top of page

Some Questions on Marriages in the SSPX (pre-2015)

Writer's picture: Andrew MioniAndrew Mioni

Updated: Jan 28

The question of supplied jurisdiction as it relates to the sacrament of Matrimony is one of the more contentious topics in traditionalist circles. Let me state from the outset that I am not a canon lawyer and do not presume to have an answer to this hotly debated question. It has been a topic of debate for decades by those with experience and authority that I do not have. However, there are some points not usually discussed that I think are worth engaging with.


First, some basic facts. For the sacrament of Matrimony to be valid, the priest witnessing the couple exchange their vows must have jurisdiction to do so. The SSPX agrees with this. However, canon law permits couples to give their consent without a priest or before a non-delegated priest according to Canon 1116, which says the following:


Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:


1/ in danger of death;

2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.


§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.


Now, since their inception, SSPX priests have made the case that they can validly witness marriages without possessing delegated jurisdiction, even when one "competent to assist according to the norm of the law" is available, and most of the time is sitting in a rectory right across the street, no less. They continue to do so even when the local bishop has explicitly denied them the faculty, as in the case of the Diocese of Boise, confirmed by Fr. Loop of the SSPX in their Crisis podcast series. Their reasoning? The current "state of necessity" in the Church allows them to do this. They claim that because it appears the Church has reversed the ends of marriage, issued "ambiguous" statements about the sacrament, and so forth, the people need "priests of Tradition" to witness their vows.


In 2015, Pope Francis opened up an avenue for SSPX marriages to be conducted under proper canonical form, either by having a local priest come to witness the marriage, or by the bishop granting the faculty to SSPX clergy. There are two main observations I want to make about this.


First, matrimony is the one sacrament that is not conferred by the priest, but by the couple themselves. The "matter" is the couple, and the "form" is the words of consent, whereas in other sacraments, the "matter" is the water, oil, bread/wine, etc. used by the priest, and the "form" is the words pronounced by the priest. (The exception to the "matter" is Penance, but the sacrament is still conferred by the priest upon pronouncing the words of absolution.)


The SSPX publicly states there is reason to doubt the validity of new forms of the sacraments (i.e., they believe Confirmation may be invalid due to using an improper type of oil that is now permitted by the church, or that a Mass may be invalid due to lack of proper intention by the priest, and so forth). But there is no such doubt with Matrimony, as it is not a sacrament that can be imparted or withheld by a priest, in the way absolution or Confirmation is. It appears there is no basis for a "grave inconvenience" related to doubt about the validity of the sacrament. With matrimony, a priest is simply there to function as a witness of the Church, but is not strictly necessary to make the sacrament valid.


The question must be posed: what "grave inconvenience" is stopping couples from approaching the local diocesan priest? As stated earlier, most of the time he is directly across the street. The inconvenience of having an "outsider" priest take 10 minutes to come to their chapel and witness them exchange their consent can hardly be said to be "grave." As former SSPX priest Emmanuel Berger wrote, "For marriages, we take our stand on the canon law which dispenses with the canonical form if no priest can be found within a month. It has always seemed obvious to me that we are supposed to look for a priest within that month. For my part, I have always been able to find one. But I know many of my fellow priests who think that they are dispensed from looking."


The SSPX will answer that it is the marriage preparation, the wedding homily, or some other aspect that is problematic, and that a couple can't risk having their marriage tainted by non-traditional principles. As the SSPX itself confirms, "The priests of Tradition cannot entrust the faithful who come to them to prepare holily for marriage to those who profess false principles or could endanger the faith of the future spouses by imparting to them an erroneous conception of Christian marriage." It seems their understanding of a "grave inconvenience" would be if the local priest were required to conduct marriage prep classes or would be the minister for the entire ceremony. This "grave inconvenience" could be resolved if the priest simply showed up, witnessed the couple exchange their vows, and then left, and the rest of the ceremony could be conducted with the SSPX.


But the provisions that Pope Francis made for SSPX weddings stipulate those exact circumstances. It granted bishops permission to delegate a diocesan priest to simply witness the vows, and then have an SSPX priest offer the wedding mass. The precedent is there, and the Church clearly sees no problem with it. (As former SSPX priest Gary Campbell stated, when he served as a priest and was asked to witness a marriage, he petitioned the local bishop and was given permission, long before Pope Francis granted wider permissions.)


Why could this not have been done before if it was acceptable in the eyes of the Church? If the local priest could always come witness the vows, and then leave the rest of the ceremony in the hands of the SSPX, what "grave inconvenience" has ever truly existed, such that the SSPX could invoke Canon 1116? There seems to be no good reason their stance couldn't be something like, "In order to adhere to proper canonical form, we can provide your marriage preparation, and can host the venue, and can say the wedding mass, but for the marriage to be valid, the local priest who has the faculty for this will need to come witness you exchange your vows."


As stated, I do not presume to present an answer to this debate. These are just some musings I've had on the topic. But I do think they are musings worth posing to the SSPX and/or its adherents.




96 views2 comments

Recent Posts

See All

On the Journey Home: Part 2 - by Gary Campbell

Traditionalism isn’t a very confident religion. That may seem a counter-intuitive observation, given the boldness of traditionalists on...

2 Comments


SV3
SV3
Jan 29

CAPÍTULO V


Sin intención de fidelidad y aceptación de la prole

no hay propiamente matrimonio


5. Suele, en torno a este problema, plantearse también la cuestión siguiente: si un hombre y una mujer, sin estar legítimamente unidos con otro, se comprometen a vivir en común no para procrear hijos, sino únicamente para satisfacer los ardores de su incontinencia, ¿se puede decir en verdad que han contraído nupcias, aunque se hayan jurado fidelidad y contraído el compromiso mutuo de no vincularse ni ella a otro hombre ni a él a otra mujer?


Tal vez se podría quizá conferir a semejante consorcio el nombre de connubio, sin incurrir en absurdo, siempre que hubieran resuelto firmemente mantener viva la fe jurada hasta la…


Like

alimcdm
alimcdm
Jan 28

Good food for thought. The Bishop of the diocese of Boise does not, even now, give permission for SSPX marriages, which is his right, so they would have to actually get married at their local parish in order for it to be valid sacramentally. This is what I understand after writing to him about this.

Like
bottom of page