Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
June 19, 2013, 09:31:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
 
Author Topic: Declarations of Nullity issued by the SSPX  (Read 4026 times)
jovan66102
La foi Catholique d'abord! La mort à l'Islam!
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Temporarily, Council Bluffs, IA
Posts: 14,150



« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2011, 11:33:PM »

As I've made very clear, I am normally a supporter of the SSPX.  As I just pointed out on another thread, I think the 1988 'excommunications' were horsehockey from the get-go and I pray that Monseigneur Lefebvre will be canonised when the Church returns to sanity, but on this point, I have to go with Fr Cekada. As I told my Ordinary years ago (but after Ecclesia Dei) when he refused to allow my children to receive the Initiatory Sacraments in the Traditional form because, 'His priests' council had forbidden it', 'I'm sorry Your Excellency, I must have been badly catechised. I always thought the governance of the Church came from the top down, not from the bottom up'.
Logged

Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!

Deum timete, regem honorificate.
PeterII
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 4,304



« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2011, 03:05:AM »

Marriage tribunals wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the "bottom uppers" bringing cases before the court.  The courts exist for the good of the people, not for themselves. 
Logged

The hope only
Of empty men.
FatherCekada
Member

Posts: 618



WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2011, 10:25:AM »

Marriage tribunals wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the "bottom uppers" bringing cases before the court.  The courts exist for the good of the people, not for themselves. 

That ecclesiastical tribunals exist for the common good of those who are subject to them does not mean that the subjects themselves bring the tribunals into existence and endow them with power.

That seems to be Bp. Tissier's theory, and it strikes me as smacking of congregationalism.
Logged

WORK OF HUMAN HANDS: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI
by Rev. Anthony Cekada

New address to order from:
www.SGGResources.org

"In der Hölle sind alle Komiker Deutsche." -- Walter Itz
FatherCekada
Member

Posts: 618



WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2011, 11:18:AM »

Fr. Cekada,

I wouldn't expect you to agree with the canonical arguments that the SSPX puts forward; so nothing new there.


I don't dismiss any canonical argument a priori merely because it comes from SSPX.

But since an ecclesiastical tribunal is a creature of canon law, and SSPX sets up ecclesiastical tribunals, they should be able to make a clear and convincing argument for the practice, based on some recognizable and pertinent principles of canon law.

As far as I'm concerned, they haven't been able to do so.
In any case, it is a question of the salvation of souls, and if the ordinary means of the Church (the hierarchy) cannot (or refuses to) supply what is necessary (e.g., due to a state of necessity or a crisis of immense proportions, as occurred during the time of St. Athanasius), then the Church herself provides it.  That is after all the meaning of the first canon of canon law: the highest law is the salvation of souls.


I think you've mixed together two things here.

First, the authors do say that, if clergy with the cura animarum (i.e., endowed with or appointed to office via ordinary jurisdiction) are lacking to confer the sacraments that canon law would normally depute them to confer, other clergy not appointed to the cura animarum (seminary professors, retired priests, chaplains, etc.) may and should step in to provide these sacraments.

But this is only said of the sacraments, because the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Obtaining an annulment is not. If it were, ecclesiastical law and the authors would make some sort of provision for annulment jurisdiction by default. But they don't
Unless of course, you believe that those who have legitimate grounds for a declaration of annulment (no marriage bond ever took place) should simply be allowed to spiritually wither and die (burn as St. Paul puts it) because they cannot contract a proper marriage (which is necessary for their salvation)?

In nearly thirty-five years as a priest, I have encountered only one — one — case in which someone might have had legitimate grounds under the old code. (Permanent antecedent impotence)

The idea that annulments should be readily available as a back-up plan for marriage problems is a post-V2-ism. In the old days annulments were rare as hens' teeth. You never heard of them. I doubt the Church was letting people "spiritually wither."
Logged

WORK OF HUMAN HANDS: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI
by Rev. Anthony Cekada

New address to order from:
www.SGGResources.org

"In der Hölle sind alle Komiker Deutsche." -- Walter Itz
aby
Member

Posts: 65


« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2011, 12:02:PM »

Quote from: Fr. Cekada
The idea that annulments should be readily available as a back-up plan for marriage problems is a post-V2-ism. In the old days annulments were rare as hens' teeth. You never heard of them. I doubt the Church was letting people "spiritually wither."

