From "CMS" on the French Resistance Forum: http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t969-Du-nouveau-sur-les-mariages-FSSPX.htm


"A new "level" in the rallying in Rome: the emblematic case of marriages - The "conciliar" canonical regime imposed on FSSPX spouses.
 
Summary of the facts:
 
Last year, a wedding took place in a French priory of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X. 

This marriage had been prepared by a priest of the priory, and he agreed with the bride and groom to dispense with the delegation of jurisdiction of the local bishop, and to conclude the marriage according to the "extraordinary form" provided for by canon law in the situation qualified as a "state of necessity".

But since it is a union celebrated within the framework of the Fraternity, the preparatory file had to go through the Office of Canonical Affairs of the District of France (Father Jean-Paul André), which applied the internal directives in force since 2017, and referred the matter to the bishopric territorially competent to request the delegation in favour of the priest who had prepared the engaged.

But what was probably not foreseen in this case (or not quite certain)... is that the delegation was indeed granted by the bishopric, and this by name for the benefit of the priest in question!
 
On the day of the wedding, faced with the problem and assuming the logic of his position - supported by the engaged - this priest preferred to "give up his place" to one of his confreres, to express his refusal of the diocesan delegation.
 
This is how the marriage took place: the priest holding the delegation remained in retreat, and it was his confrere who received the consents "outside the delegation", i.e. under the regime of "canonical substitution" (who is satisfied with the assistance of the two witnesses for the validity of the marriage).

Upon learning of the incident, the priest was reprimanded. But the matter did not end there....

We now learn that a canonical procedure has been implemented by the Fraternity to regularize this marriage, a posteriori therefore!
 
It is a sanatio in radice, literally a "healing" (restoration) at the "root" (origin) of a cause of disability. The procedure in question effects the revalidation of marriage while exempting the spouses from the renewal of their consent, by allowing, through a legal fiction, to consider the sacrament as valid since its conclusion (cf. R. P. Héribert JONE, Précis de Théologie morale catholique, Salvator - Casterman).

Sanatio is in principle granted by the Holy See, but also (within certain limits) by the local Ordinary. It should be noted that it may be carried out with the knowledge of the spouses, but also without the knowledge of one or both spouses.

Scope of the procedure in the case under consideration:

The use of a sanatio in radice for this marriage means that the person in charge of canonical affairs of the FSSPX, and the Superiors of the Fraternity (Suresnes? Menzingen?), in concert with the diocese or the competent Roman dicastery, considered that the marriage was null and void because of the absence (or because of refusal) of the diocesan delegation, and that it was not possible in these circuмstances for the second confrere to invoke the state of necessity.

The "conciliar" ecclesiastical authority and the Fraternity therefore considered it necessary, by mutual agreement, to validate this "void" marriage. 
 
The priest who had prepared for the wedding would have been informed, but we do not know what his attitude towards his hierarchy was. In any case, to date, we are not aware of any public protest on his part.
 
Nor is it known at this stage whether the couple themselves have been informed of the canonical action open to them, and if so, whether they have been given the possibility of conscientiously opposing this "regularization", in view of the canonical, but above all doctrinal, stakes of such a procedure in the current context of the Church in crisis and the Fraternity in the process of "rallying"....

(Provisional) Conclusions:

1°) The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X no longer allows priests to refuse diocesan jurisdiction for marriages. Such a refusal (clearly manifested) thus officially invalidates their marriages, and moreover testifies, for their hierarchy and for Rome, to a "schismatic" spirit.

Consequently, the observation also applies to the sacrament of penance, in the event that the priest claims to continue to absolve the faithful under the regime of "supplied jurisdiction", as practiced in the FSSPX until 2015 (NB : several priests in ministry in Brittany, including the Prior of Lanvallay, Father Thierry Legrand, have nevertheless held this position in response to the questions of a faithful person; they should therefore make it clear publicly that their absolutions conferred under these conditions are now invalid in the judgment of their Superiors (as they were for the "official" Church since the suspension a divinis by the Founder in July 1976).
 
