NeoSSPX welcome the Pope’s opening on weddings
SOURCE
In a long note, the priesthood society of St. Pius X's replies to
eight internal objections and exemplifies four benefits stemming from
Cardinal Mueller's recent letter
Before answering the eight objections, the note - published in French and English on the website of the Fraternity San Pio X and translated into Italian - states that " From 1975 on, after the alleged “suppression” of the Society of St. Pius X, this delegation was usually denied the priests of the Society of St. Pius X (except by a few priest friends) under the false pretense that their status in the Church was irregular. Meanwhile, the crisis in the Church was manifesting its lethal fruits and made it more and more difficult for the faithful who were devoted to Tradition to be able to marry in a fully Catholic manner. The proposed liturgy was the Protestantized liturgy resulting from Vatican II.
Under these conditions, the Lefebvrians, by virtue of Canon 1098 and even before the 1917 Code, have recognized the existence of a "real and serious state of necessity", that involves a moral impediment to recourse to the “canonical witness”, since he would propose an adulterated liturgy and a deviant morality”. For which they have resorted, in all these years, to the" extraordinary form "of marriage, i.e. to marry with the traditional liturgy in the presence of a priest attached to Tradition". For the General House of the Fraternity, led by Monsignor Bernard Fellay, successor to Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, "the assertion of a “state of necessity” in matters concerning marriage, which justifies recourse to the “extraordinary form”, is and remains perfectly valid, inasmuch as the crisis in the Church is very far from being resolved; on the contrary, in fact, especially as far as Christian marriage is concerned, as the two Synods on the Family and the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia have just demonstrated”
Accordingly, the note replies to eight objections to the letter written by Cardinal Mueller on behalf of the Pope, stating in fact that "the arrangements that it proposes would make it possible in a certain number of cases to celebrate marriages according to the “ordinary form” but perfectly in conformity with Tradition, or whether, on the contrary, these provisions would be a trap for Tradition”. The document notes, incidentally, that "this is the first time that a Roman document envisages that a priest of the Society of St. Pius X can celebrate Mass in a parish church without any preliminary condition, canonical, theological, or otherwise. "
The possibility enshrined in Müller's letter is the answer to the first objection, "strictly speaking, it has no connection with the false teaching on marriage that resulted from Vatican II and was incorporated into the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which the Society of St. Pius X rightly criticizes." Secondly, "it does not entail the ipso facto acceptance of the deviant practices regarding marriage in the “conciliar” Church, especially the declarations of nullity for false reasons". The answer to the third objection - "does not imply any effect as to the validity of marriages celebrated in the past or in the future according to the" extraordinary form ", or - replies to the fourth objection -"would ipso facto be tantamount to putting marriages according to the traditional rite into the hands of the bishops and of the Roman Curia (fierce enemies of Tradition).
As for the fifth objection, "this letter from Cardinal Müller - reads the note of the General Assembly of Lefevre - is not in itself an element of an eventual personal prelature, nor a step in a process of “winning over” the Society of St. Pius X; it merely offers the possibility of some improvement in an unjust situation, by facilitated access to the “ordinary form”, without anything demanded in return of the Society of St. Pius X, and with the possibility of resorting, whenever necessary, to the “extraordinary form”, which is perfectly justified by the state of necessity”
On the other hand, it is noted, "the exchanges between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X necessarily imply that each of the protagonists wants to lead the other to his own positions" According to the sixth objection - "the strongest one" - " It would therefore be improper, inconsistent, and scandalous to ask for anything at all from these enemies of the Faith, especially delegation to marry. As for allowing a conciliar priest into a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X in order to receive marriage vows, that would be downright intolerable for the future spouses, for the priests of the Society of St. Pius X and generally for the parish community of that place. But "the pastor," replies the note, "is present as purely canonical witness, not for his moral qualities."
Accepting the opening of Müller, is the answer to the seventh objection, it "would not be a failure to profess the Faith publicly and to criticize the errors of Vatican II": " In the 1970’s, Tradition had taken refuge in makeshift shelters; then, in most localities, they bought or built a church: is anyone going to say that the battle for the Faith grew lukewarm as a result? When a priest of the Society of St. Pius X requests the use of a shrine for a pilgrimage, is anyone going to say that the battle for the Faith is diminished if he obtains permission, as compared with a refusal to grant it? When Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges that the old rite was never abolished, is anyone going to say that the defense of the traditional liturgy by the Society of St. Pius X and the heroic resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre to preserve it are discredited as a result? And so on”
Finally, the eighth and final objection, "recording a marriage in the" official "registers, and not in the registers of the Society of St. Pius X would help open a Pandora’s box" but, states the replica, " The place where the juridical record of an ecclesiastical act (for example a marriage) is preserved has, in truth, no theological or moral importance."
At these eight replicas followed by as many internal objections, the General Assembly adds four "advantages made possible in the new situation created by Cardinal Müller’s Letter. The first and chief advantage would be to “secure” at least some of the marriages celebrated within the framework of the Society of St. Pius X, as far as the form of celebration is concerned”. The second advantage "would be to help to act with special charity toward the spouse or toward the families who were not (entirely) the faithful of the Society of St. Pius X”. The third advantage would be to subject the marriages celebrated by the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, whenever possible, to the letter of the Church’s law, as it has been expressed in turn by the Council of Trent, St. Pius X, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law.” And, therefore, come closer to" what the Church wants ". The fourth advantage, finally, "would be the ability to celebrate marriages more widely in the traditional rite, thus removing an obstacle for more timid Catholics". The Lefebvrians write, explaining that if the latter " through the use of the “ordinary form” without making any harmful concessions, could benefit from marriage perfectly in conformity with Tradition, celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, it certainly would be a great good for themselves, for their new home, for their families and friends, and for the whole Church."