Marriage in the FSSPX
Letter from Superiors of the SSPX and of Friendly Religious Communities
Of May 7, 2017
After the Roman document on marriages in the SSPX, we want to illustrate to our readers both the real scope of this text and the at least ambiguous aspect of the commentary published by the General House of the SSPX.
Today, in a letter signed by seven deans in the French district of the SSPX, as well as by all the superiors of the friendly male communities of the SSPX, they remember what is the right of the faithful in this domain and the true nature Of the state of necessity that still exists. Thus, the jurisdiction of substitution is strongly remembered. This text was published in the Chardonnet this month, and read in large number of chapels of the SSPX in France.
We are deeply grateful to our good priests for this public position which defends the justice of the position of Monsignor Lefebvre in this crisis of the Church, as well as the confusion caused by the will of some to join modernist Rome, which sows Confusion everywhere.
Christian LASSALE
Text of the letter
Very dear faithful:
On April 4, the pontifical commission Ecclesia Dei published a letter from its president, Cardinal Müller, concerning marriages celebrated by priests of the SSPX. Explicitly approved by the pope, who ordered its publication, this document intends to regulate the marriages celebrated within the framework of the Catholic Tradition.
After this letter, a vast campaign of communication, coming from many different horizons, meant that, through this gesture, the pope simply recognizes the marriages we celebrate, or that recognizes the validity of all the marriages we have celebrated until that moment. Unfortunately the reality is very different.
Because this question touches you closely, as it concerns your home, your children of marriageable age, your future; We must clarify both the real scope of this Roman document and our position.
[The evident validity of our marriages]
You know that, for forty years, the Roman authorities refuse to recognize the validity of the marriages we celebrate, and this despite the right of the Church.
This right certainly provides that the sacrament of matrimony is concluded before a parish priest or his delegate, as well as before at least two witnesses [1]. It is what we call the canonical form of marriage, necessary for its validity. However, some argue that the marriages celebrated by the priests of the SSPX are invalid by default in canonical form, since they are not priests or parish priests or delegates. For this reason, both Roman and diocesan courts do not hesitate to declare such marriages void. In doing so, these tribunals oppose the elementary right of the Church [2].
Indeed, canon law [3] provides for the case in which "it is not possible to have or can not go without serious discomfort to anyone who can attend marriage in accordance with the law." If it is foreseen that this situation will last thirty days, then the ecclesiastical law recognizes to the future spouses the right to validly and legitimately exchange their consents before only the lay witnesses, without parish priest or priest delegated by him. However, for the lawfulness of the act, these future spouses should call, if possible, any priest. Such a marriage is said to be celebrated according to the so-called extraordinary form. It is in this form that, for forty years, we have validly and lawfully received the exchange of your consents, without any doubt being possible.
[The state of necessity]
As you know, unfortunately there is no doubt about the extraordinarily dramatic situation facing the Church [4]. The latter is still suffering today and now more intensely, what Monsignor Lefebvre called "the master stroke of Satan": "Spreading the revolutionary principles by the same authority of the Church." We see the authorities of the Church, from the seat of Peter to the parish priest, to attack the Catholic faith directly by means of a corrupt humanism that, taking to the pinnacle the cult of conscience, dethrones Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, Christ's kingship over human societies is simply ignored or opposed, and the Church is taken by this liberal spirit manifested especially in religious freedom, ecumenism and collegiality. Through this spirit, it is the very nature of the Redemption realized by Christ that is questioned, it is the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation, which is denied in the facts. The same Catholic morality, already shaken in its foundations, is overthrown by Pope Francis, for example, when he explicitly opens the way to the communion of divorced men who have been "married" to marital life.
This dramatic attitude of the ecclesial authorities undoubtedly carries a state of necessity for the faithful. In fact, there is not only a serious inconvenience but a real danger in putting your salvation in the hands of pastors imbued with this "adulterous [6] spirit," which is harmful both to faith and to morals. We have no choice but to protect ourselves from such authorities, because they are "in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction" and because "as long as this misunderstanding is not dissipated, disasters will multiply in the Church." We live in circumstances where true obedience claims to disobey [8], for "it is necessary to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
Until the ambiguity of the ecclesiastical authorities is not dissipated, the serious inconvenience foreseen by canon 1098 will continue, and the celebration of marriages according to extraordinary form is justified.
In addition, a marriage which implies, like every sacrament, a profession of faith, one can not oppose the right of the faithful to the sacraments by imposing on them a minister who ordinarily directs his ministry in the adulterous address officialized in Vatican II, whereas those faithful Have the possibility of resorting to a priest free from this prevarication of faith.