May I ask, Fr. Cekada (and others who lament the radical increase in failed "Catholic marriages") if you do not see that the number of annulments these days is also and LARGELY a function of improper catechesis from the same VII fallout? I don't understand how that fact is so often ignored.
Logged


GottmitunsAlex
"As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people." Pope St. Pius X
Gold Fish
*
Gender: Male
Personality type: Rational
Posts: 3,905


Hochmeister / Magister generalis


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2011, 01:55:AM »

Quote from: Fr. Cekada
The idea that annulments should be readily available as a back-up plan for marriage problems is a post-V2-ism. In the old days annulments were rare as hens' teeth. You never heard of them. I doubt the Church was letting people "spiritually wither."

May I ask, Fr. Cekada (and others who lament the radical increase in failed "Catholic marriages") if you do not see that the number of annulments these days is also and LARGELY a function of improper catechesis from the same VII fallout? I don't understand how that fact is so often ignored.
From 1995


Dear friends and benefactors,

We are frequently asked about our position concerning the delicate question of marriage annulments, whether we should accept those granted by the modernist tribunals, and why it is that the Society should presume to establish a tribunal to make judgments of its own. It is an interesting question, for it demonstrates in yet one more way just how serious the crisis in the Church really is.

The statistics are interesting. In 1968 there were in the U.S. a total of 338 annulments. In 1992 there were no less than 59,030, that is one hundred and seventy-five times as many. Another interesting figure. The total number of annulments in the Catholic Church world wide in 1992 was 76,286, which means that no less than 75% of all annulments were from the U.S., that is from a little over 5% of the world's Catholic population. Moreover, not only do one in two Catholic marriages here in the States end up with a divorce, but one in five is officially annulled, 90% of the demands for annulment being successful. What do these figures tell us about the seriousness of such annulment processes, especially when the vast majority are granted for purely psychological reasons, namely lack of maturity, as if young age were sufficient to render one incapable of entering into a life long contract? What does that tell us about the authority of Pope John-Paul II, who has several times spoken out against such abuses, but without ever bringing any sanctions against or closing of the tribunals which allow such a fraud to continue?

In fact, an annulment is not created by the decision of an annulment tribunal. The function of the tribunal is simply to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there never was a marriage in the first place, that is that there never was any true exchange of marriage vows.

Consequently, a decision which is not well founded does not nullify a marriage. It is invalid, worthless. If a person who had obtained such an annulment were to enter into a second marriage, even one blessed by a priest, it would certainly be an invalid marriage. How incalculable are the thousands of such unions, which look on paper to be Catholic marriages, but which are nothing more then officially blessed concubinages?

What must be the attitude of the Catholic priest before the tragedy of the destruction of the indissolubility of marriage by the Church's own ministers? His duty is to preserve the sanctity of the sacrament above all else, to defend the sacred marriage bond which is the foundation of human society and consequently of the social life of the Church herself. How could he dare presume to accept such decisions, so lacking in certitude? It is clear, then, that just as the Church supplies the jurisdiction for traditional priests to bless marriages, so also does she, in such tragic circumstances, supply the authority to form tribunals, without which it would be impossible to come to any kind of certitude at all. The clear conscience and salvation of souls depends upon it. It is clear, also, that a traditional priest can neither marry a person with an annulment, nor recommend that he marry, unless such a marriage has been thoroughly studied and declared null and void by a traditional tribunal, operating on truly Catholic principles, —which will always be a rare and extremely exceptional thing. Be prepared, then, to find our priests totally uncompromising on these principles. It is not because a person sincerely thinks that his "annulment" is different from the 59,030 others that it will be accepted.

May the fidelity to your solemn marriage vows, the sacredness of this sacrament of the Church, the sense of true submission to divine Providence and the desire to be detached from the vanity of this world help you all in the struggle to live your Catholic marriages. May the Blessed Virgin Mary grant perseverance to our marriages, "for better for worse, till death do us part".

Yours faithfully in the Immaculate Heart of Mary,

Fr. Peter R. Scott SSPX
Full article link
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/august_1995_ltr.htm
Logged

"Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it under foot. Now that the Law has ceased to bind, they obstinately strive to observe it. What could be more pitiable that those who provoke God not only by transgressing the Law but also by keeping it? But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?"  St. John Chrysostom Sunday Homily
Old Salt
Yep.
Member

Gender: Male
Personality type: melancholic
Posts: 4,902


Sancta Dei Genitrix Ora Pro Nobis.


« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2011, 12:01:PM »

Fr Cekada,

I have a question for you please:
For the sake of argument let us use the 1917 CCL.

