Ark Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Just curious, are SSPX weddings valid? Yes, of course. Why wouldn't they be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Yeah, I haven't had a chance to go through all their arguments on this matter. Be that as it may, their validity is at least questionable. The Church supplies jurisdiction in cases of doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Not to derail or anything, but I have spent a decent amount of time familiarizing myself with arguments both from SSPX and non-SSPX sources, and I have not seen the core SSPX arguments addressed in a particularly thorough or complete manner, You seem restrained in your speech, my brother. The phishy tag ain't all that bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 You seem restrained in your speech, my brother. The phishy tag ain't all that bad Restrained... prudent... I say only what I mean, and I have no intention to say or imply something beyond my understanding or competency. Canon law is certainly beyond my competency. I can only read and assess what others have written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Restrained... prudent... I say only what I mean, and I have no intention to say or imply something beyond my understanding or competency. Canon law is certainly beyond my competency. I can only read and assess what others have written. We live in a strange and unprecedented era. Not much is certain anymore but thankfully God supplies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 We live in a strange and unprecedented era. Not much is certain anymore but thankfully God supplies. Agreed. God always provides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 The Church supplies jurisdiction in cases of doubt. It's debatable whether that applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 It's debatable whether that applies. It's debatable whether a Priest that says "for all" in place of pro multis validly consecrates the Sacrament. And this doesn't factor the issue of intention, and what happens if a Priest doesn't believe in the transubstantiation or believes the Mass is just the Lord's supper. Such are the times we live in. Do I think the Mystical Body of Christ supplies jurisdiction for Roman Catholics simply trying to be traditional at an SSPX chapel? Yes of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. No Catholic vs. Catholic debate please, that is not allowed on here. Thank you. Edited April 29, 2015 by Ash Wednesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Thanks y'alls. I feel kind of stupid asking for life advice on the interwebs I never make a significant life choice without first consulting phatmass. Phatmass is my Samurai Master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 It is interesting to note that there have always been rumours of situations in which Society priests have been given faculties to hear confessions and witness marriages, here and there. Quietly, unofficially... but such rumours have existed for many years. Of course it would be prudent both for the Society and those dioceses that such arrangements be made quietly, when appropriate. Make of that what you will, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 It is interesting to note that there have always been rumours of situations in which Society priests have been given faculties to hear confessions and witness marriages, here and there. Quietly, unofficially... but such rumours have existed for many years. Of course it would be prudent both for the Society and those dioceses that such arrangements be made quietly, when appropriate. Make of that what you will, I guess. NOOO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Yes, of course. Why wouldn't they be? Nope, sorry, SSPX priests don't have faculties for marriages (or confessions, for that matter), so marriages performed by them are invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 The Church supplies jurisdiction in cases of doubt. That would only be the case if, say, it were an emergency or the couple getting married were sincerely unaware that the SSPX lacks faculties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 It's debatable whether a Priest that says "for all" in place of pro multis validly consecrates the Sacrament. And this doesn't factor the issue of intention, and what happens if a Priest doesn't believe in the transubstantiation or believes the Mass is just the Lord's supper. Such are the times we live in. Do I think the Mystical Body of Christ supplies jurisdiction for Roman Catholics simply trying to be traditional at an SSPX chapel? Yes of course. It used to be the case that "for all" was what the original translation said, remember? Not a good translation, mind you, but that was the translation at the time. While the indefectibility of the Church doesn't guarantee that all translations of the Mass will be like Mary Poppins, i. e. practically perfect in every way, it does at least guarantee that the Church won't approve an invalid translation. Allow me to quote from the Council of Trent:CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. Consider that for a moment. It follows from this canon that no approved rite of Mass can be intrinsically sacrilegious, evil, invalid, etc. If the officially approved translation of "for all" were invalid, then it would make the Ordinary Form of the Mass an incentive to impiety, which that canon says is impossible. To believe otherwise (or even to willfully question is) is heretical. Besides, the minimum stuff necessary for a valid consecration is for the priest to say, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood," respectively -- nothing about "for many," "for all," etc.And as for the priest's intention, it doesn't matter if he doesn't believe in transubstantiation; it suffices for him to intend to do what the Church does, even if he misunderstands it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts