I know someone who was married during lent but only because one party was not catholic, ergo no sacrament.

I know someone else who was not allowed to get married during lent because they were both catholic, ergo sacrament.

Maybe I am explaining it wrong, but it is clear to me that the sacrament of matrimony cannot be given or received during forbidden times.

The sacrament of matrimony has nothing to do with a priest.  He is only a witness.

This is not true. The Baltimore Catechism is correct. "To solemnize" is the key word here and you are not getting it.

Go back and read what you wrote. You don't understand what "solemnize marriage" means. You are equating that with receiving the sacrament of matrimony. Your Baltimore Catechism is correct, you are incorrect.

I do not understand what you are saying here. Speaking in plain English, one was never allowed to be married during Lent in a church ceremony. That is what Fanny said.  

I know a woman who had been married for over 10 years (got married at the chapel of an independent Traditional priests who works with the SSPX).  At one point she got sick of her husband, decided that her marriage was suddenly invalid, and obtained a declaration of nullity from the NO diocese.

This is not true. The Baltimore Catechism is correct. "To solemnize" is the key word here and you are not getting it.

From the Baltimore catechism:
Q. 1366. What is the meaning of the precept not to solemnize marriage at forbidden times?
A. The meaning of the precept not to solemnize marriage at forbidden times is that during Lent and Advent the marriage ceremony should not be performed with pomp or a nuptial Mass.



So it seems I was wrong.  Thank you.

The sacrament can be given and received during forbidden times, but a nuptial mass cannot be done and there should be no pomp to the wedding.

I assume "during lent and advent" here also refers to other forbidden times.  I will have to check my balt. Cat. 4.

From the Baltimore catechism:
Q. 1366. What is the meaning of the precept not to solemnize marriage at forbidden times?
A. The meaning of the precept not to solemnize marriage at forbidden times is that during Lent and Advent the marriage ceremony should not be performed with pomp or a nuptial Mass.



So it seems I was wrong.  Thank you.

The sacrament can be given and received during forbidden times, but a nuptial mass cannot be done and there should be no pomp to the wedding.

I assume "during lent and advent" here also refers to other forbidden times.  I will have to check my balt. Cat. 4.

How did that play out in real life? Sounds like a sailor at Pearl Harbor going off to sea on December 10th, 1941, wants to marry before he goes, and they marry in the sacristy. Other than something like that, or two poor orphans marrying, one would be hard pressed to find a women today that does not want pomp and nuptial mass.

BY the way, the method used by Fanny in her two postings is the way that everyone needs to post when they debate here, Fanny did not post her opinion, she posting an authority, the Baltimore Catechism.

https://thebastion.faith/the-neo-sspx-is-turning-chinese/

UPDATE from Fr. Girouard:

Dear faithful,

The Neo-SSPX has a Priory in Winnipeg (Manitoba) and missions in Dryden (Ontario), and Welwyn, Regina, and Saskatoon (all in Saskatchewan). I was in that Priory for seven years (2002-2009), so I know these people.

I just received a copy, from a friend, of the Winnipeg March 2018 parish bulletin, and you can have access to it by clicking on its icon on the right side of the screen.

In this docuмent, you will find a picture of a couple (copied below) on their marriage day. She, Monica Green, is a parishioner from our parish in Welwyn. In the old SSPX, we would have married her at our chapel over there, like we did with many others before.

But, no! Not in the Neo-SSPX! Now we had her marriage taking place in a Novus Ordo church in Brandon (MB), located midway between Winnipeg and Welwyn, so two hours away from each place. (Not a very practical location for anybody!)

Moreover, while Fr. Vachon, Assistant priest of Winnipeg Prior Fr. Loren Gerspacher, celebrated the traditional Mass, it was a Novus Ordo priest, delegated by the Novus Ordo bishop, who was the official Church witness receiving the vows!

On the picture you can see Fr. Vachon on the right, and the Novus Ordo priest on the left. Everybody is smiling, of course!
The Neo-SSPX is now all comfy-comfy and lovey-dovey with the destroyers of the Church!

On the same bulletin, you also have a letter from Fr. Daniel Couture (Canadian District Superior) praising Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight against the inversion of the ends of marriage at Vatican II. It is actually a good letter!
So, what should we think of this parish bulletin?

Well, we have here a typical example of the Neo-SSPX tactic: Talk big, and strong, and traditional, but in your actions, walk liberal!
Your talk is there to make people accept your walk!

It also helps make you feel that you are not as liberal as you seem, so you can stiffle your guilty feelings (if you have any) and sleep better at night!
The Neo-SSPX is now consistently mixing up together the liberal and the traditional, the bitter and the sweet! There is nothing else to say but: The Neo-SSPX is turning Chinese!

God bless you dear friends, and hang on to the Truth, because the ride is bumpy!

Fr. Girouard

Back to the subject of the OP:

The SSPX will no longer marry couples unless they have the approval of the diocese Novus Ordo "bishop". If the bishop requires that a Novus Ordo priest perform the marriage and the couple refuse to have a Novus Ordo priest, the SSPX will not perform the wedding. Is not the SSPX now admitting that ALL the prior marriages performed by them are suspect?  Moreover, the Novus Ordo grants annulments to those married in the SSPX just on the grounds that they were married by the SSPX.

This is the most important result of this change by the SSPX. The SSPX has been marrying couples for like 50 years till this change. This is not about a theological speculation that affects no one, because it has not been settled. This is about a sacrament.  This is about SSPX couples possible living in adultery. Where is a definitive ruling on the matter from the SSPX or Rome about ALL of the marriages performed by the SSPX and their associated priests like Fr. Danel in Atlanta?