Annulment, is it contradictory to scripture or not?

[Church_Militant]

Montalban, I figure you’re the only person who didn’t get what I mean.
You’re now on Ignore with me man…

 

[Atemi]

You whole line of reasoning is off. And you are showing a lack of knowledge about this sacrament.

Instead of merely telling me the line of reasoning is off, why not show me where?

First of all, the RCC never gives any guarentee that they are married in the eyes of God.

Yet they can guarantee that when they have given an annulment that that annulment is accurate?

No, they cannot.

Marriage is the only sacrament in the One True Faith that is between the two participants and God.

Agreed.

Actually, this is the gist of my entire position.

The priest officiates, but the promise is made between the applicants and God. It is God who sanctifies and blesses the Marriage Sacrament.

Agreed.

An annulment is a claim that somehow the RCC knows that God never even blessed the marriage to begin with.

They cannot know this, yet this is told to couples all over the world.

There are approximately seven meetings that need to be attended before one can be married in the Catholic church.

I know all this already. I was married in the RCC. I have been through the whole routine and every step.

This is all irrelevant as to the OP, however.

And this is all done to minimize any error in giving this important Sacrament. For instance, the applicants have to go over a series of questions with thier priest or deacon and have to swear to the truthfulness of thier answers.

I am more than familiar with all of this. I had to do it myself.

But again, this is all OT.

Please come back to the OP if that is what you would like to discuss.

Should there be a failure to uphold these agreed too questions, then there might be a case for annulment. But even then, its no guarentee, as you assume.

There is also psychological testing done in an effort to guage applicant compatibility. And this is highly effective.

Let’s come back to the topic of the OP please.

Secondly, you give a civil definiton of annulment. And you assume that an annulment is an easy thing to obtain. That all a person need to do is request it and it happens.

I never made any such claim now did I assume any such thing.

In any event, how hard or easy it is to get an annulment is not the point.

Please come back to the topic.

That’s hardly the case. On average, its a two year process. And this is generally because and in-depth investigation into why the marriage failed is required. An annulment has to meet strict criteria before the church will grant approval if at all. Even in a civil annulment, to which you are really referring, annulments are only granted in strict circumstances but without an investigation.

I am sorry, but this is all irrelevant to my point.

The difficulty of receiving an annulment has nothing to do with the question raised by the OP.

But more disturbing is your idea that the One True Faith is somehow leading its flock astray or into adulterous relationships by granting annulments. That is just not the case. And I think its malicious of you to even say something like this. Thats just rude and disrespectful.

Again, I apologize, but I cannot help if you somehow believe that merely disagreeing with your position is “rude and disrespectful.”

I will agree with you that there is no guarentee.

That means annulments are functionally moot.

What good is it if its only claim is that you may or may not have been married in the eyes of God?

That is no different than what everyone knew before.

But that is between the applicant/spouses and God.

Not if it is any church leadership claiming the marriage never existed.

Its not the fault of the One True Faith who takes every possible step in preparing its people for this most Holy of Sacraments. Remember, we are all sinners and imperfect. If we weren’t then Jesus came for no reason.

This is nice, but this does not address my post you responded to.

When I re-read you post to formulate my answer, I can’t help but be reminded of a verse said by Jesus to Peter. I think its appropriate and applicable to you given your logic.

"“Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Mat. 16:23

Insulting me by equating me with Satan is uncalled for.

If this is where you must go, why bother responding to my post?

Please keep this civil and stay on topic. Calling me names, no matter how subtly, will not change the points I previously made.

…

 

[dthurmond]

First of all… I didn’t know that the Catholoics called themselves the “one true faith”

Secondly…I question what annulment means? Is it that Annulment states that “a marriage never occurred”?

Third… If someone who is not catholic, who was married once before and married over just a few months,and had gotten a divorce, and then marries a catholic in a civil ceremony…but then is advised by the catholic church that they cannot marry in the catholic church unless the non-catholic gets an annulment… …and what is the point again???

