I'm not disputing what you said if this is indeed the Church's teaching, it nevertheless doesn't make sense to me since the prospective spouses could make vows to each other allowing for a pluralistic or polyamorous arrangement, which we are seeing more and more of these days. This has always been widespread in pagan cultures. Up until the last century or so arranged marriages were pretty much the norm, even in Christendom. In these cases it doesn't even seem like the consent of each spouse was a consideration.

You have moved the goal posts! I understand that we are talking of marriage, not polygamy.
You seem confused as to what constitutes marriage.

Marriage is the union of ONE man and ONE woman to remain faithful to each other until one of them departs this world.

I think your dates are out for arranged marriages in the west, but they have still worked well. Arranged marriage is not forced marriage. Marriage still requires the consent of the proposed spouses.

The have to be baptized in the Catholic Church to Catholic parents.  If they were baptized by Prots and raised by Prots, their marriages would be valid.

Taught not only at STAS, but explained to me also by several Catholic priests, including then-Father Sanborn:
So that last part refers to those who, somehow (how, I don't know) were baptized in the Catholic Church but whose parents were non-Catholics and then raised them from infancy as non-Catholics.

Actually, now that I think of it, I recall the case of that Jєωιѕн boy raised by Pope Pius IX.  So, a Catholic nurse saw an infant with Jєωιѕн parents who was thought to be dying.  So she baptized the boy.  Yet the boy lived.  Well, the boy was baptized by a Catholic (as a Catholic) but was the child of non-Catholics and raised as a non-Catholic (i.e. as a Jєω).  Had he grown up and married a Jєωess, his marriage would not have been invalid, since, although he was baptized Catholic, his parents were non-Catholics and he would have been raised as a non-Catholic.  As it was, however, Pope Pius IX had other plans.

This is actually a very interesting story (even if a slight tangent) --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortara_case

For a while, the NO made an exception for those who formally renounced the faith, but Ratzinger actually rolled that back in 2009 because it was causing massive confusion.

So this is a NO Canon Law commentary --
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2019/09/26/why-cant-an-ex-catholic-marry-validly-outside-the-church/

Very good. Thank you for this!

I know a couple who got married in a civil ceremony, she was baptized in the NO, he was baptized in a protestant church. 
Eventually they both became trad Catholics and joined an SSPX church. 
They were required to each be rebaptized then live as brother and sister for a year while he received instruction in the Catholic Church in order of them to have a formal Catholic ceremony.
Does that sound right?

Very good. Thank you for this!

Mortara case probably deserves a thread of its own.  Very interesting.  That actually contributed to why Napoleon III turned on Pius IX, without whose support it became impossible for the Church to hold onto the papal states.

It’s called obedience. The Church made the law and you are to follow it. The law can not be to your liking, but to use a disparaging term like “legal fiction” is not very edifying to say the least.

If you noticed, I questioned Ladislaus’ statement when he first posted it. When he showed me the Canon that proved his point, I accepted it without question.

"Legal fiction" is not a disparaging term.  It's a term from common law.  There's nothing disedifying about it.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction

Another such legal fiction is treating children from putative marriages, later declared null, as being legitimate.  If the marriage never existed, then of course they are bastards (another term that is merely a neutral statement of fact, viz. a child born out of wedlock, but that has become disparaging in common parlance), but for many reasons, the Church declares them to be considered legitimate.  Aside from the social stigma attaching to bastardy, there could be some secular jurisdictions that would look to the Church, in the case of Catholics anyway, to decide whether a child is legitimate or not.  (And it's never the child's fault.)

A sanatio in radice is another example of a legal fiction in ecclesiastical law.

So, given most baptized Catholics are Novus Ordo, how do they get married by a priest/in the Church? For a large percentage, we're not talking about people who even assist at a Latin Mass (who probably would marry in front of a priest anyway).

Baptisms in the NO are valid, and are regarded as such unless there is some reason to assume the person had the wrong intent and the proper form was not followed.

I don't think I was clear.  Canon Law requires baptized Catholics to get married before a priest.  What happens when a NO baptized Catholic who doesn't attend mass/doesn't practice gets married to a non-Catholic?  What is the chance that such a person would get married before a NO priest?  Even if he/she did, NO priests are doubtful. In the end, are these NO Catholics actually getting married before a priest?  And if not, what's the chance that such a person would get married before a certainly valid priest (outside of the SSPX, R&R or sede chapels)?

I have to wonder how this canon truly gets fulfilled by most who identify as "Catholic" these days.

"Legal fiction" is not a disparaging term.  It's a term from common law.  There's nothing disedifying about it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction

Another such legal fiction is treating children from putative marriages, later declared null, as being legitimate.  If the marriage never existed, then of course they are bastards (another term that is merely a neutral statement of fact, viz. a child born out of wedlock, but that has become disparaging in common parlance), but for many reasons, the Church declares them to be considered legitimate.  Aside from the social stigma attaching to bastardy, there could be some secular jurisdictions that would look to the Church, in the case of Catholics anyway, to decide whether a child is legitimate or not.  (And it's never the child's fault.)

A sanatio in radice is another example of a legal fiction in ecclesiastical law.

Sorry, I assumed that you meant it in a disparaging way. For the record, this is from the source you cited:

The term legal fiction is sometimes used in a pejorative way. Jeremy Bentham was a famous historical critic of legal fictions.[3][4] Proponents of legal fictions, particularly their use historically (for example, before DNA evidence could give every child the ability to have both genetic parents determined), identify legal fictions as "scaffolding around a building under construction".[5]


I’m always very hesitant in questioning the wisdom of the Church and Her laws. Actually, when I question it, it’s only because I want to understand Her reasoning behind it.