[The scope of the Roman document]
In light of these principles appears the real scope of the Roman document. Persevering in the disastrous line of Vatican II, the Roman authorities simply want to deprive you of the extraordinary form of marriage by denying the state of necessity. This document therefore requires you to appeal to a diocesan priest for your marriages, not leaving the priests of the SSPX more than the possibility of celebrating the subsequent Mass. The Ecclesia Dei Commission foresees that, whenever possible , the Bishop will delegate a priest of the Diocese to attend marriages (or a priest of another ecclesiastical circumscription with due licenses), receiving the consent Of the spouses during the celebration of the marriage which, in the liturgy of the Vetus Ordo, takes place at the beginning of the Holy Mass. This is celebrated later by a priest of the Fraternity.
It is only " where it is not possible that there are priests of the Diocese who can receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary can directly grant the necessary powers to a priest of the Fraternity." In other words, it is only and only if there is a case of necessity - of which we ignore nature, since it is no longer a question of the serious damage that the liberal spirit causes to the Catholic faith - that the bishop can give the delegation to a priest Of the FSSPX. All other marriage celebrated by a priest of the SSPX without explicit delegation of the Ordinary, will continue to be considered invalid by the current holders of the supreme authority.
In addition to the fact that this decision is both unjust and void, it makes a new violation of the spirit of law: the Ecclesia Dei commission allowed here what even the new code of canon law prohibited, namely, to place under the control of the Ordinary the form Extraordinary of marriage, and this at the expense of the natural right to marriage [9].
[Our marriages, certainly valid yesterday, today and always]
As long as this tragic situation of the Church persists and the destructive misconception in which the high authorities of the Church live, for our part we will continue to use the extraordinary form of marriage without letting it be unduly ruled by the Ordinaries.
We will continue to celebrate marriages validly and lawfully in our churches and chapels, as we have always done so far, based on the old canon 1098 and the new canon 1116, regardless of any prior agreement with the Ordinary.
For those who maintain that such a practice would now be invalid because the ecclesiastical authorities offer a possible delegation on the part of the Ordinary, we reply that the state of necessity that justifies our action is more dogmatic than canonical and that the impossibility of appealing to existing authorities It is not physical but moral. We do not want to simply abandon souls who, cornered by circumstances, are entrusted to our ministry. They did not flee from a prevaricating authority for her to be imposed on one of the most important ceremonies of her life. On the other hand, those who make this objection show that they know very little about the right of the Church, which reason in reverse. This, in fact, allows the faithful to voluntarily put themselves in the case of necessity to validly and lawfully contract a marriage according to extraordinary form, even when they have the possibility of acting otherwise. [10]
In the case in which certain faithful obtain from a parish priest the possibility of their marriage being celebrated in their parish, we will attend to our wise customs established by time: to the extent that this parish priest is usually well disposed towards the Tradition Of the Church and leave us the work of preaching, we would have no objection to him receiving the consents according to the traditional ritual, leaving a priest of our Fraternity to celebrate the Mass. But we will refuse to celebrate Mass if, given the delegation, it is denied us, for example, by a priest Ecclesia Dei.
For the sake of the sacrament of marriage, for the sake of your homes, for the sake of your souls, we also do not intend to submit the trials of your marriages to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction whose courts declare null and void marriages that are certainly valid under the false pretext of The lack of psychological maturity of the contracting parties. We also know how these courts actually support Catholic divorce through the simplified procedure of marriage annulment promulgated by Pope Francis. That is why we will continue to recognize as the sole judge of these cases the San Carlos Borromeo commission, which the FSSPX had to establish precisely because of these invalid declarations that were certainly invalid.
[Conclusion]
Finally, we would like to express our great astonishment at this Roman decision and at the echo it has received. It is assumed that the personal prelature offered to the SSPX will recognize us as we are and will keep us in independence from the local Ordinaries. But now the first decisions taken are to unjustly submit our marriages to such Ordinaries, before conditioning, tomorrow, the opening of our new homes to their approval. This shows how double language dominates not only in the field of faith and morality, but also in these canonical questions.
In addition, in this year of the centenary of the apparitions of Fatima, we invoke the Immaculate Heart of Mary, not for her to put an end to our canonical situation, considered irregular by some; But for the Church to be liberated from the occupation by the modernists, and for its highest authorities to re-find the path followed by the Church to Vatican II. That is when our bishops will be able to put their episcopates in the hands of the Sovereign Pontiff [12].
May 7, 2017.
Fr. David ALDALUR , Dean of Bordeaux.
Fr. Xavier BEAUVAIS , Dean of Marseille.
Fr. Francis Xavier CAMPER , Dean of Lyon.
Fr. Bruno FRANCE , Dean of Nantes.
P. Thierry GAUDRAY , Dean of Lille.
Fr. Patrick de la ROCQUE , Dean of Paris.
P. Thierry LEGRAND , Dean of St. Malo.
They also sign the letter:
RP JEAN-MARIE , Superior of the Fraternity of the Transfiguration.
RP PLACIDE , Prior of the Benedictine Monastery of Bellaigue.
RP ANTOINE , Guardian of the Capuchin Monastery of Morgon.
Source: MEDIAS.PRESSE-INFO