2°) If it is confirmed that their marriage was originally (in radice) affected by a defect of nullity according to the Fraternity, the couple concerned by the example reported above should in principle express their just indignation and their public opposition to this pseudo-legal regularization accomplished "on their behalf", but against their will, by the FSSPX in connection with the diocese and Rome.
 
3°) The seven signatories (former Deans Prior) of the letter on marriages of May 7, 2017 have not yet reacted. In principle, however, they should do so under penalty of renouncing their signature of the time, because the implementation of this new regularization procedure is an irrefutable sign that the neo-FSSPX no longer accepts marriages celebrated under the regime of supplied jurisdiction ("extraordinary form") when the local bishop has given delegation.
 
4°) the subtle distinctions attributed to Fr. de Jorna, which until recently made it possible to justify the refusal of delegations given by the bishops when they were given under conditions deemed unacceptable by the Fraternity (for example : delegation accompanied by "forms" from the diocese conveying a "conciliar" doctrine incompatible with the principles of Catholic marriage) no longer seem practicable, and it would be welcome if the Superior of the District of France had the priestly honesty to make a final clarification on the subject."

Just one more indication that at the bottom of the whole decades-long ralliement of the SSPX, since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, is the belief that the old man was wrong.

I know of one who, as an Econe seminarian in 1988, refused to attend the 1988 episcopal consecrations for reasons of conscience.

That seminarian later became a priest.

That priest later became a District Superior.

That District Superior later became one of the greatest persecutors of the Resistance.

How long he must have waited and suffered for 2012!!

And he'd be damned (in his mind, literally) if any Resistance is going to ruin his chance for peace, and calm his scrupulous, suffering soul, by thwarting a legal(istic) recognition from Rome!

Obviously, there were many others who, like him, lacked integrity within the ranks of the SSPX, and remained, rather than departing with Fr. Bisig.

They remained within, and gnawed at the body, and infected it.

The cancer grew and became terminal.

That's the whole story:

They all believe Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong, though they dare not say it so plainly:

The same pride which causes them to reject Archbishop Lefebvre, and remake him in their own image, likewise robs them of the courage and honesty of admitting it.

Note that a sanatio in radice (i.e., radical sanation) is not the same thing as convalidation of a marriage.

In convalidation, the couple makes new vows (i.e., a renewal of consent), presumably in front of a delegated/authorized witness, and this makes the marriage valid from that moment.

In a sanatio in radice (which is what happened in France), the couple need not even be aware that the Holy See (or bishop) has retroactively "healed" the marrige from the beginning, or, 'in the root" (ex tunc).

Within the context of the ralliement of the SSPX, obviously, convalidation would be much more disruptive, since it would necessitate individual couples approaching their bishops all over the world, and acknowledging by the very act of their convalidation that they believe their SSPX marriages to be doubtful or invalid.

This in turn calls out the SSPX, since it would beg the question: Why have we faithful been lied to and deceived into becomming fornicators?

It would run the risk of engendering resentment toward the SSPX from their own faithful.

To avoid all that (and to save face), sanatio in radice is the way to go: It can be done without anyone ever being the wiser, or any public proclamation ever being made.

It is rumored that this was done in Campos (though I have yet to succeed in uncovering any docuмentation to support this claim, it was told me by an SSPX priest).

Because of that rumor, I contacted the local Archbishop of St. Paul (Archbishop Hebda), announced I was married by the SSPX in 2007, and inquired as to whether there been any radical sanation of pre-2017 SSPX marriages.

In his response, the conciliar Archbishop sticks to his guns:

The pre-2017 marriages of the SSPX are invalid, and there has been no sanatio in radice of these marriages.