But… the marriage did occur because there were live bodies standing there in front of a minister who performed a real live ceremony…not make believe. Soooo… again, what does an annulment really mean???

 

[PastGrandKnight]

Which is the point… As a Catholic I believe that the covernant before God can only be made within a Catholic Church. That is why we have the “Annulment” belief. We believe Any marriage not made within the catholic church is not a Covernant before go. That is what we believe.

Civil marriage is NOT Sacramental marriage.

Catholics can marry protestants… but the covernant must be made inside the Catholic Church, OR with dispensation otherwise it is NOT a covernant before God and is NOT a Sacramental marriage, and therefore can be annulled…

Only sacramental marriage can not be annulled(unless one person did not understand, comprehend or adhere to the agreement they were getting into, you have to understand what you are getting into).

Your comment near the beginning was: <<<<>>>>
I’m sorry to inform you that you have just offended every Jew on the face of the Earth.

Suggesting that 2 people can ONLY make a covenant before God by being inside the walls of any single religion is clearly wrong.

As one who has gone through the process of Annulment, I can speak with some authority on the subject. After a 24 year marriage, my ex walked out. I waited one year, and then filed for an annulment, or, to be more correct, a Declaration of Invalidity. Two years later, it was granted.
When we got married I was still Jewish, and knew nothing about the laws of the Roman Catholic Church. Quite honestly, I didn’t care, because they were not “my” laws. Yet, we were married within the 4 walls of a Roman Catholic Church, by a Priest who I still know, to this day! (That was 30 years ago…yesterday!)
Prior to the wedding, we made several “agreements”, all of which seemed perfectly logical and sensible to me, so I went along with it. What I did not know was that those agreements were in violation of Church teachings.
Obviously, I am now Roman Catholic, as my screen name should suggest. However, I am still a Jew by birthright, having been born of a Jewish woman, and having been Bar Mitzvah at age 13. The very suggestion that 2 people can only make a valid covenant with God inside the 4 walls of our Church is offensive to me, personally, as a Jew (who is no longer Jew-ISH, as I do not practice Judaism any longer).
Christians claim (correctly) that they worship the same God as Jewish people do. In that case, then, there are no valid grounds for saying that 2 people have to be inside the physical structure of a Roman Catholic Church in order to make a valid Covenant with God. They can make it in a Synagogue (although very FEW Rabbis will ever marry two non-Jews in a Synagogue!), under a hoopah (a canopy) in an open-air environment. You see, the covenant is not made with the building: it is made between a man and a woman (one of each!), in the sight of God. Since God sees all, and is Omniscient, a valid marriage covenant can take place anywhere on earth. (Yes, even in San Francisco, of all places…and maybe even in Boston!)
And yes, even though I come from a Jewish background, my screen name is correct. I was a Grand Knight in the Knights of Columbus, having served two years in that position, and then Faithful Navigator in my Fourth Degree Assembly for one year. Every man in my Council…and Assembly… knows of my Jewish background.

 

[dthurmond]

Your comment near the beginning was: <<<<>>>>
I’m sorry to inform you that you have just offended every Jew on the face of the Earth.

Suggesting that 2 people can ONLY make a covenant before God by being inside the walls of any single religion is clearly wrong.

