Annulments- was there never truly a marriage?

[Sixtus]

Abira posted:

A poster earlier mentioned domestic violence… would that be grounds for divorce/annullment?

There can be no absolute answers. It depends on the circumstances. If it can be argued that a partner was being seriously provoked and goaded into responding with violence such as a tap on the shoulder [to touch another person with the tip of a finger consititutes assault], then the devils advocate could argue against it.

But that is a far cry from somone beating up the other person.

Domestic violence does not have to be physical, it can be verbal and emotional too!

 

[ronnok20]

It seems to be totally forgotten here that divorce was supported in scripture on the purpose of sexual wrongdoing. I couldn’t really care less what the church says about it beyond the regard of scripture because it wouldn’t matter or rightfully weigh against the issue.

 

[1ke]

It seems to be totally forgotten here that divorce was supported in scripture on the purpose of sexual wrongdoing.

You have already been informed by several posters that you are mistaken in your erroneous scriptural interpretation.

I couldn’t really care less what the church says about it beyond the regard of scripture because it wouldn’t matter or rightfully weigh against the issue.

Then this discussion is at an end-- for it is the Church and only the Church to whom Christ gave authority over the Sacraments.

 

[jay29]

It seems to be totally forgotten here that divorce was supported in scripture on the purpose of sexual wrongdoing. I couldn’t really care less what the church says about it beyond the regard of scripture because it wouldn’t matter or rightfully weigh against the issue.

The cc does not do scripture alone. That was a heresey condemned long ago.

 

[Sixtus]

Jay 29 posted:

—Quote (Originally by ronnok20)—
It seems to be totally forgotten here that divorce was supported in scripture on the purpose of sexual wrongdoing. I couldn’t really care less what the church says about it beyond the regard of scripture because it wouldn’t matter or rightfully weigh against the issue.
—End Quote—
The cc does not do scripture alone. That was a heresey condemned long ago.

Jay 29’s post, my emphasis

 

[Abira]

The marriage can certainly be discussed with the tribunal, and a case presented. The case would be investigated on its merits. The abuse alone, while very tragic, does not make the marriage null.

Thanks to answers from 1ke and Sixtus…

although the answers are kinda horrible, it doesn’t seem fair that someone could in theory, through no fault of their own be unable to re-marry and lose their family unit through a partners abuse or mistreatment of whatever kind.

S

 

[ronnok20]

The cc does not do scripture alone. That was a heresey condemned long ago.

This isn’t a case of scripture alone, it is a case of scripture (more specifically Paul) speaking directly to the approval of divorce in the case of sexual immorality. The RC completely dismisses the scriptural backing and trumps it with church doctrine. This is why it is vital to not have tradition overshadowing scripture. The bible says this as well.

 

[stbruno]

marriagepreparation.com/AnnulmentLagges.htm

Maybe this article will explain to you the Catholic form of annulment.

 

[1ke]

Thanks to answers from 1ke and Sixtus…

although the answers are kinda horrible, it doesn’t seem fair that someone could in theory, through no fault of their own be unable to re-marry and lose their family unit through a partners abuse or mistreatment of whatever kind.

S

It doesn’t seem fair that someone, through no fault of their own, would be nailed to a cross.

And yet…

Obedience to God is not always easy.

 

[Abira]

It doesn’t seem fair that someone, through no fault of their own, would be nailed to a cross.

And yet…

Obedience to God is not always easy.

fair point, i alway like reasons why we are asked to do certain things…and sometimes we aren’t given them… so it feels unfair.

S

 

[LittleDeb]

This isn’t a case of scripture alone, it is a case of scripture (more specifically Paul) speaking directly to the approval of divorce in the case of sexual immorality. The RC completely dismisses the scriptural backing and trumps it with church doctrine. This is why it is vital to not have tradition overshadowing scripture. The bible says this as well.

Okay, it’s your thread, and I am willing to discuss it. I believe that your personal interpretation of Scripture is in error in this case. I can debate this using Scripture alone, though when needed. The Church and a general reading of history has already shown that by relying on ones own personal interpretation there is too much room for error.

