MERGED: Invalid Annulment/Are Annulments Infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ana_v
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dee_S said:
"There is no such thing as an invalid annulment as claimed by the schismatic SSPX (and/or others) who are not in Communion with the Church. Please! The Vatican has NOT declared sspx to be schismatic - therefore YOU are not free to do so.(per catharina)

Hi catharina,
Yes you have a point, they are not formally in schism since the lifting of the excommunications, but are materially. They are not in full communion with the Church.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X#Canonical_situation
Quoting wiki is meaningless re this matter.​

** In his letter of 10 March 2009 concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI declared: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”**
Click to expand...
So again, please withhold your opinion that ‘sspx is in schism.’
Such a statement can NOT be justified by Church teaching.
 
So again, please withhold your opinion that ‘sspx is in schism.’
Such a statement can NOT be justified by Church teaching.
Dear catharina,
Wiki was only quoted to give the widely known information in regard to the present Canonical Status of SSPX in the Catholic Church.

I don’t have any intention of witholding my opinion in regard to the SSPX. I may, on your suggestion, be more precise and declare them to be in a schismatic position due to them not being in Full Communion with Rome until they accept the authority of the Pope and the teaching Magisterium; conditions for full communion as stated by Pope Benedict XVI.

Here are some quotes made by the late Archbishop Lefebvre that you might find interesting:

• July 29, 1976
On this day, under the shock of the suspension a divinis, Mgr. Lefebvre declared: **“This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of the centuries …” “This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church.” “The church which affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is thus not Catholic.” **

• Aug 4, 1976
Mgr. Lefebvre treats the conciliar church, its hierarchy and particularly its “pope” as schismatic:** “All those who cooperate in the application of this upheaval, accept and adhere to this new conciliar church … enter into schism.” **
[Le Figaro, Aug. 4, 1976. ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara.]

• By 1986
the tone of the Archbishop’s language had degenerated to the point where he described the post Conciliar reformed liturgy and Sacraments in this way:

"All these (pre Pope John XXIII) Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls."
“Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre”, Vol. 1, pp. 347/8, published by The Angelus Press, 1979, and “An Open Letter To Confused Catholics”, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 116, 1986.]

There are hundreds of such statements by himself and his followers in the same vein to be found.

It is/was relevant to mention that SSPX have their own Tribunal (one bishop) who regularly overturns declarations of nullity of marriage made by the Catholic Church.
 
Dee_S said:
So again, please withhold your opinion that ‘sspx is in schism.’
Such a statement can NOT be justified by Church teaching. per catharina

Dear catharina,
Wiki was only quoted to give the widely known information in regard to the present Canonical Status of SSPX in the Catholic Church.

I don’t have any intention of witholding my opinion in regard to the SSPX. I may, on your suggestion, be more precise and declare them to be in a schismatic position due to them not being in Full Communion with Rome until they accept the authority of the Pope and the teaching Magisterium; conditions for full communion as stated by Pope Benedict XVI.

Here are some quotes made by the late Archbishop Lefebvre that you might find interesting:

• July 29, 1976
On this day, under the shock of the suspension a divinis, Mgr. Lefebvre declared: **“This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of the centuries …” “This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church.” “The church which affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is thus not Catholic.” **

• Aug 4, 1976
Mgr. Lefebvre treats the conciliar church, its hierarchy and particularly its “pope” as schismatic:** “All those who cooperate in the application of this upheaval, accept and adhere to this new conciliar church … enter into schism.” **
[Le Figaro, Aug. 4, 1976. ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara.]

• By 1986
the tone of the Archbishop’s language had degenerated to the point where he described the post Conciliar reformed liturgy and Sacraments in this way:

"All these (pre Pope John XXIII) Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls."
“Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre”, Vol. 1, pp. 347/8, published by The Angelus Press, 1979, and “An Open Letter To Confused Catholics”, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 116, 1986.]

There are hundreds of such statements by himself and his followers in the same vein to be found.

It is/was relevant to mention that SSPX have their own Tribunal (one bishop) who regularly overturns declarations of nullity of marriage made by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Wow. You surely don’t know me.
However, rest assured that I have never supported
and will never “support” the utter divisiveness of sspx.

However, I will ALWAYS object to anyone pretending to
know more, be more correct about the status of sspx than the Holy Father.

I listen to the Vatican.
That’s my bottom line.
 
Hi catharina,
I don’t know you…but we do have one thing in common…the need to be precise and have our facts straight, so I thank you for the fraternal correction.

We differ on…assumptions. A person is not necessarily ‘pretending’ to know/say more than what the Church teaches, it is possible they may just be mistaken!

In Caritate Christi
 
Are annulments infallible when they are granted by the authority of the CC?

If not, has it ever happened where a Catholic annulment and a subsequent Catholic marriage are both annulled themselves, and the original marriage (which was erroneously judged to be null) is vindicated?
 
Corki said:
It is an interesting question, however, as to how these tribunal decisions are being overturned by the Rota at a rate of 80%. Isn’t the Rota looking at the same evidence?
Click to expand...
Be careful of percentages. What does “80%” really tell you? That the Rota looked at 10000 cases and overturned 8000 or that they looked at 10 and overturned 8?

Also the overturn rate could be the function of any number of factors.