As one who has gone through the process of Annulment, I can speak with some authority on the subject. After a 24 year marriage, my ex walked out. I waited one year, and then filed for an annulment, or, to be more correct, a Declaration of Invalidity. Two years later, it was granted.
When we got married I was still Jewish, and knew nothing about the laws of the Roman Catholic Church. Quite honestly, I didn’t care, because they were not “my” laws. Yet, we were married within the 4 walls of a Roman Catholic Church, by a Priest who I still know, to this day! (That was 30 years ago…yesterday!)
Prior to the wedding, we made several “agreements”, all of which seemed perfectly logical and sensible to me, so I went along with it. What I did not know was that those agreements were in violation of Church teachings.
Obviously, I am now Roman Catholic, as my screen name should suggest. However, I am still a Jew by birthright, having been born of a Jewish woman, and having been Bar Mitzvah at age 13. The very suggestion that 2 people can only make a valid covenant with God inside the 4 walls of our Church is offensive to me, personally, as a Jew (who is no longer Jew-ISH, as I do not practice Judaism any longer).
Christians claim (correctly) that they worship the same God as Jewish people do. In that case, then, there are no valid grounds for saying that 2 people have to be inside the physical structure of a Roman Catholic Church in order to make a valid Covenant with God. They can make it in a Synagogue (although very FEW Rabbis will ever marry two non-Jews in a Synagogue!), under a hoopah (a canopy) in an open-air environment. You see, the covenant is not made with the building: it is made between a man and a woman (one of each!), in the sight of God. Since God sees all, and is Omniscient, a valid marriage covenant can take place anywhere on earth. (Yes, even in San Francisco, of all places…and maybe even in Boston!)
And yes, even though I come from a Jewish background, my screen name is correct. I was a Grand Knight in the Knights of Columbus, having served two years in that position, and then Faithful Navigator in my Fourth Degree Assembly for one year. Every man in my Council…and Assembly… knows of my Jewish background.

Well Said!

I question the Annulment process, not because I have gone through it myself, but I have a family member who has gone through it. I am not Catholic, nor will I ever become Catholic, but I am a Child of the Most High!..I don’t doubt for one moment that God loves me any less for my not being a Catholic, or not having been married in a Catholic Church/Building. There are many churches out here in the world that are without walls, and are a great ministry to those in need.

On Judgement Day… will we ask God about denominations? Or will we feel wonderfully blessed that we have a chance to Praise Him for all Eternity. That is what it’s all about my friends.

 

[JamesN]

A point of semantics, perhaps, but is there a difference between “annulment” and “declaration of nullity”? .

 

[HopefulOne]

First of all… I didn’t know that the Catholoics called themselves the “one true faith”

Secondly…I question what annulment means? Is it that Annulment states that “a marriage never occurred”?

Third… If someone who is not catholic, who was married once before and married over just a few months,and had gotten a divorce, and then marries a catholic in a civil ceremony…but then is advised by the catholic church that they cannot marry in the catholic church unless the non-catholic gets an annulment… …and what is the point again???

But… the marriage did occur because there were live bodies standing there in front of a minister who performed a real live ceremony…not make believe. Soooo… again, what does an annulment really mean???

 

[HopefulOne]

Catholics are the One True Church – instituted by Jesus Christ, not by some protester to its beliefs and rules.

An annulment can only be obtained AFTER a civil divorce is obtained. The persons were Legally Married, the children are Legitimate. The Annulment, after much investigative procedure is declaring the sacramental value of that marriage invalid.

The Church recognizes Protestant marriages by a clergyman(woman) as sacramentally valid, and for a divorced protestant to marry IN the Catholic Church, he/she must first obtain an annulment from that “sacramental” Marriage.

If a protestant or a Catholic has been married in a CIVIL ceremony, J.P. or something like that, and divorces, he/she applies for a Lack of Canonical Form decree from the diocese in which they wish to marry once again - in the Catholic Church. This is much quicker and simpler to get, and just proclaims the persons free to Marry In the Church, since the previous marriage was NOT A SACRAMENT to begin with.

Both myself (born Catholic) and my husband (born Methodist) needed to get annulments to marry each other. We were divorced when we met, and both married in our own churches, and needed Annulments to marry in the Catholic Church, and thank God we got them – that was nearly 30 years ago now. And we are Both happily Married Catholics now!

 

[PastGrandKnight]

A point of semantics, perhaps, but is there a difference between “annulment” and “declaration of nullity”? .

Excellent question.

To “annul” something is to “void” it. Some people would suggest that an Annulment means that since the couple was not “really” married under the laws of the Church, then the children are not 'legitimate" (I refrain from using the more common term, as I consider it vulgar.)

