Has the SSPX Canada Implicitly Admits State of Necessity No Longer Exists? ... Nope!

+

JMJ

A wedding that took place in Brandon has caught the attention of Ecclesia Militans, a Canadian Resistance website run by a layman who is aligned with Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer. 

The story has being picked up by Cathinfo (US Resistance website run by a layman who is aligned with Bishop Williamson), Fr. Girouard (aligned with himself) as well as Traditio (Sedevacantist???).

I guess it was a slow news day for them in their search from something that appears to be a compromise.

Here's Ecclesia Militans indepth and erudite analysis of the event:

St. Raphael’s Priory of the SSPX in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada has published its March 2018 Bulletin in which there is a picture of a married couple standing beside a Novus Ordo priest and Fr. Richard Vachon, SSPX.  It seems that the couple were married by the Novus Ordo priest in his parish and Fr. Vachon celebrated the Traditional Mass afterwards.  By this act, the SSPX Canadian District has implicitly admitted that the state of necessity no longer exists.  Therefore, it can no longer resort to using the argument of supplied jurisdiction for the validity of its marriages.

Here's his final word:

Wake up SSPX faithful in Canada!  Your district has been Novus Ordoized!

Let's cut to the chase, the position of all these critics is that the 'Conciliar Church' is not just a movement within the Catholic Church by a separate entity (see note 1 at end of this post). They don't see the Pope, Bishops etc as having authority.  

As a consequence of this position, they see any contact with the hierarchy as a betrayal of the Catholic Church. (see Note 2).

Now as to the marriage itself (see Note 3 for the Remnant's balanced article), the following is my understanding based on my conversations with the Family and priests involved: 

Yes,  Fr. Wilson received the vows from the couple ... and even if we stop there, which is where the resistance needs to stop otherwise their doctrinal issues will start to rear their ugly heads, we have to ask what was the issue? 

The couple wanted to have a Church as opposed to a hall for the ceremony (seriously, take a look at the Church eh?) and because this Church has a special significance for the Bride's family.  

Further, neither SSPX Church (Welwyn and Winnipeg) were large enough to accommodate the wedding guests. The Diocese gave permission for the use of the Church, however, when approached by the SSPX, refused to provide the permission to receive the vows.

It also appears that this was the first time in the world that a diocese had refused to simply delegate the authority to the SSPX. I have been told that the SSPX had already received complete permission from the bishop of Ottawa for the SSPX  to hear the vows in Church in Ottawa. I have also heard that the diocese has been very accomodating.

Now let's talk about the real issue.

The SSPX has been receiving the marriage vows of Catholics for decades. dealing with for around 40+ years.

SSPX marriages are not immune to the kinds of problems that plague the rest of the Catholic Church.  Humans continue to exhibit the effects of their fallen nature and separations occur.

Historically, when an SSPX marriage encountered a problem and one of the spouses ran to the Novus Ordo tribunal - they were given a 'Get Out Of SSPX Marriage Jail Free' card (GOOJFC).

This is obviously a disastrous situation for the family from many points of view.  That was the reason why the SSPX (I understand) has maintained in the discussions with Rome a condition that they provide a Sanitum for all SSPX marriages.  That was the reason why Bishop Fellay asked for this interim concession from Rome.  When Rome finally drops the mantra, the SSPX will have ordinary jurisdiction and this problem will disappear.

Anyway, this latest concession by Rome was to encourage the local dioceses to delegate the authority to the SSPX.  In this way, for those who do not (or conveniently no longer) believe that the current crisis of the Church has created a state of necessity which supports supplied jurisdiction, the "GOOJFC" is no longer an option.

It just happens that the Winnipeg ArchDiocese is one of the many dioceses in the Church that is decidedly not friendly to Traditional Catholics. It now has the distinction of being the first diocese that insisted that its own priest receive the vows of the couple.

The SSPX recognizes the authority of the local ordinary (Geographic episcopal authority is of Apostolic Origin). Thus the Bishop's decision, following Catholic principles of obedience, must be obeyed.

In short, their Church, their rules.

So is this a compromise?  If so, what principle was compromised?

None that are Catholic - that is for certain.

P^3

Note 1: The errors and in some case heresy involved in this position has been dealt with in a number of articles such as SSPX AND THE RESISTANCE - A COMPARISON OF ECCLESIOLOGY.  For more articles on these topics please see Series - Errors of the 'resistance' and Series - Heresy of the 'Resistance'.   I will be writing an article on Fr. Chazel's (allegiance?) latest thoughts on this topic - which further support my thesis. 

Note 2: This was a very succinct summary of the position of the 'resistance'. It is important to note that after 18 years the 'resistance' is a much fractured loose association of rebels who agree on only one thing: Disobedience to authority.

Note 3: On March 24, 2018; the Remnant picked up the the story and ... as expected ... actually did the courtesy of contacting the SSPX to obtain the context - see the article here:  Remnant Newspaper: SSPX and the Novus Ordo - A New Spirit of Cooperation.