Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Is There a Legitimate Way for Trads to get an Annulment?  (Read 25166 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Is There a Legitimate Way for Trads to get an Annulment?
« Reply #85 on: May 16, 2022, 09:22:50 AM »
Okay, so before Vatican 2 the only error concerning a person that would render a marriage invalid was if:

1. You thought you were marrying Jane, but instead (never having met Jane in real life[?!]) you married Beth, who is an imposter impersonating Jane [???!!], or
2. You married Jane believing that she was a free woman, whereas in reality she was a slave [?????!!!].

Do either of these cases sound like the kind of thing that comes up often in a suburban American Novus Ordo marriage tribunal? And yet those are the only two errors about marriage that would render a marriage invalid according to the pre-Vatican 2 code of canon law?
So you are a theologian now?
I don't read it that way at all.
The "person" includes everything about the person.
 I did not list all the exceptions from the 1917 code, only the one I thought applied to deceit.
It is clearly difficult for laity to understand Canon law, which is why there are Canon lawyers who study it for years..

As I have said several times: talk to a traditional priest you trust.

Re: Is There a Legitimate Way for Trads to get an Annulment?
« Reply #86 on: May 16, 2022, 09:28:12 AM »
Ok- all well and good. But it looks like a traditional person requesting an annulment today would have to go through a diocesan process/ Rome and be subject to post- Vll canons. There does not appear to be any other way. So if a trad rejects Vll, they would be hypocritical at best accepting a Vll annulment fpr themselves.
Yes, a traditional person would have to go through the diocesan process for an annulment because such authority lies only with Rome.  There is no other way.

However, if a trad rejects VII he would not be hypocritical getting an annulment, because VII did not annul the structure of the Catholic Church.


Re: Is There a Legitimate Way for Trads to get an Annulment?
« Reply #87 on: May 16, 2022, 09:31:22 AM »
Just skimming over Woywod/Smith's commentary on the 1917 CIC (too much to reproduce or quote here), it looks like declarations of nullity could indeed be had at the diocesan level (no. 1866-1899 re canons 1960-1992), IOW, apparently not all annulments had to be signed off on by Rome.  Again, I am just skimming, there's a lot there.  Can anyone help me out?
This is correct.  The power lies with Rome but Rome can grant authority for such to the diocesan level just like a bishop can grant authority for a priest to perform a confirmation.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is There a Legitimate Way for Trads to get an Annulment?
« Reply #88 on: May 16, 2022, 11:11:43 AM »

Quote
The "person" includes everything about the person.
 I did not list all the exceptions from the 1917 code, only the one I thought applied to deceit.
It is clearly difficult for laity to understand Canon law, which is why there are Canon lawyers who study it for years..

As I have said several times: talk to a traditional priest you trust.
Priests aren't canon lawyers either; they'll just get advice from V2 sources, which is liberal advice.  Yeti posted commentary from such pre-V2 lawyers and you rejected it.  You just want the watered down V2 rules.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is There a Legitimate Way for Trads to get an Annulment?
« Reply #89 on: May 16, 2022, 11:14:58 AM »
Quote
OP, talk to any good traditional priest.  Not sspx, not Pfeiffer, not Webster or any in his line, etc.  A good priest.
I just noticed that this is how Epiphany defines "traditional priest".  Since he's advocating for rome annulments, I assume he's not a sedevacantist, which leaves only the "indult" priests (if they are actually priests) as traditional (and they aren't traditional).


Just so everyone knows that ephiphany is an indult novus ordo type.  That's why he's arguing for the new code.