A Declaration of Invalidity simply asserts that because the marriage was lacking something at the time of the wedding, and that"something" was never “fixed” along the way, then that marriage was not valid in accordance with the laws of the Church. It does not de-legitimize any children (my ex and I had 2!). Sometimes, the Tribunal will put stipulations into the Declaration, such as requiring that if one or the other wishes to marry again, he or she has to go through one process or another. It’s not really a big deal, but it shows how seriously they take the issue…not only of annulments…but of marriage and divorce, too. The church does not want to see anyone get divorced, obviously, but it does happen. So the question then becomes one, perhaps, of healing.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Well Said!

I question the Annulment process, not because I have gone through it myself, but I have a family member who has gone through it. I am not Catholic, nor will I ever become Catholic, but I am a Child of the Most High!..I don’t doubt for one moment that God loves me any less for my not being a Catholic, or not having been married in a Catholic Church/Building. There are many churches out here in the world that are without walls, and are a great ministry to those in need.

On Judgement Day… will we ask God about denominations? Or will we feel wonderfully blessed that we have a chance to Praise Him for all Eternity. That is what it’s all about my friends.

Welcome to Catholic.com.

Stick around for a while. I’m sure you will learn that many of the things that you believe and were led to believe are in no way true regarding the Catholic Faith.

On Judgement Day you maybe surprised when God fills you in on the Truth as has been revealed to us thru his son Jesus Christ here on earth and thru his Church. If you stick around and have an open mind, then maybe you won’t be so surprised when that day comes.

 

[sean2k7]

No, but that’s used as a sign that the marriage was never valid.

it falls apart and thus it doesn’t exist? that’s confusing, does that mean if your car gets a flat tire you can say you never bought it? this sounds like a head in the sand kind of rationalization.

 

[epostle]

The “writ of divorce” was a practice with the Hebrew people and at Jesus time. Jesus did not object to this practice, He objected to its abuse that sometimes led into adulterous marriages, a common practice with Protestants since they have no mechansim to determine the invalidity of a marriage.

The “writ of divorce” and “annulments” are the same thing.

From a Jewish web site:
Judaism looks with disfavor upon divorce; however, it is not prohibited and even encouraged in certain cases. The rabbis of the Talmud considered marriage a holy contract, and the dissolution of marriage an unholy act. They quote the prophet Malachi, “. . .the Lord has been witness between you and your wife of your youth against whom you have dealt treachorously, though she is your companion, the wife of your covenant” (2:14). They add in Sanhedrin (22a), “Even [G-d] shares tears when anyone divorces his wife.”

In biblical law a husband has the right to divorce his wife, but a wife cannot initiate a divorce. About 1,000 years ago, Rebbeinu Gershom ben Yehuda (965-1028) decreed that a husband could no longer divorce his wife without her consent. This decision was accepted as binding by European Jewry.

A Jewish religious court can compel the husband to grant a divorce when there is a just case, such as when a husband refuses to have marital relations, when he does not provide adequately for her support, when he is unfaithful, when he is a wife-beater, or when he has a loathsome disease, such as leprosy, etc.

Get is the Hebrew word for divorce document. Since a Jewish marriage is entered into by the issuance of a legal contract between husband and wife, it can be terminated only by the issuance of a legal writ nullifying the original contract. A get may not be issued unless a civil divorce is first obtained, just as a Jewish marriage ceremony may not be conducted without first fulfilling all civil requirements. Reform Jews believe that a civil divorce is sufficient for remarriage. According to Jewish law, a marriage is not dissolved until a bill of divorce, get, is exchanged between husband and wife. Most non*Reform American rabbis, and all rabbis in Israel, will not officiate at a wedding if either party has been divorced without a get.
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Divorce.html

It is the term “annulment” that is not in the bible, which may explain why literalists have so much trouble with the concept.

