I think it is interesting that the only marriages Bergoglio is has concerns about are the ones officiated by the SSPX.  All the other ones (even those of a common law variety) are just fine, but SSPX marriages...

@mw2016: I agree. You may also have come across this article by Austen Ivereigh on Crux 2 days ago: https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2017/04/06/pope-francis-delay-sspx-agreement-pending-abuse-probe/

His conclusion is rather abrupt but, sadly, correct.

The SSPX may want to freeze Catholic doctrine at Trent, and it may - just - be possible to accommodate a group within the Catholic Church that holds those beliefs. But an organization of 600 priests with a 1950s approach to child abuse? That Rome cannot afford.

Checkmate?[†]

[....] the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant docuмents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.

Even this newfangled anonymous "Psalm129"[†] has failed to look far enough ahead, altho' perhaps I'm overgeneralizing from a tiny sample size:

• Novus Ordo churches in the U.S.A. now seem to require advance registration, in effect, as parishoners, and demonstrating "regular attendance", to bestow any of the once-in-a-lifetime sacraments.
• But how would a N.O. church with a largish congregation monitor attendance?  It seems that the newly registered are provided with a set of envelopes for them to submit their contributions to the church.  I've never seen even 1 of those envelopes, but I do know that bar-code technology--printing the codes on envelopes or stickers, and scanning them on receipt--is plenty well established, and would be easily affordable for all but the most rapidly collapsing N.O. churches.  Maybe such a tool would be used to enforce required N.O. attendance on holy days of obligation, or whenever the Ratzinger "Benedict XVI" Summorum Pontificuм (2007) forbids priests from celebrating the "Extraördinary Form".
• N.O. churches in the U.S.A. now seem to require such registration to offer even the hope of performing the Sacrament of Matrimony in their church.  I suspect that demand for photogenic traditional Catholic churches is increasing, even as N.O. congregations shrink, because such churches are becoming scarcer & scarcer, the result of perversely Calvinist notions of church architecture promoted by modernist bishops.  Especially when financial issues force a bishop to choose 1 church to close among several.  What traditional-Catholic couple would want to be married in a place that looks like a high-school lecture auditorium? 

Sooo, might that elastic clause requiring whatever a diocese decides--at any future time--are its "relevant docuмents" be transformed into a long-term contract between the diocese and the SSPX-affiliated couple?

Because in trying recently to assist family friends with a troubling situation for their first-born, I made a surprising discovery:
• Novus Ordo churches in the U.S.A. now seem to require advance registration, in effect, as parishoners, to perform the Sacrament of Baptism.  And lately I've read fans of a N.O. church defending its administrative desire to have the equivalent of their lay "extraördinary" ministers perform baptisms!

I think the refusal of Baptism to a self-identified "Catholic" parent who requests it is highly unethical.  And delegation for convenience to someone not a priest, especially N.O. clergy or laymen, each of whom  lacks Orders as Exorcist, is also highly unethical.  New traditional-Catholic parents can wish [expletives deleted] on Pope Paul VI for that ritual race to the bottom.

Sooo, might  married traditional-Catholic couples who survive their Vatican-mandated N.O.-infiltrated wedding, still satisfied with the SSPX, someday learn that according to the N.O. "relevant docuмents", they're handing control of their children's religion over to the N.O. diocese, or paying increased "donations" to some diocese-assigned N.O. church?   Possibly because some parts--or all--of those "relevant docuмents" are legal contracts enforceable under civil law?

-------
Note †: Failed to be credited to <https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/checkmate/>.  Whoever is responsible for this blog fails or refuses to identify her-|himself.  There seems to be no "about" page.

Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.  Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass [....][††]

The excerpted text doesn't prevent a Novus Ordo bishop, d.b.a. "Local Ordinary", from making other decisions that the C.D.F. letter did not list.  After Vatican II, "collegiality" of bishops means that a N.O. bishop can do nearly anything he wants, without fear of criticism--never mind punitive action--from the Vatican[‡].  And it's widely known that the N.O. is afflicted by a "crisis of vocations".  So what if, e.g., the N.O. bishop decides to ignore the clear direction from the C.D.F., and refusing to assign a N.O. "priest" (therefore of doubtful Orders[†]), refuses to delegate authority to the SSPX priest, and instead dispatches a "permanent" deacon or even a lay "extraördinary" minister?

