CathInfo.com

Previously, I had defended the SSPX annulment advisory opinions as a necessary and unavoidable aspect of the apostolate (i.e., the faithful are naturally going to approach their priests with questions which, in some instances are going to require investigation before rendering a reliable opinion).

However, I just came across this on their website (which makes these annulment judgments a bit more than mere advosory opinions)"

"6. An action cannot be introduced before our tribunals, unless the concerned party agrees in advance to be morally bound by the decision. Hence, at the time of the citation, after the introductory libellus, the concerned party will be asked to swear under oath and sign the following promise:

I, ............................................., desirous of obtaining a decision in conformity with traditional Catholic principles, freely submit my marriage with ........................... to the tribunals of the Society of St. Pius X, and I promise:

• That I will not attempt to enter any marriage, religious or civil, until such time as the tribunals of the Society have rendered a final judgment concerning my freedom to marry.
• That I will accept the tribunals’ decision, whatever it is, and that, if it decides against the nullity of my marriage, I will not marry again or, if already remarried, I will no longer consider my second partner as a spouse.
• That I will not request a judgment or reexamination of my case by a post-Conciliar ecclesiastical tribunal.

All this I promise and I swear on the Holy Gospels, which I now touch with my hand.
...................................................................(date)
...........................................................(signature)"


https://sspx.org/en/approach-declarations-nullity

This form does in fact bind the faithful to their decisions.

But my question is not so much whether the SSPX should or could do such a thing, but why do they want this vow?  What is the reason for having the faithful make this vow?

There might be a good and compelling one, but it does not readily occur to me.

Anyone know?

If you set up a tribunal, the least you can expect is that the concerned parties will obey your decisions. Otherwise, it is not a decision, it is merely an opinion.

It makes sense to me.

If you set up a tribunal, the least you can expect is that the concerned parties will obey your decisions. Otherwise, it is not a decision, it is merely an opinion.

It makes sense to me.

Maybe.

There’s just something about requiring a vow that seems…disproportionate or inappropriate.

Maybe it’s just me.