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 circumstances 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."