Epiphany you’re drinking the V2 koolaid.  Hope it’s good.

Only certain deceits, very minimal, are invalidating per canon law.

1917
Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

There are other reasons allowed for legit annulment pre-vat II, but deceit of a serious nature is one of them.

1917

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

Ok, this is a good start.  But you can't read 1 canon in isolation.  Keep reading.


Or...you can read pre-V2 commentary on canon law, like Yeti posted, and take their advice.

Ok, this is a good start.  But you can't read 1 canon in isolation.  Keep reading.


Or...you can read pre-V2 commentary on canon law, like Yeti posted, and take their advice.

It's not a start at all, it's a quote from the 1983 code of canon law. Obviously such a statement does not occur in the 1917 code or in any pre-Vatican 2 authority.

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?

My apologies.
1917
Canon 1083
§ 1. Error concerning the person renders marriage invalid.
§ 2. Error about a quality of the person, even if it gave rise to the contract, renders marriage invalid only:
1.° If the error about quality amounts to an error of the person;
2.° If a free person contracts marriage with a person thought to be free, but he was really a slave in servitude strictly speaking.

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?

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.

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.

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.