Is this a joke? Epiphany, every time the subject of modern marriage annulments comes up, and anyone here says the new annulments granted since Vatican II on grounds (such as immaturity) that were never considered grounds before Vatican II must be rejected and people must not consider them valid, you always jump in and start defending the validity of those same fake annulments, and claim that everyone must accept them.

I wasn't necessarily including you in my statement about indult-attendees. You seem to be pretty cagey about where you go to church, anyway, so I'll leave you out of this, but I was using the term as a clumsy way to speak collectively about the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo Church, which mostly comprises people who go to the indult. It is a disturbing trend to me to see that, while nearly all of them reject the new mass and sometimes the fake new sacraments and the errors of Vatican II, at the same time nearly all of them accept the modernist marriage annulments that are even more obviously absurd and anti-traditional than the Novus Ordo mass, and more clearly against everything the Church stood for before Vatican II.

To take a high-profile example I've seen recently, I tend to follow Ann Barnhardt's blog, who I believe goes to the indult. She herself has condemned the modern "bullshit marriage annulments" (she has her own set of technical theological terms ), she had a piece on her blog the other day about an FSSP priest who left the FSSP, to make a long story short, basically in protest over their closure of churches during the scamdemic and something else I can't recall now. My point is that Ann praised this man for being heterosɛҳuąƖ, and as proof of that she cited the fact that he has been married in the past and that marriage is now annulled, allowing him to become a priest. I thought this very strange, and looked around on the internet, and it turned out this man was married even had his marriage blessed by John Paul II himself (!!), and that same marriage is later annulled. How the "pope" can't perform a marriage correctly is a question I'll leave for others, but the point is that Ann liked this guy for standing up to the scamdemic, so she completely ignored the horrific scandal of him leaving his marriage through what she herself would call a "bullshit annulment" and ended up becoming a priest later on (invalidly ordained, but still a scandal). She accepted the scandal of the annulment out of wishful thinking, because she liked something else this guy was doing.

Okay, so you accept modern annulments as valid. Isn't that what I said in the beginning of this exchange, which you then denied?

And here you say exactly the opposite earlier in this thread:

Shame on you, epiphany, for your constant lying around here.

No, I said I have to accept them because I have no authority to decide which are legit and which are not.  I have never defended  modern annulments.  There is no deceit at all.

I can't find the exact quote I'm thinking of now, but this should suffice for now.

UPDATE: Ah, here we go.

If you have citations, I’d like to see them, but I’ve heard these criteria even from Trad priests.

An error of mistake of law concerns the nature of essential object and properties of the matrimonial contract, as in the case of ignorance. Thus, a simple error regarding the unity or the indissolubility of the sacramental dignity of marriage, even though the motivating reason for entering into the contract, does not invalidate matrimonial consent. [...] To know a thing with all its properties and to will a thing differ; one can simply will a thing as it is in itself and not know very well its properties or be mistaken about them. Thus an error about the essential qualities of marriage does not necessarily invalidate it. The general intention to contract marriage as instituted by God prevails over the error. Although many consider marriage to be dissoluble and not sacramental, e.g., protestants, Jєωs, infidels, yet they normally will to contract marriage as it is. They probably would positively exclude these properties if they were later questioned about them, but they did not actually exclude them at the time consent was given.

There shouldn't even be a Feeneyism Ghetto because "Feeneyism" is not a thing.