If right before the wedding, the groom was overheard to say that " I really do not want to get married" to a close friend, and this was verified, and he went through with the wedding anyway, would the couple have grounds for annullment?
He really had no desire to get married, but went through the motions, because he did not understand the nature of the sacrament and he was talked into it.
Logged

Don't forget to pray for the dead.
FatherCekada
Member

Posts: 618



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2011, 04:54:PM »

Fr Cekada,

I have a question for you please:
For the sake of argument let us use the 1917 CCL.

If right before the wedding, the groom was overheard to say that " I really do not want to get married" to a close friend, and this was verified, and he went through with the wedding anyway, would the couple have grounds for annullment?
He really had no desire to get married, but went through the motions, because he did not understand the nature of the sacrament and he was talked into it.

It itself, this would probably not be enough.

There would have to be "pretense" or "simulation of consent." Marriage enjoyed the favor of law, and internal consent of the mind was always presumed to conform to the words contracting the marriage.

For the contract to be invalid, one of the parties would have to withhold consent interiorly, and intend either (1) not to contract marriage, or (2) not to assume the obligations of marriage.

The regulations for trying cases undertaken on these grounds covered hundreds of pages, and  invalidity on this basis was nearly impossible to prove.

Claiming you went through a public ceremony while not intending to do what you said you intended to do, as you can imagine, would cause an ecclesiastical court to have slight reservations about your credibility!
Logged

WORK OF HUMAN HANDS: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI
by Rev. Anthony Cekada

New address to order from:
www.SGGResources.org

"In der Hölle sind alle Komiker Deutsche." -- Walter Itz
FatherCekada
Member

Posts: 618



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2011, 05:35:PM »


From FATHER SCOTT's justification for the SSPX tribunals[/b]

In fact, an annulment is not created by the decision of an annulment tribunal. The function of the tribunal is simply to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there never was a marriage in the first place, that is that there never was any true exchange of marriage vows.
Full article link
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/august_1995_ltr.htm

This leaves out the essential point: A decree of nullity from a marriage tribunal does not merely affect the couple. It is a public juridical act that is binding upon the whole Church.

If one of the parties is a parishioner, I am obliged to record the annulment in my baptismal register, and treat the parishioner as free to marry. But only the decree of a duly constituted tribunal — established by someone with ordinary jurisdiction — can create that obligation.

If the SSPX "supplied jurisdiction" argument applied, any priest could put out a shingle for his own tribunal. That being the case, what if the tribunal of Fr. Cekada in West Chester, Ohio decrees that a marriage is valid, and the tribunal of Abbé de la Fromage-Grande SSPX down in Walton, Kentucky, says the same marriage is invalid?

Which decree binds the Church?

The likelihood of adverse practical consequences like these should alone be enough to demonstrate that the "supplied jurisdiction" argument SSPX invokes is utterly untenable.

Logged

WORK OF HUMAN HANDS: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI
by Rev. Anthony Cekada

New address to order from:
www.SGGResources.org

"In der Hölle sind alle Komiker Deutsche." -- Walter Itz
jordanawef
Member

Posts: 533



« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2011, 07:42:PM »


From FATHER SCOTT's justification for the SSPX tribunals[/b]

In fact, an annulment is not created by the decision of an annulment tribunal. The function of the tribunal is simply to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there never was a marriage in the first place, that is that there never was any true exchange of marriage vows.
Full article link
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/august_1995_ltr.htm

This leaves out the essential point: A decree of nullity from a marriage tribunal does not merely affect the couple. It is a public juridical act that is binding upon the whole Church.

If one of the parties is a parishioner, I am obliged to record the annulment in my baptismal register, and treat the parishioner as free to marry. But only the decree of a duly constituted tribunal — established by someone with ordinary jurisdiction — can create that obligation.

If the SSPX "supplied jurisdiction" argument applied, any priest could put out a shingle for his own tribunal. That being the case, what if the tribunal of Fr. Cekada in West Chester, Ohio decrees that a marriage is valid, and the tribunal of Abbé de la Fromage-Grande SSPX down in Walton, Kentucky, says the same marriage is invalid?

Which decree binds the Church?

The likelihood of adverse practical consequences like these should alone be enough to demonstrate that the "supplied jurisdiction" argument SSPX invokes is utterly untenable.



Hmm...and along the same lines, how, when, and by whom would the declaratory sentences be issued Father?
Logged

Do what commanded.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC