Annulment, is it contradictory to scripture or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter colliric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
They have reason to believe they were married in the first place when the priest and state declare that they are indeed married legally.
So you agree that they were in a state of sin all along?
I agree that a child born of a “valid marriage” is legitimate. However a child born out of an invalid marriage would not be.
What this demonstrates is that annulments leads to all kinds of unbilical and sinful things.
That demonstrates nothing. Please expand your argument.
Take a couple who were married in the catholic church and state. They were pronounced man and wife and considered marrired in eyes of the church. They have sex and children from it. (They also benefitted from all the benefits of being married)
Later it is determined that there was not a valid marriage. In other words even though they had all the appearances of being married, in reality they were not. They were in reality “living together”.
What follows from this is:
1- since they were not really married when they engaged in sexual relations that would be fornication. This is a sin.

2- The children born from this “living situtation” would technically illegitimate because they were not born of a married couple.

These are just some of the evil consquences that follows from annulments not to mention the massive defrauding that must be dealt by the couple and the children who thought they were married but were not.
 
They have reason to believe they were married in the first place when the priest and state declare that they are indeed married legally.

So you agree that they were in a state of sin all along?

I agree that a child born of a “valid marriage” is legitimate. However a child born out of an invalid marriage would not be.

What this demonstrates is that annulments leads to all kinds of unbilical and sinful things.
I agree that they would be committing a sinful act of fornication if they knew that they were not validly Married. Children born in what appeared to be a valid Marriage are never considered born out of wedlock.
 
Jerry-Jet;2549533]No, they only juridicially define what is sinful and what is not and as long as the successors to Peter and the apostles can bind and loose–yes they can judge whether a marriage should be annulled or not.
That is totally biblical.
Would you happen to know any examples in scripture for this i.e. annulments?
It doesn’t matter who accepts the Catholic Church’s authority to bind and loose.
Those who will not listen to the Catholic Church–why listen to them?
Jesus said if a person will not listen to the church that they should be treated like a publican or a sinner.
You have a responsiblity to hold your leaders accountable to the truth. Scripture clearly warns that false teachers will come into the church itself and deceive many. No member of any church is to just accept what their leaders teach without holding them to the scriptures.
If anyone has a problem with that they have a problem with Jesus!
Many problem is not with Jesus but with false teachers in the church. Don’t be deceived with the idea that men, even supposedly under the guidance of the HS cannot err. Such is not the case.
 
Br. Rich SFO;2549599]I agree that they would be committing a sinful act of fornication if they knew that they were not validly Married.
If they believed that it was valid and it was not, then they are fornicating. Its not what they believe to be true that matters but what is the reality of the marriage as being valid or not. If it is not, then they are fornicating.
Take for example ( i used this before) of 2 people living together. They may believe they are not sinning but we know that in “reality” they are because sex outside of marriage is fornication.
Children born in what appeared to be a valid Marriage are never considered born out of wedlock.
How does that follow? If the appearance of something is not the truth then you don’t have (as in this case) legitmate children. If there was no marriage, then the children born of this relationship are born out of wedlock.
 
If they believed that it was valid and it was not, then they are fornicating. Its not what they believe to be true that matters but what is the reality of the marriage as being valid or not. If it is not, then they are fornicating.
Take for example ( i used this before) of 2 people living together. They may believe they are not sinning but we know that in “reality” they are because sex outside of marriage is fornication.

How does that follow? If the appearance of something is not the truth then you don’t have (as in this case) legitmate children. If there was no marriage, then the children born of this relationship are born out of wedlock.
A person is not held accountable for a sinful action they did not know was a sin when they acted. Fornication is a mortal sin only when the people act knowing that they are not married to each other. Like the people who are living with each other.
 
A person is not held accountable for a sinful action they did not know was a sin when they acted. Fornication is a mortal sin only when the people act knowing that they are not married to each other. Like the people who are living with each other.
If this is the case, then it would be better to keep people in ignorance. Also what am i to make of Hebrews 9:6-7 which says–6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship,
7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.

Ignorance of committing of a sin does not mean you are not guilty of committing a sin.
 
You don’t have me convinced. I will believe the Greek Scholars of the One True Faith over you defective logic anyday.
It is not “defective logic” if the words you cite are not even present in the text at all.

No logic necessary.
Not only that, but you are quoting a KJV version of Greek translations. Its already faulty. KJV isn’t accurate. Never has been.
But I am looking at the Greek from the manuscripts themselves. I don’t believe we can post a Greek font here, so that is why I linked you directly to the Greek.

We all can choose to ignore what is right in front of us. That is our prerogative.

…
 
I find this tread very amusing
Protestants who routinely violate the scriptual aspect of marriage by granting all manor of Divorce lecturing us on Annulment
Look at the Log in your own eye Hypocrite’s
 
Take a couple who were married in the catholic church and state. They were pronounced man and wife and considered marrired in eyes of the church. They have sex and children from it. (They also benefitted from all the benefits of being married)
Later it is determined that there was not a valid marriage.
And this is another huge rub.

The minister, through the supposed power of the RCC to bind and loose, has officially pronounced this couple MARRIED.

They then can say years later that that pronouncement was in error.

What is there to have any couple believe the RCC is somehow right the second time…when they have shown already they were wrong the first time?
 
If this is the case, then it would be better to keep people in ignorance. Also what am i to make of Hebrews 9:6-7 which says–6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship,
7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.

Ignorance of committing of a sin does not mean you are not guilty of committing a sin.
Yes.

Many folks today have unfortunately come to believe that someone only sins if they believe they are sinning when they sin.

This seems to be an issue here with the fornication problem in a supposedly “invalid” marriage. But I guess this may be a different topic for a different thread.

…
 
Since someone brought up the cohabitating couple, let me add a scenario that is even more common.

Fornication.

Basically, a valid marriage consists of two virgins.

If the couple has already had sexual relations with each other or someone else at any point. They are entering into an invalid covenant, especially if one party is not aware of that condition and believes he is entering into a marriage covenant with a fellow virgin.

If, later on, these people decide that they cannot live together and divorce.

Why should the faithful partner be bound as having been part of a valid marriage covenant when that wasn’t the case? As a believer, who has the authority to deal with that?

No thanks…say what you will, n-Cs have nothing to offer in this matter.
 
Yes.

Many folks today have unfortunately come to believe that someone only sins if they believe they are sinning when they sin.

This seems to be an issue here with the fornication problem in a supposedly “invalid” marriage. But I guess this may be a different topic for a different thread.

…
The question being debated is this: Is a couple sinning by fornication and are they accountable for the sin if they thought that they were Married at the time and for all practable purposes everyone else thought that the Marriage was valid. No one knew otherwise. Until a very careful and detailed study was conducted and the Church found that the Sacrament was invalid for a reason not initially known.
 
Since someone brought up the cohabitating couple, let me add a scenario that is even more common.

Fornication.

Basically, a valid marriage consists of two virgins.
While that’s the ideal, I don’t believe that past sins of fornication (once repented, confessed, and forgiven) are an impediment to marriage. Have you a citation on this, or is it just your personal belief?

A pre-existing valid marriage is an impediment, of course, but we don’t forbid people to marry because they have messed up in the past.

Usagi
 
In my opinion the only logical reason for declaring a marriage to be invalid is if one or both of the persons are marrying under duress. For example, if a young woman is forced to marry a man because the marriage was arranged. I might be persuaded to take a step further and grant that if the woman was pregnant, she and he might feel pressured because of family, society, etc. to marry when they really didn’t want to.

For everyone else, after a minimum six month wait, pre-cana, retreats, counseling with their priest, and compatibility tests, if they weren’t sure after that, then nothing could convince them, nothing except living together. That’s the rub, no matter how much you discuss and council, no matter how many retreats you go on, nothing can really teach you what it is actually like living together and raising children until you live it. Marriage is hard, maybe the hardest thing some people do in their lives, even in a so called valid marriage. People change, people get sick, children wear you out, money is sometimes scarce, jobs are bad, etc, and all of that can cause serious problems in any marriage, one might say all of these things are typical to most marriages, but none of these or the many more issues, including infidelity, make a marriage invalid. If I am wrong, then a lot of us are in big trouble.

Not to mention the fact that whether I say divorce or you say annulment, the children are still going to suffer. They are still going to have their lives ripped apart and have to deal with “new” mommies and “new” daddies, oh and don’t forget “new” siblings.

One of the greatest things Jesus ever did to elevate the value of women in society was to prevent their husbands from abandoning them through divorce. Why would we see things any differently simply because we use a different word? Whether divorce or annulment, what comes after is just as devastating.

For better or for worse, in good times and in bad, means just that.
 
One of the greatest things Jesus ever did to elevate the value of women in society was to prevent their husbands from abandoning them through divorce. Why would we see things any differently simply because we use a different word? Whether divorce or annulment, what comes after is just as devastating.

For better or for worse, in good times and in bad, means just that.
There is a lot of wisdom in the above statements.

Thank you.
 
I find this tread very amusing
Protestants who routinely violate the scriptual aspect of marriage by granting all manor of Divorce lecturing us on Annulment
Look at the Log in your own eye Hypocrite’s
Ah the old tu quoque fallacy marches out once more!
 
Since someone brought up the cohabitating couple, let me add a scenario that is even more common.

Fornication.

Basically, a valid marriage consists of two virgins.

If the couple has already had sexual relations with each other or someone else at any point. They are entering into an invalid covenant, especially if one party is not aware of that condition and believes he is entering into a marriage covenant with a fellow virgin.

If, later on, these people decide that they cannot live together and divorce.

Why should the faithful partner be bound as having been part of a valid marriage covenant when that wasn’t the case? As a believer, who has the authority to deal with that?

No thanks…say what you will, n-Cs have nothing to offer in this matter.
So when the Church allows you to marry someone after your partner has died you’re not allowed to because you won’t be a virgin!? :confused:
 
While that’s the ideal, I don’t believe that past sins of fornication (once repented, confessed, and forgiven) are an impediment to marriage. Have you a citation on this, or is it just your personal belief?

A pre-existing valid marriage is an impediment, of course, but we don’t forbid people to marry because they have messed up in the past.

Usagi
I agree…but the original context of the scripture does indicate that Jewish law did and if you go back and read the OT about marriage it’s there too and that is what Jesus was talking about.

I agree it’s ideal, however, that’s the standard that the Bible lays down.

I think that the annulment process is the system the church developed to deal with this kind of situation. I agree that repentant persons need not concern themselves with this issue.
So when the Church allows you to marry someone after your partner has died you’re not allowed to because you won’t be a virgin!? :confused:
Look at the context…this refers to pre-marital.
 
Look at the context…this refers to pre-marital.
It would be ‘pre-marital’.

George marries Gladys. They have sex. Later (not caused by George and their love-making) Gladys dies.

George marries Ethel. They have sex. George is not a virgin. The ‘sex’ he had is before (therefore pre-) the marriage with Ethel.

You said ‘before marriage’, not ‘outside of’. There is no point in which George’s relations with Gladys are covered by the marriage he has with Ethel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top