For myself, I am grateful and thankful to have been blessed, by Christ through the Church, with an annulment. This annulment allowed my dear wife and I to have our marriage con-validated in the Church just before she sank into the mists of Alzheimer’s disease.

Peace
James
 
x1980x said:
Are annulments infallible when they are granted by the authority of the CC?
Click to expand...
How do you think the declaration of nullity of a marriage can meet the requirements for an infallible teaching of the Church. They aren’t granted by the Pope. They are not a teaching on morals or faith. They can’t meet the requirements so they’re no infallible statements of the Church.
 
If you’re worried that a somehow false declaration of nullity were to arise, that it would incriminate the husband and wife, then that isn’t the case. There would be no sin on their part, because they aren’t culpable for misdoings in a tribunal.
 
x1980x said:
Are annulments infallible when they are granted by the authority of the CC?
Click to expand...
No, they can be overturned by appeal. As to infallibility, what Matt said, but I will also add that decrees of nullity are not meant as universal teachings either (faith and morals, and magisterial authority being the other two qualifications).
If not, has it ever happened where a Catholic annulment and a subsequent Catholic marriage are both annulled themselves, and the original marriage (which was erroneously judged to be null) is vindicated?
Click to expand...
Not that I’m aware of, but it is a possibility that the Rota could later overturn a decree of nullity, and thereby cause new issues with a new couple.
 
JRKH said:
Be careful of percentages. What does “80%” really tell you? That the Rota looked at 10000 cases and overturned 8000 or that they looked at 10 and overturned 8?

Also the overturn rate could be the function of any number of factors.

For myself, I am grateful and thankful to have been blessed, by Christ through the Church, with an annulment. This annulment allowed my dear wife and I to have our marriage con-validated in the Church just before she sank into the mists of Alzheimer’s disease.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Adding to that, is this the second instance with an automatic appeal that we’re referring to? I don’t think so.

If that’s the case, then the majority of appeals sent to the Rota are ones in which the Canon Lawyer and the client making the appeal believe that they have valid grounds… so of course there is an expected higher rate of findings of validity… the only people who appeal to the Rota are those that know they have a strong case. In statistics this would be called a biased sample population.

The other thing the 80% doesn’t tell us is which direction the tribunals overturned. Some of those 80% may have been findings of validity that the Rota said were incorrect and declared the marraige null. A raw statistic doesn’t give us the idea of that breakdown.

Furthermore, as I already stated, the standards of evidence allowed by each tribunal may be different. Certainly there aren’t many witnesses and members traveling to Rome to testify before the Rota…
 
promethius said:
Adding to that, is this the second instance with an automatic appeal that we’re referring to? I don’t think so.

If that’s the case, then the majority of appeals sent to the Rota are ones in which the Canon Lawyer and the client making the appeal believe that they have valid grounds… so of course there is an expected higher rate of findings of validity… the only people who appeal to the Rota are those that know they have a strong case. In statistics this would be called a biased sample population.

The other thing the 80% doesn’t tell us is which direction the tribunals overturned. Some of those 80% may have been findings of validity that the Rota said were incorrect and declared the marraige null. A raw statistic doesn’t give us the idea of that breakdown.

Furthermore, as I already stated, the standards of evidence allowed by each tribunal may be different. Certainly there aren’t many witnesses and members traveling to Rome to testify before the Rota…
Click to expand...
All good points…👍

Peace
James
 
Dee_S said:
If an annulment is granted by the Church it is valid no matter what any other organisation or person claims.

The reason for this is that the 1st court of instance judges the matter (normally the diocese where you live and apply for the annulment), Their findings or ruling is then sent to the 2nd court of instance (normally the Head Diocese of that State). If they both find in favor, then the annulment is granted and is valid. This is because annulments are particularly Reserved to the Holy See (directly under the control/discipline of the Holy Father) and these two courts and the Judicial Vicars etc. are acting on behalf of the Church.

If either rulings differ, the case is referred to The Roman Rota (court in Rome that decides judicial cases, and it is the final court of appeal). Their decision would be final and valid.

At any time during the process, from the beginning of application to the final judgment, any of the party’s concerned are entitled to object to their rulings and appeal directly to the Roman Rota.

[edited]

I would say, trust the Church, as they have the Divine Mission to save souls and what they bind on earth, is bound in Heaven.

Douay-Rheims Bible
“Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” Matt 18:18
Click to expand...
The Church does not have the power to loose and bind a Marriage; only to declare that it never existed. Now, saying that, the process is not infallible. That would be ridiculous! In most dioceses today, 99% of the marriages presented for annulment are declared “null”. How can it be that most marriage brought to the tribunals conveniently never really were marriages? It is true that the Church is not properly forming people in the faith and preparing them for marriage, but if that was the whole reason, then it would be a smoking gun.

Now, that being said, the annulments are “valid”, but that’s only to say that they follow a set process, and therefore, that makes the declaration canonically “valid”. However, that does not mean that ever decision they make while applying the canonical process is pleasing to God and actually is accurate.

And by the way, the Church does not “bind” a marriage here or in Heaven. The form of the Sacrament is the words exchanged between two lay people. The form for the Church to simply acknowledge that it is, indeed a marriage does require, however, a prelate (with more conditions attached, the marriage rite, etc.).

If every annulment could be definitively accurate, there would be no need for a second tribunal, or the process of appeals where the Roman Rota gets involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top