The SSPX has issued a Communiqué of the General House in response to the letter issued by Cardinal Muller concerning the “validity and liceity” of Society marriages. (Addressed HERE yesterday.)
Let’s take a look. The relevant portion reads:
The Society of Saint Pius X conveys its deep gratitude to the Holy Father for his pastoral solicitude as expressed in the letter from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, for the purpose of alleviating “any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage”. Pope Francis clearly wishes that, as in the matter of confessions, all the faithful who want to marry in the presence of a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X can do so without any worries about the validity of the sacrament. It is to be hoped that all the bishops share this same pastoral solicitude.
I have encountered comments suggesting that this response is somehow overly conciliatory; to the point of demonstrating either naiveté or evidence that the Society is about to “sell out” tradition.
The Communique doesn’t say, “Thanks for the faculties without which the marriages that we witness are of questionable validity!”
In fact, nothing of the sort is even implied.
The SSPX has always maintained, and continues to maintain, that they have supplied jurisdiction in these matters. As such, the Society itself has never expressed any concern whatsoever about the validity of their marriages or any of the Sacraments they dispense.
NB: The Society isn’t even offering thanks on behalf of their own faithful, who obviously have no qualms about being married in the presence of a Society priest; rather, the Communique is expressing thanks on behalf of “confused Catholics” who may have been reluctant to do so for fear that it would be invalid.
Bottom line: The Society rightly recognizes that this latest move on Rome’s part is beneficial for the faithful at large; in particular, the undernourished. It’s good for the Church. As such, it is only fitting to express gratitude.
The Communique continues:
The priests of the Society of Saint Pius X will strive faithfully, as they have done since their ordination, to prepare future spouses for marriage according to the unchangeable doctrine of Christ about the unity and indissolubility of this union (cf. Mt 19:6), before receiving the parties’ consent in the traditional rite of the Holy Church.
There is a thinly veiled jab being taken here at both Amoris Laetitia (as well as its author) and the preponderance of “full communion” priests; the former for upending the “unchangeable doctrine of Christ about the unity and indissolubility” of marriage, and the latter for so often failing to “prepare future spouses” accordingly.
Yes, I firmly believe that the Society is derelict in its duty by failing to issue a severe condemnation of Amoris Laetitia; calling its errors by their proper name – blasphemy and heresy. In other words, I think that the time for cleverness passed a long time ago.
Even so, I see nothing explicit in this most recent Communique that justifies claims, frequently made with reckless abandon, that the SSPX is losing its grip on tradition.
Well stated. Also, I believe the rough translation of “It is to be hoped that all the bishops share this same pastoral solicitude” is “we ain’t holdin’ our breath.”
Sorry Louie. this IS evidence the SSPX is compromising. You highlight the evidence yourself: ‘There is a thinly veiled jab being taken here…” Every thing is thinly veiled these days. What happened to si si no no? Seems SSPX is now afraid to openly profess the Truth.
Pope Benedict XVI in his letter to the Novus Ordo Bishops following his lifting of the “excommunications” of the SSPX Bishops:
“Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. 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? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church?(…)”
Pope John Paul II in “Crossing The Threshold Of Hope” had this to say about the importance of “unity”. (One-World religion?):
(…)”Taking all this into consideration, it is difficult not to acknowledge that the Catholic Church has enthusiastically embraced ecumenism in all its complexity and carries it out day after day with great seriousness. Naturally, real unity is not and cannot be the fruit of human forces alone. The true protagonist remains the Holy Spirit, who must determine, even from the human point of view, when the process of unity has developed sufficiently. When will this happen? It is not easy to predict. In any case, in light of the coming of the third millennium, Christians have noted that while the Church was undivided during the first millennium, the second was marked by many profound divisions to the East and West, which today need to be mended.
By the year 2000 we need to be more united, more willing to advance along the path toward the unity for which Christ prayed on the eve of His Passion. This unity is enormously precious. In a certain sense, the future of the world is at stake. The future of the Kingdom of God in the world is at stake. Human weaknesses and prejudices cannot destroy God’s plan for the world and for humanity. If we appreciate this, we can look to the future with a certain optimism. We can trust that “the one who began this good work in us will bring it to completion” (cf. Phil 1:6).”
Archbishop Lefebvre, 1988:
“That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.
This is why I sent a letter to the Pope, saying to him very clearly: “We simply cannot accept this spirit and proposals, despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds.” This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.
It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call “Operation Survival”, operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed “Operation Suicide”.”
