patent, you can do better than that. The Bishop and Vicar were duly appointed authorities of the RCC, not some fictitious branch. The Bishop had not been declared at the time of the trial to be acting without Papal authority.
The ruling of nullity occurred after her death. They can change her legal standing, but they cannot take back her execution.
ELS, this is the difference between a divorce and an annulment. One is a validly issued marriage that someone is trying to change after the fact. One is a decree that the original marriage was not validly issued, and thus never happened (in fact). That is what we have here. The people who excommunicated her did not follow proper procedures, just like the Bishop of Hawaii didn’t do so when he tried to excommunicate the Hawaii four. Therefore it never happened.Not really, she died unreconciled with a Bishop and a branch of the Church.patent, you can do better than that.
The same cannot be said about the Pope’s excommunication of the Archbishop. That was valid, and per Vatican I there isn’t anyone else to appeal to.
The Bishop and Vicar were duly appointed authorities of the RCC, not some fictitious branch. The Bishop had not been declared at the time of the trial to be acting without Papal authority.Neither was the Bishop of Hawaii declared at the time of the trial to be without authority. The Vatican doesn’t judge these things immediately, they take their time. In Joan’s case it can be legitimately said they took too long, but after all she was already dead. Wasn’t going to change her situation much.
The ruling of nullity occurred after her death. They can change her legal standing, but they cannot take back her execution.True. Doesn’t change the argument though.
patent +AMDG