I thought an annulment meant that your annulled marriage was not a valid Sacramental marriage? So if his marriage was annulled, does he not find out that he was living with a women without the benefit of a Sacramental marriage?
He’s since divorced her. He may have gone on to contract another marriage. I’m not seeing how, having already admitted that the marriage was flawed to the point of being unworkable, he’d be “harmed” by learning it was also not sacramental.
If he is a good Catholic, he may have wanted to live with a woman only under the condition that it be a Sacramental marriage approved by the Church. Now he finds out that he was living with a woman without the benefit of a valid Sacramental marriage.
Through no fault of his own. You’re forgetting one thing: a Catholic priest cannot celebrate a marriage that he knows will be invalid. Therefore, at the time of the ceremony, up through the time that the decree of nullity was issued, at least one of the spouses believed the marriage to be valid. The Church calls this, then, a putative marriage.
No. Strictly speaking, it was a ‘putative marriage’. No fornicating, non-culpably or otherwise.
We don’t know that.
Then what would a declaration by the Catholic Church mean to him? After all, if this is the case, then the state still holds the marriage to have been valid. That wouldn’t suffice for him?
Two thoughts:
“her”? As in “your current husband’s first wife”? Or, as in “your ex-husband’s new wife”?
Might Rome view the Orthodox in light of the truth of the current situation. Does Rome see the East as a free and independent “denomination” of its own, and takes the position that it will not meddle in the affairs of the Orthodox? Rome does not tell the Methodist or Presbyterian denominations what to believe, it simple states its own case and remains true to it. Now if a serious effort at reunification were to take place, that might change things? Don’t know, don’t care, that is an argument that is way above my pay grade.
No, it is going to depend on his mentality and outlook on life.
Does “the truth will set you free” ring a bell?
If you were the OP’s ex-husband, I’d advise you that you actually did meet that standard. Your marriage was putative during the time you lived it. You did not commit a sin.
No, it’s not due to “annulment rules”… it’s due to something that was lacking at the point of the wedding ceremony. You’re giving voice to a particular “the emperor has no clothes” mentality – you’d rather pretend that you’re clothed than face the reality that you’re not. If that approach works for you, have at it. I’d prefer to know the truth.
You are muddying the waters by implying that I mentioned sin. Your quote here is not an accurate account of what I said.
I did not say it was a sin. I said that it is possible that the man wanted to live his life with only one woman, and that woman was the one to which he was genuinely married. Now because of the annulment rules of the Catholic church, this is impossible for him.
There is where I disagree. In many cases, under similar circumstances, the Orthodox Church and Protestant churches, would say that they were genuinely married, but that they might be granted a church approved divorce. In the Orthodox church, there would be no question of the first marriage having been a genuine marriage. However, in the Roman Church, there is a declaration of nullity. Does this not mean that the Roman Church declares that there was no genuine or valid marriage in the first place? If the first marriage was not a genuine marriage, does this not mean that the man was living with a woman who was not his valid and genuine wife? He can be understandably hurt and psychologically harmed by knowing that all these years, he was living with a woman who was not his genuine wife, even though he had gone through all the requirements to marry in the Catholic Church.
Seeing my valid and genuine wife living in sin with another man would hurt me more than learning she was not my wife.
And this is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches is impossible. There cannot be “valid marriage” followed by “divorce.” Literally, Jesus said this. So, if other churches want to do what Jesus said is unallowable, that’s their prerogative. Doesn’t make it right, though…
No. It means that he had a putative marriage – one that was believed to be valid at the time, but was later proven to be invalid. Where you harshly claim “living with woman who was not his wife,” the Church asserts “living with his putative wife.” Big difference.
What does putative mean except that it is supposed and believed to be a genuine marriage, but is the supposition a correct one? Does not the annulment declaration say that this supposition is false and that the marriage was not valid?
But suppose that neither party had initiated the annulment process. Then this question of an invalid marriage would never have come up?
Have you heard of the Pauline privilege or of the Petrine privilege? Further, the Eastern Churches practiced divorce before 1054 and I don;t see where Rome had objected?
Correct. A marriage entered into in good faith is presumed valid unless proven otherwise.
All of them, who are married in the Church and have not received a decree of nullity.
Zero percent. Marriage enjoys the favor of the law. Until proven otherwise, they are in a valid marriage.
No, it seems, and neither does the Catholic Church, who does not make the claims you’re attempting to assert she does.
I have – have you? Do you realize that these dissolve the marriage, and do not grant ‘divorce’?Gorgias:
Have you heard of the Pauline privilege or of the Petrine privilege?
I don’t see the difference?