Oh!  The C.D.F. didn't specify that the bishop's delegate would be a man.  Why should readers assume that the C.D.F. decree would be revised to restrict the delegate to the only sеx allowed for Catholic priests, if "Francis" Bergoglio lives long enough to issue the postulated eventual decree that admits women to the N.O. clergy as "deaconesses"?   Imagine the scandal if a genuinely traditional SSPX priest were being given commands by a sternly feminist deaconess at a heavily attended wedding, and he was allowing such public disrespect because SSPX clergy no longer dared to displease the N.O. bishop?

Or what if the Novus Ordo bishop, again lamenting the "crisis of vocations", decides that the only "insofar possible" option for providing a N.O. delegate to the wedding of an SSPX couple is to perform the wedding at 1 of his N.O. diocesan "churches".  So the engaged couple would have to arrange their wedding schedules to accomodate the N.O. "church".  Whose rental for the wedding would coïncidentally provide revenue for the diocese over and above whatever diocesan fees must be paid by the engaged couple to apply for the diocesan delegate.  And likely endure a required N.O. prewedding class[†], which quite plausibly would eventually "welcome" sodomite couples, and feature that papal blockbuster "Amoris laetitia".

Altho' the N.O. Church of Vatican II is referred to from time to time on C.I. as the "institutional Catholic Church", civil law--at least in the U.S.A.--does not grant it exclusive legal control over marriages identified as "Catholic".  Perhaps it's an important legal issue in countries or other jurisdictions that impose a mandatory church-support tax on their citizens or legal residents.

-------
Note †: As already pointed out by the otherwise-anonymous "Psalm 129", above in this C.I. topic): The meddlesome involvement of N.O. clergy, therefore clergy of doubtful orders, "should make the couple truly apprehensive".  I am amazed at the audacity of claiming that a couple that arranges for an SSPX-administered wedding would have "any uncertainty regarding the validity" of the resulting sacrament of matrimony.  Assuming that the hypothetical engaged couple has confidence in the Orders of their SSPX priest (i.e., confidence that he's not a N.O. priest who was admitted to SSPX without the benefit of conditional reördination).
 
Note ††: This issue is also discussed elsewhere on CathInfo, e.g.:
<https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/step-by-step-vatican-issues-marriage-pastoral-guidelines-for-sspx/> (orig. April 04), <https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-marriages-reflections-on-a-staggering-development-by-sean-johnson/> (orig. April 05).

Note ‡: Unless, of course, what that N.O. bishop wants accomodates, endorses, promotes, or defends traditional Catholicism.  Especially if he dares to take action on it under "Humble Francis" Bergoglio.

@mw2016: I agree. You may also have come across this article by Austen Ivereigh on Crux 2 days ago: https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2017/04/06/pope-francis-delay-sspx-agreement-pending-abuse-probe/

His conclusion is rather abrupt but, sadly, correct.

The SSPX may want to freeze Catholic doctrine at Trent, and it may - just - be possible to accommodate a group within the Catholic Church that holds those beliefs. But an organization of 600 priests with a 1950s approach to child abuse? That Rome cannot afford.

This Crux article written by Austen Ivereigh (author of the biography "The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope" :o) is full of it, accusing H.E. Bp. Williamson of harboring "ideologies of prejudice and hatred" and calling H.E. "a vehement h0Ɩ0cαųst-denier who vigorously opposed unity with the Vatican". I guess Ivereigh prefers such unity as between the late Pope John Paull II and the late Fr. Marcial Maciel, LC, and that between Bp. James Timlin and Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity (ex-SSPX; then-SSJ) in the Diocese of Scranton. 
No sɛҳuąƖ abuse cases should be taken lightly but it is very disingenuous to compare SSPX with Rome which is not so advanced in dealing with the abuses. The SSPX would have been bankrupt if it is anywhere near to what the Novus Ordo dioceses have done.