In short, it seems that Rome reserves that final lure until AFTER the final capitulation:

No sanatio in radice until the betrayal is finalized (i.e., it wants to keep the psychological pressure up in the now-doubting SSPX clergy, who in turn pass their scruples along to the faithful, just as Rome planned).

So if marriages, which the spouses confer upon one another, are now considered invalid if done without a local Bishop’s approval, what of Confessions, Confirmations, Baptisms?  How can a person possibly recall ALL of his sins before 2015 in order to reconfess them?  What of all those now useless Confirmations and God-forbid, sacrilegious communions?  All the people who find themselves bastards, irreparably if their parents are no longer living to correct their vows?  What about those who died having been given false rites by men who weren’t priests because the bishop who ordained them, if not Archbishop Lefebvre, was not a real bishop?
I know of several people, despite leading upstanding Catholic lives, were born, lived, and buried under the ministrations of the SSPX.  Does the NewSociety say they are all burning in Hell if they ever committed one mortal sin and lacked perfect Contrition?  It would have been better for them that they had never been born.

If the Society now says this, they should shut themselves down, laicize all the religious, and hand over everything they own to Rome, IMMEDIATELY!

As for the tens of thousands of ruined souls, if not already in Hell, they may as live it up while still on earth as the New Church won’t help them get back into a state of Grace.  I’m not sure the average millennial in the novus ordo is even familiar with that phrase, “state of Grace.”  

It indeed appears that the Society wants to drive away all who wish to save their souls.  Fr. Pagliarini should rename the Society after Esau, willing to sell his soul for a bowl of pottage.  

And where should the few souls go who refuse to listen to the advice of Job’s wife, “Curse God and die.”  The large majority of the world have nowhere to turn and no one to give them the Faith, the Mass, the Sacraments.  

Sorry, but I always become sad on Sunday. 

Interestingly, this year's ecuмenical Angelus Press conference is on the defense of marriage.

I would like to ask them how they will choose to defend the validity of their pre-2017 marriages, when in 2019 they require a sanatio in radice of marriages performed without the diocesan delegation.

Apparently, the state of necessity ended sometime in 2017?

Fr. Knittel says as much, when he argues "the state of necessity recedes."

You see, as the SSPX sells out to get a deal, it means there is no more necessity for them, or you.

No compromise though!

I believe if that priest circuмvented the arrangement between the diocese and his community then he makes it very likely that that marriage would be invalid. And he would bear the culpability for that invalidity. 

Exactly! Well said.

I was under the understanding that Teachings of Holy Mother Church is the couple to be husband and wife are the sacrament and the priest is the witness.

Yes, the couple are the ministers of marriage in Catholic theology, but the sacrament of marriage also requires jurisdiction for validity. (The sacrament of penance also requires a jurisdiction for validity called "faculties".) Jurisdiction is either ordinary, delegated, or supplied. 

Canon 1094 (1917 CIC for the Latin Church) says that only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the pastor or local ordinary [ordinary jurisdiction] or a priest delegated by either [delegated jurisdiction], with 2 witnesses (and following other rules the Church specifies for validity), with exceptions given in canons 1098 [supplied jurisdiction] and 1099. These requirements are part of the "canonical form" of marriage, which is required of Catholics, though dispensations can also be granted.

Canon 1098 says that if the pastor or ordinary cannot be approached without grave inconvenience, then in danger of death, marriage is valid and licit before witnesses only. Likewise if the inconvenience is foreseen to last more than a month. This canon also says that if a priest is available (not one with ordinary or delegated jurisdiction), he should assist at the marriage, though it is valid before only the witnesses. 

Historically, this covered people living far away from a church who might only see a priest a couple times a year.

It is my understanding that the SSPX used (among other things) the "grave inconvenience" provisions of Canon 1098 for supplied jurisdiction of marriages. The 1983 CIC has almost identical provisions, so this shouldn't be a problem. In practice, however, conciliar annulment boards haven't always agreed with the SSPX's supplied jurisdiction, and so may see a defect of canonical form and grounds for an annulment.