Fr. Z's Blog

From a reader:

My cousin is soon to be married in a SSPX church, a church which his family has been attending for twenty years, since he was in fourth grade. I read on a Catholic website that such a wedding was not valid or even licit, and that it was not a lawful marriage. Is this all true and correct? In their current situation, what would make such a marriage valid? Would the marriage be valid if it were held in a Catholic chapel and the ceremony performed by a priest who is diocesan approved?

Furthermore, does my family have the obligation to inform my relatives of the dangerous situation into which they are entering? They typically dismiss any opposition on their chosen way of life, and are quite adamant in believing that they are doing the right thing.

All sacraments must have proper matter and form in order to be valid.  For a marriage to be licit and valid, recognized by such as the Church, there must be a minister who witnesses the marriage for the Church as a part of the proper form.  The minister is generally a bishop, priest or deacon, but sometimes permission can be given to a lay person to witness the marriage.  But, the fact remains that for the marriage to be valid and licit there must be, as part of the form, an authorized witness.

SSPX priests are suspended a divinis from the moment of their ordination.  They do not have faculties from proper authorities to witness marriages, nor can those faculties be assumed. Thus, the marriages they witness are not licit or valid.  They would have to be validated by the Church.

However, they might be entering a lawful marriage, in the sense that the SSPX priest could very well be registered with the state and could legally witness a civil marriage.  As a matter of fact, some ex-priests do a rent-a-priest thing because they are still legally registered with the state.  Their marriages would be civilly legal, but not valid or licit – just as those of the SSPX priest.

Does "your family" have the obligation to inform your relatives?  I cannot answer that. You stated that they tend to ignore what they are told.  You said that your cousin has been attending this chapel for decades.   This is their world view.  They are rooted in it.

As a result, would having a talk with them do any good?  Would it do harm?  Would it drive them farther from your ability to influence them for the better?  Would they be easier or harder to help back into unity with the Church if you told them this or avoided their wedding? 

I cannot answer that for you.

In the meantime, I am sure that they are trying to do the right thing as they see it.  Their problem is a problem, but it is not necessarily one of faith or of commitment. 

Patience is very important.  Kindness is going to be the key.  So many families have been divided by this thing some people call a "schism"….  though we are avoiding that word these days.   Card. Castrillon, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has been stating that the SSPX is not in schism and we have to go with that.

Try to find the way that will help to heal rather than making a point with the result of greater division.

From a reader:

Have you any information regarding alter servers sitting on the steps of the sanctuary during a TLM Mass? This is occurring in a local parish during the times when the celebrant sits (while the choir sings the Creed and Gloria) and when he does the readings in English from the pulpit (even during the Gospel when the congregation is standing).

I know that servers sit on the steps at certain times during a Pontifical Mass, but I don’t know of other situations.

Perhaps the readers have seen this done.

Rosacea vestments during the week after the 3rd Sunday of Advent?

I reader sent me this:

In re: Rosacea, today I came across this interesting instruction, found in "Matters Liturgical" 9th edition (1956):
 
119. b. Rose-color vestments may also be worn, if the ferial Office is said on the Monday, Tuesday, or Thursday following the 3rd Sunday of Advent (S.R.C.: Nov. 7, 1935; see The Priest: April of 1952).
 
So Rose on Thursday it may be.  After all, I read it in a book.

This obviously applied to the TLM.

Anything more to be said about this?

From a reader:

Per the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), January 1, the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, is a holy day of obligation — one of the few non-Sundays throughout the year when Catholics are required to attend Mass.

Since I follow the Traditional Calendar, along with my church, Old St. Mary’s here in Washington, we celebrated this feast, known as the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on Saturday, October 11. 

Did I satisfy my obligation for attending Mass on the feast of Mary, in her role as Mother of God?

No.

Going to Mass on 11 October does not satisfy the obligation to go to Mass on 1 January.

From a reader:

Could you comment on part of GIRM #274, specifically:
 
"If, however, the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they deaprt from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself."
 
I know that this is a change in the 2002 GIRM, and I really have a hard time with it.  I don’t mean to be scrupulous, but I always feel conflicted about it when serving.  If I don’t genuflect (as is what used to be done, even in the previous Novus Ordo GIRM), I feel as though I am being irreverent.  Christ is present in the tabernacle whether Mass is going on or not.  However, if I do genuflect, then I feel as though I am being disobedient.
 
What should be my attitude in approaching this directive?

There is a real tension here.

First, this idea that we don’t genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament when passing before it in the sanctuary during Mass stemmed from a desire to emphasize the sacred action going on at the moment.  As a result all sorts of changes were proposed, for example, only distributing Hosts consecrated at that Mass rather than any reserved from another Mass.

While I don’t have any problem with the idea that we should stress the sacred action hic et nunc, which is an important dimension of true active participation in a fuller sense, there are some practical considerations.

You know… sometimes these high falutin’ ideas don’t take into consideration what is a matter of common sense. 

The fact is that we do see the tabernacle there and we know that the Blessed Sacrament is in there and we actually believe that this is God present in our midst.

Ignoring any of these things, from some goal of stressing the here and now seems to me problematic.  What occurs to the one who watches people troop back and forth across the sanctuary and ignored the Blessed Sacrament is… well…. perhaps just shy of scandal.  I suspect that it would undermine the respect people have for the Eucharist if they constantly seen their Eucharistic Ministers and servers, et al., ignoring the Lord.

Funny thing: Liberals always ask you to ignore the evidence of your senses.

Anyway… while this is one of those rubrics I think could be happy broken without much fuss, it is nevertheless important that we who desire that the liturgy always and everywhere be celebrated according to the rules should ouselves obey them.

The texts of the translations are dreadful.  That doesn’t mean we should just change them according to our own lights.  I am right about what I write on the prayers in WDTPRS and the lame-duck ICEL texts are jsut wrong.  But I don’t therefore change the texts.  The same goes for rubrics.  The genuflection thing is in the Novus Ordo now.  So be it.   I admit that I forget from time to time, since I don’t say the Novus Ordo all that often these days and the genuflections are by now hard wired into me.

You know…. I know about all the fancy ideas about emphasizing the immediate sacred action blah blah blah but it is just wrong not to genuflect, isn’t it?

I think people are smart enough to handle the idea that we can reverence the Blessed Sacrament in a tabernacle by genuflecting and not lose track of the fact that they are at Mass and there will be a consecration.

After all, people have for centuries been able to see that during the distribution of Holy Communion Jesus is all over the place in the church. 

And yet their heads don’t, in fact, explode.

So, friend, I have a hard time with that rubric also.  I understand the idea behind it, but I think there are other important dimensions the egg-headed desk liturgists didn’t consider when they implemented their pet theories in the revised rubrics.

What should your attitude be?   At least strive for resigned obedience and the patience to be consistent with the others who are serving there.

Also, you might pray for a greater return of the older form of Holy Mass where these sllly things do not vex us so.

BTW… I think every faithful and reverent genuflection and act of faith helps to Save The World and everytime people ignore the Lord or are irreverent weakens us all. 

Remember: Pope Benedict hopes that there will be a positive influence of the one use on the other.  We might start by geting rid of these sorts of things so that the newer Mass will be in greater continuity with our tradition… in which we genuflect as we pass before the Blessed Sacrament wherever and whenever because we believe It is God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, sacramentally and truly with us.