I’m glad to see this initiative implemented. No longer will those who married invalidly before SSPX priests get to receive the automatic annulment “due to lack of canonical form”
2013 NCR article “Archbishop Di Noia urges SSPX to take new attitude in unity talks” :
“Even if we are convinced that our perspective on a particular disputed question is the true one, we cannot usurp the office of the universal pontiff by presuming publicly to correct others within the church,” Di Noia wrote.
For priests, including those of the SSPX, he said, “it is the faith that should be preached from our pulpits, not the latest interpretation of what we take to be problematic about a magisterial document.”
He said the SSPX originally was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and approved by the Vatican “to form priests for the service of the people of God, not the usurpation of the office of judging and correcting the theology or discipline of others within the church.”
I may be reading this whole thing wrong. The gratitude of the SSPX toward this gesture from Rome seems to say “Thank you for your help in making people accept the validity of the Sacrament of Matrimony in our chapels by allowing the local Diocese to put their stamp of approval on this.” Sounds lame to me.
On April 5, 2017, Swedish television broadcast an “explosive” report on its program entitled “Updrag Granskning” (Mission Investigation) that Fellay had covered up sex crimes against children by at least three of his priests identified as Frs. P, S, and M. Two are French and one English.
All three remained active. The report states that the sexual assaults involve twelve children over the span of three decades in France, Germany, Australia, Ireland, the UK, and the U.S. A fourth man, a former seminarian, has been sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of sexually assaulting seven boys over the course of a decade.
Swedish television has announced a follow-up broadcast next week.
“Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; …”
Has the new spirit that ruled in Rome at the time Lefebvre changed? Of course not. It’s grown much, much worse. Given that, why would Fellay even consider “reconciling” with Rome unless he wants to compromise with the devil?
If this report is correct, Bishop Fellay is most likely getting blackmailed by Francis. That might explain the “equivocation” of the SSPX by not condemning AL. It might also explain why the SSPX is not as up front on calling out Francis’ heresy. If the report is true, then this demonic, diabolical infestation in the Catholic Church with the clergy sex abuse scandal is certainly complete- and about to come to a explosive head.
Can supply a link for this story?
SSPX Resistance sermon https://youtu.be/rwN2g-Rfsok
“The Communique doesn’t say, “Thanks for the faculties without which the marriages that we witness are of questionable validity!”
In fact, nothing of the sort is even implied”
In not condemning the need for a Novus Ordo priest to come in to witness a marriage of a SSPX couple, it is more than implying, but making it clear that previous SSPX marriages have been invalid. Bishop Fellay’s position is not acceptable. And I am afraid under his leadership many SSPX priests in fact share the position of Francis, I read that a SSPX priest in Chicago actually sent a couple to get married in a Novus Ordo parish instead of him witnessing the marriage in his SSPX chapel.
Thanks for the video of Fr. Phiffer I watched it last night and sent it out to others. One SSPX member text me and very outraged that Father put his cell phone on the Altar, a desecration? she might have a point. What do you think?
“why would Fellay even consider “reconciling” with Rome unless he wants to compromise with the devil?” Amen. Can you imagine the talk between Bishop Fellay and Francis? Francis would introduce himself “Nice to meet you, Bishop. My name is Francis, an Apostate to the Catholic Faith, an anti Christ, let’s get some work done regarding SSPX now.”
Sorry to disagree Louie but Bishop Fellay wants recognition by Francis and Rome, at a time when things are beyond crazy. The Archbishop would never compromise with this modernist Rome. Theyre not even condemning Amoris Laetitia never mind the daily attacks made by Francis. It has compromised since the 2012 doctrinal declaration there would be no SSPX resistance priests covering most continents with soon to be 4 Bishops Williamson , Faure , don Aquinas and fr Zendejas if everything was as it used to be. The interview with Tim Sebastian says it all.
Louie, I have always admired your sharp analysis and deep insight into these matters, but I think you missed the mark on this one. Michael Matt (Remnant TV) says this is an insult to the SSPX priests who must stand by like idiots as the N.O. priest presides and witnesses the marriage. That’s sick!!! Louie, please explain further why this doesn’t upset you.
The points made by Fr Phiffer I agree with I didn’t see the mobile as I listened to it in the car. I think although I’m not a sedevacantist that when it comes to rubrics and things of this sort then no one in my opinion shows reverence and attention to detail like the sedes of PIUS V and MOST HOLY TRINITY SEMINARY.
Link to vid above
I have great respect for Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Kelly and Fr. William Jenkins. I do think the SSPX member has a point, the table in someone’s living room or bedroom becomes the Holy Altar for the Mass. So Father should be careful what to put on it.
Your right it shouldn’t be happening this is what can start to happen when masses are being offered in all number of different places but there’s no excuse for lack of reverence.
There are several links- or simply use your search engine-: