller other than what is already present in both the 1983 Code of Canon Law as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
It’s interesting to note that the gesture Pope Francis has granted to SSPX priests to do weddings doesn’t resemble even remotely the gesture of faculties granted to SSPX priest to hear confessions…….These marriage faculties are ‘Clayton’s faculties’ – the type when you actually haven’t got any at all. To send in a Novus Ordo Priest to be the witness of a marriage in an SSPX chapel (or any other) and then let the SSPX priest say the mass is nothing short of a desperate control gesture. If we can’t beat them, we’ll join them – they thinks?!! When the SSPX priests aren’t clambering into the Bishop’s Office to ask for this new privilege with humble gratitude there’ll be accusations of snubbing the Pope’s offer. If they do go and seek faculties they could end up with a sham at the altar rails as Fr Feelgood from the Novus Ordo puts his own spin on the otherwise sacred proceedings. I’ve attended enough N.O. weddings to be shocked for life. Unfortunately the blind, due to the log in their eye, still can’t get their head round supplied jurisdiction……and they think the crisis in the church centres round the SSPX. Odd isn’t it?
I am not sure why you fear schism from modernist Rome. Its not like they teach your salvation depends on it anymore. Modernist Rome does not teach EENS anymore so there is no reason to be in union with them.
“Therefore, those cannot be saved who refuse to enter the church or to remain in it, if they are aware that the catholic church was founded by God through Jesus Christ as a necessity for salvation.”
The source of this quote might surprise you. =)
It doesnt matter who said it. Its not what modernist Rome believes or teaches anymore. Because the church now only subsits and no longer is. While of course that teaching is still true, it is equally true that modernist Rome is no longer the catholic church and therefore to be in communion with modernist Rome is actually the schismatic act.
Ana, fortunately you are wrong about the obligation of approval from local bishops. It is indeed not the case in Central Europe, else we would be here without SSPX, none of the local bishops, neither a cardinal, would ever think of giving such approval.