I'm not clear what you are saying.  No bishop can grant a declaration of nullity?  I thought that's precisely what diocesan bishops did, though with their tribunal "doing all the work" and making the decision as to whether the marriage is invalid or not.  Or are you referring only to SSPX bishops?

Likewise, when you say "evaluates a case and... is willing to remarry someone", do you mean an SSPX priest or bishop being told the facts of the matter regarding the marriage, ascertaining that it was invalid, and then "remarrying" one of the spouses to another partner?  Or are you referring to priests and bishops in general?  Traditional priests and bishops in general?

Prior to Vatican II, annulments were very rare, and it's not something the average priest (or possibly even bishop) would have ever encountered.

Yes, I meant I was told that no traditional bishop can grant an annulment.  Also, only specific, not all, diocesan bishops can grant annulment.

No traditional bishop, including the sspx bishops, are diocesan.  They have no authority in canon law to have a marriage tribunal or to decide annulments.

However, due to the problems associated with the novus ordo, some traditional non-sspx priests and bishops have taken it upon themselves to decide whether or not they will re-marry someone (ipso facto granting an "annulment" by taking the burden onto themselves).

It is not an area many traditional priests or bishops will enter, for obvious reasons.

That might be true of the SSPX, but I was thinking more of independent non-sedevacantist bishops (including SSPX Resistance), as well as bishops who are sedevacantist.  Neither has been given any authority by the Holy See.

the crises in the Church overrides that.

Yes, I meant I was told that no traditional bishop can grant an annulment.  Also, only specific, not all, diocesan bishops can grant annulment.

No traditional bishop, including the sspx bishops, are diocesan.  They have no authority in canon law to have a marriage tribunal or to decide annulments.

Agree.
.

However, due to the problems associated with the novus ordo, some traditional non-sspx priests and bishops have taken it upon themselves to decide whether or not they will re-marry someone (ipso facto granting an "annulment" by taking the burden onto themselves).

The only cases that are clear cut is if the "first marriage" is with a convert/non-baptized person.  In that case, no sacramental marriage existed, so a catholic marriage can happen.  All other cases are pretty hairy.
.

Canon law is violated totally by the crisis in the Church, since it's final end is the salvation of souls.

Some parts of Canon Law are violated, but not all.
.

Therefore, it is irrelevant to make a distinction between a declaration and an opinion.

No, it's an important distinction.  It's the difference between a judge ruling on a matter vs 100 lawyers giving you an OPINION on how the judge should rule.
.

If a marriage never was, it never was. That's what annulment is.

And in the complex cases involving 2 baptized persons, the annulment process is important to get a decision from an authority.  The research/process is just as important as the ruling.  Trad clerics aren't trained in this area, so theirs is an opinion only, not a final ruling.

How does being a convert enter into it?

Cases where a Catholic did not follow canonical form (and was not dispensed from it), commonly referred to as "marrying outside the Church", are pretty clear-cut.  The only thing that is missing, is the Church having all the docuмentation that things happened that way, saying "okay, it's proven, Romeo married Juliet outside of canonical form, they weren't dispensed, nobody ever got a sanatio in radice, therefore there was never a marriage".  Even if Romeo and Juliet were both Catholic, and sought out a justice of the peace, there would still be no valid marriage.  If a non-diocesan traditionalist bishop assembled the facts in front of him, and had all relevant facts proven, then it's hard to see a problem with that.

The more subjective cases (too immature, had a psychological problem, couldn't balance a checkbook, didn't get along with the neighbors, what have you) wouldn't be an issue, because prior to V2, those weren't grounds for annulment.

Many, or most, cases today would fall under the conditions of Canon 1098 of the 1917 Code, when the authorized pastors and ordinaries, or a delegate of either, prescribed by Canon's 1095 and 1096 cannot be had without great inconvenience, and it may prudently be foreseen that this will last for a month.   As long as there are no diriment impediments, all that matters for a marriage to be valid under the conditions of c. 1098 is the fact that the conditions of c.1098 truly exist when and where the marriage takes place.  Under such conditions, mixed marriages between a baptized Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic are valid, even if in bad faith they are married by a civil official or non-Catholic minister in a non-Catholic ceremony.  The judgment, beliefs, motives, or sinful intentions of those marrying does not affect validity, even if those marrying think their marriage will be invalid in the eyes of the Church.  Canon 1098 takes effect as soon as the conditions are fulfilled, independent of a priest declaring it or the parties knowing about the canon.

the crises in the Church overrides that.

Be careful using "the crisis in the Church" too often.
Some, like Fr. Pfeiffer, use it to create a cult.

Many, or most, cases today would fall under the conditions of Canon 1098 of the 1917 Code, when the authorized pastors and ordinaries, or a delegate of either, prescribed by Canon's 1095 and 1096 cannot be had without great inconvenience, and it may prudently be foreseen that this will last for a month.   As long as there are no diriment impediments, all that matters for a marriage to be valid under the conditions of c. 1098 is the fact that the conditions of c.1098 truly exist when and where the marriage takes place.  Under such conditions, mixed marriages between a baptized Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic are valid, even if in bad faith they are married by a civil official or non-Catholic minister in a non-Catholic ceremony.  The judgment, beliefs, motives, or sinful intentions of those marrying does not affect validity, even if those marrying think their marriage will be invalid in the eyes of the Church.  Canon 1098 takes effect as soon as the conditions are fulfilled, independent of a priest declaring it or the parties knowing about the canon.

This is whwhat I was taught, too.

The more subjective cases (too immature, had a psychological problem, couldn't balance a checkbook, didn't get along with the neighbors, what have you) wouldn't be an issue, because prior to V2, those weren't grounds for annulment.

Right.
I was taught the other major ground is deceit of an important nature before marriage.  For instance, if one person had been married before, is an alcoholic and/or a drug addict, had a history of physical abuse or mental illness, and kept it from the other party before marriage.  These must be proven and verified, but I was taught they are all pre-Vatican 2 annulment grounds.
Perhaps Pax can corroborate.