Gillou47 of the French Resistance forum has just posted what purports to be previously suppressed provisions of the 1988 Protocol of Accord signed by Archbishop Lefebvre, here:

http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t969-Du-nouveau-sur-les-mariages-FSSPX.htm

Machine translation of Section 6 (and brief French commentary of Gillou47; see pic of signed doc at link above):

“This point of the agreement is mentioned here:
[url]http://tradinews.blogspot.com/2009/12/abbe-juan-carlos-ceriani-lettre-ouverte.html "[...]

This is the part of the protocol that was hidden from the faithful (see point 6.2)(*) and which was not published in the Fideliter of the time:

6. SPECIAL PROBLEMS (to be resolved by decree or declaration).

6.1. Lifting of the "suspensio a divinis" of Bishop Lefebvre and exemption from irregularities incurred as a result of the ordinations.

6.2 "Sanatio in radice", at least "ad cautelam", marriages already celebrated by priests of the Fraternity without the required delegation. It is not, of course, a question of giving credence to the validity of Bishop Lefebvre's suspense a divinis; and of course the marriages celebrated in the Fraternity of St. Pius X are, as has already been demonstrated, quite valid; but we see where conversations with antichrist and modernist Rome can lead. [...]"

From the discovery of Archbishop Lefebvre’s signature of the Accord (which included the suppressed Section 6; see pic of signature alongside Cardinal Ratzinger’s at link provided), several extremely serious questions follow:

1) If Archbishop Lefebvre agreed to a future sanation of SSPX marriages (at least ad cautelam) how does this not imply he doubted their validity?  Or is it merely Rome who doubted their validity, and Archbishop Lefebvre only signed as a concession to them?  And does the suppression of Section 6 imply a recognition of the former, rather than the latter?

2) If Archbishop Lefebvre doubted the validity of post-1976 SSPX marriages, then should not his (and the SSPX’s) stance been not to perform them?

3) If the Archbishop doubted the validity of SSPX marriages, would not the respect for souls married under SSPX auspices demand (gravely) that they shout the need for sanation to their people from the rooftops?

4) Is the SSPX’s knowledge of this provision in Section 6 the explanation for its otherwise seemingly inexplicable consent to be bound by Cardinal Muller’s 2017 pastoral guidelines regulating SSPX marriages (whereby SSPX priests receive the delegation/faculty to receive consents of the marriage parties from the local ordinary)?

5) Does Archbishop Lefebvre’s acceptance of Section 6 explain why in France the SSPX recently thought it necessary to apply for the radical sanation of a couple married in one of its churches without the delegation of faculties from the local ordinary?

6) Were these disturbing questions the reason for suppressing Section 6?  Because the revelation might cast suspicion not only upon the validity of SSPX marriages, but also upon the moral rectitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests of the SSPX (ie., at least as regards the major superiors, who would have been privy to the unabridged contents of the Accord and Section 6), and the entire SSPX apostolate?

7) Can the SSPX please give an explanation for this provision in Section 6 which answers and satisfies these questions?

Regarding the asterisk above, Gillou47 comments:

“(*) and indeed this sentence in §6.2 is still hidden from the faithful, since it does not appear on the Latin Gate: https://laportelatine.org/vatican/sanctions_indults_discussions/protocole_rupture_sacres/05_05_1988_signature_protocole_accord.php

If the SSPX makes it known now, they can say "The Archbishop was not opposed to this idea in principal and thus we can ask for this now" But if they do that, then they will have to answer why was it hidden, unless they know no one will care either way.