What is the name of the trad bishop you were speaking with?

It is highly unlikely that a spouse will reveal an abusive tendency that is not already apparent. I wonder why you say that severe abuse is insanity. You can pretty safely say that severe abuse is grave sin, but not grounds for annulment.

Not to speak ill of the dead, but a certain priest was infamous for claiming that assisting at a Mass "Una cuм Papa nostro N..." was the same as being "one with his heresy(ies)". He taught that Catholics cannot attend a Mass offered "Una cuм". Which is RIDICULOUS to any well-educated Catholic. Before this priest came along, sedevacantists had no problems assisting at Tridentine Masses offered by valid priests. But this priest really divided the Traditional world -- for his own benefit. Power and $$$.

This self-serving teaching of his ("Oh darn! I guess my parishioners can't go to the other competing chapels in Cincinnati -- of which there are SEVERAL! I guess I will just have to enjoy more control over them now...") was novel to the extreme, and was quite cult-like in its inspiration. Rather like a cult leader saying he personally talks to God, and "today God told me that 14 year old Sally and 15 year old Mandy are to join my harem..."

This priest didn't do it for Pleasure, he did it for Power. But in both cases, the motives were base and self-serving.

What is the name of the trad bishop you were speaking with?

Bumping this thread because epiphany refused to answer the question.

He's persistently promoted a false Modernist notion of what can justify an annulment.  Several posters have corrected him, but he's ignored it, arrogantly responding that he's "pointed out" the opposite (citing the 1983 Code of Canon Law but clearly without any understanding of what even that was saying).

Finally, he attributes his erroneous opinion to a "Traditional Bishop".

When interrogated about which bishop, he refuses to answer.

So this is one of the charges against him I made on another thread that he claimed was slanderous.

Several posters repeatedly tried to correct him on this point, and he's arrogantly and pertinaciously refused to accept correction, but then ends up trying to slander some nameless "Traditional Bishop" as the originator of his theories.

He's consistently promoted misandry on this forum, making absurdly false claims such as that the courts were stacked against women in divorce scenarios, that many Traditional men physically abuse their wives, but the priests and most of the congregation "derided" them for considering a separation.

These are all slanderous claims against Traditional Catholicism in general, and backed up by zero evidence.

Name the bishop who told you than an "undisclosed violent temper" is grounds for annulment.  Name the "priests  and congregation [aka the chapel]" who derided a woman for seeking a separation in the wake of physical abuse.  Otherwise, your assertions are nothing less than a general slander against the Traditional movement.

You've also at another time asserted that most Traditional young men want to find wives who would support them so they would not have to work.

I've got verbatim citations with dates and timestamps for all these statements of yours that you recently claimed were ALL FALSE and slanderous, and a fair number of them were made on this thread here.

You continuously slander Traditional Catholicism, making absurd claims that priests deride women seeking separation from physicallly abuse husbands, that Trad young men are looking for wives who will support them so they won't have to work, etc.

Unless you name names and it can be verified (people have a right to know who this allegedly ignorant bishop is so he can be avoided), your statement is to be considered a bald-faced lie to justify your error.  You know full well why you won't name him.  Because if someone were to write to him (if he even exists), they find out that you lied, as he would deny havinig said any such thing.

Here is yet another grave error to which you pertinaciously cling, and which you promote, despite having, on this thread been corrected by multiple posters (who are not Feeneyites by the way).

All you have is your "Feeneyite heretic" crap.  Your heresy about unborn infants who don't receive Baptism being saved has absolutely nothing to do with Feeneyism.

Quote from: Ladislaus 10/9/2022, 8:49:15 PM
epiphany, you're a liar and a slanderer.

You lie (and slander Traditional Catholicsm) by inventing these Trad chapels where women seeking separation on account of physical abuse are derided by the priest and most of the congreagation.

You lie (and slander Traditional Catholicism) by claiming that a Traditional Bishop told you that an "undisclosed explosive temper" is grounds for an annulment.

You lie (and slander Traditional Catholicism) by claiming that you know all these young men who are looking for wives who have a good career so that they don't have to work.

You lie (and slander Traditional Catholicism) by claiming that there many Traditional Catholic men who physicaly abuse their wives (and who are defended and protected by priests).

You lie when claiming that the courts are stacked against women in divorce procedings.