 

[prv]

Annulment an example of how the Catholic will abandon scripture to suit the needs of its adherents…

As with all things catholic, if you press a Catholic on any issue (Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Papal Authority, etc.), you will always get them to deny the concept but keep the term. For instance, when I talk to a Catholic in person, the following happens:

Transubstantiation becomes just a name, it might become the body and blood of Christ in their eyes, but it has no power

Purgatory becomes “instantaneous,” no one suffers, more of a hot shower, etc…

Papal Authority becomes merely an administrative position, not God on Earth

Annulment is in no way scriptural, it is a cop-out because the Catholic Church understands few of its adherents are actually capable of keeping a commitment, (same is true in Protestantism, but we usually provide more support for a marriage, training, accountability, etc. rather than abandoning a Covenant made with God)

NO, NO, NO!!! Annulment is a declaration that no marriage ever existed, not a DIVORCE. Are you ever going to listen or just pound your own ideas into your head!!! My blood is boiling now, and my hands are shaking.

 

[prv]

Moderator, I recommend for closure of this thread. This has already been discussed before…many times.

 

[dthurmond]

Moderator, I recommend for closure of this thread. This has already been discussed before…many times.

If there are those of us that are new to this web site…even though the topic may have been discussed previously; when would you not allow the conversation to continue? I’m not here often, but if there is a topic of interest…then I would like to take part in the conversation. Therefore, just because a subject has already been discussed by others…is not (in my opinion) a reason to close the thread.

 

[LBlack45]

yes, the annulment process is a contradictory to teachings in the bible. To continue to debate this is a moot point. As a non-catholic whose ex-husband is converting, i, too, am going through this process and i’m very angry because not only is it a lie, my ex-husband is only doing it to satisfy the requirements of the RCC and to marry his catholic fiance. He knows that our marriage was valid but it doesn’t matter because he wants he wants. I find this to be very contradictory on his part. Say what you will but Jesus clearly says divorce not annulment for he acknowledges marriage unless unlawful. My marriage by no stretch of the imagination was unlawful. I’m very offended by this process and therefore, have chosen not participate in this farce of a process. I’m not condemning the church for their beliefs and practices but this is a touchy subject for me and i’m not in agreement with this process because there’s nothing healing about it when it’s done to satisfy a requirement instead of out of searching for the truth. Thanks to all of you who took the time to read this and i’m in no way trying to offend anyone. Blessings to all.

 

[brb3]

I don’t see how effectively it is different from divorce. A couple could have lived together for years, have kids etc and they can get an annulment because the church says they were never really married? So if a Catholic gets married in a Protestant church without a dispensation they can get an annulment but two Protestants can’t? This strikes me as trying to go by the letter rather than the spirit of God’s will.

I first thought same thing too. But, the Church sees it as two people living in fornication with illegit kids … with only legal/civil secular papers to justify their sin.

But, lets say that one was a Catholic gal … married to a Protestant. Would it be OK in God’s eye for a Catholic male to marry her … once she got that first ‘legal relationship’ ] annulled ?

 

[brb3]

Catholics can marry protestants… but the covernant must be made inside the Catholic Church, OR with dispensation otherwise it is NOT a covernant before God and is NOT a Sacramental marriage, and therefore can be annulled…

how often are dispensations granted ?

… and, what grounds would allow for a marriage outside the Catholic Church ?

 

[brb3]

Divorce and re-marriage is strictly prohibited in the Scriptures but yet many if not most Protestant Communities allow it without a second thought? Annulment however is mentioned but not expanded on in the Scriptures (Matt 19:9) to the same extent divorce and re-marriage is several times. (

Matt 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT for unchastity, and marries another, COMMITS ADULTERY.

So, is unfaithfulness the only valid reason the Church uses to let a Catholic remarry w/o committing adultery ? … [provided the first marriage was consumated, by mutual agreement of party A with party B].

 

[brb3]

The Greek word used in Matt 19:9 and 5:32 means an illegal or invalid marriage.

What word, in either of the above passages, means ‘illegal’ or ‘invalid’ ?