I know a whole lot of Protestants who believe Scripture does not endorse divorce, and even they use Scripture alone. Tradition does not trump Scripture, but neither does Scripture trump Tradition. If you would like to debate this using Scripture alone, I will sign up. As I said before, Scripture does not support divorce, but please go ahead and state your case.

 

[ronnok20]

Okay, it’s your thread, and I am willing to discuss it. I believe that your personal interpretation of Scripture is in error in this case. I can debate this using Scripture alone, though when needed. The Church and a general reading of history has already shown that by relying on ones own personal interpretation there is too much room for error.

I know a whole lot of Protestants who believe Scripture does not endorse divorce, and even they use Scripture alone. Tradition does not trump Scripture, but neither does Scripture trump Tradition. If you would like to debate this using Scripture alone, I will sign up. As I said before, Scripture does not support divorce, but please go ahead and state your case.

I will have to vehimately disagree with you here on all counts. Firsty, scripture does support divorce on the grounds of sexual wrongfulness as stated by Paul. Secondly, scripture does trump tradition and it is plainly proven in scripture itself. Thirdly, one interprets scripture by way of discernment of the holy spirit and it does not apply exclusively to your magisterium or pope. Scripture says to study the word so that one will know the truth. It says nothing of only a select few knowing and passing it on down.

 

[LittleDeb]

I will have to vehimately disagree with you here on all counts. Firsty, scripture does support divorce on the grounds of sexual wrongfulness as stated by Paul. Secondly, scripture does trump tradition and it is plainly proven in scripture itself. Thirdly, one interprets scripture by way of discernment of the holy spirit and it does not apply exclusively to your magisterium or pope. Scripture says to study the word so that one will know the truth. It says nothing of only a select few knowing and passing it on down.

Yes I do agree with you that divorce is allowed when a couple is too closely related. That is true. For them NOT to divorce would be an incestuous relationship.

Scripture comes from Tradition, both the OT and NT. You seem to be saying that Scripture is the be all end all. Scripture itself says it is “profitable” not that it is “sufficient.” By saying that a study of Scripture is automatically guided by the Holy Spirit, you discount your fellow Protestants who believe they are also guided by the Holy Spirit and have found that Scripture does not support divorce. They read for themselves and do not follow the magesterium or the pope. Who is the non-Christian to believe, you or them?

There is one Holy Spirit, therefore only one Truth.

 

[ronnok20]

Yes I do agree with you that divorce is allowed when a couple is too closely related. That is true. For them NOT to divorce would be an incestuous relationship.

Scripture comes from Tradition, both the OT and NT. You seem to be saying that Scripture is the be all end all. Scripture itself says it is “profitable” not that it is “sufficient.” By saying that a study of Scripture is automatically guided by the Holy Spirit, you discount your fellow Protestants who believe they are also guided by the Holy Spirit and have found that Scripture does not support divorce. They read for themselves and do not follow the magesterium or the pope. Who is the non-Christian to believe, you or them?

There is one Holy Spirit, therefore only one Truth.

My problem here is that you seem to think that the Holy Spirit only relates to your magisterium which is logically ridiculous except to Catholics who believe that they are the one and only exclusive church of Christ. To discount scripture is to say that it is not the true word of God. Do you trust that your traditions have remained unblemished and unshaken for 2,000 Years? Scripture has not changed in that amount of time for sure. My soul bet would be on scripture no question.

 

[maryjk]

Actually the first part of this statement is based on a mistaken understanding of Scripture. The line in Matthew this references is actually talking about attempting marriage when the couple is too closely related or have other relational impediments. **With deeper study of scripture you will see that two different words are used. It does not say that one can divorce in the case of adultery. It says divorce was permitted because the relationship was too close and so the couple was committing a sexual immorality more like incest. If you want to research it further the words are “mochia” and “pornia.” **(My spelling may be off. It’s late.) But the two words? They don’t mean the same thing. Understanding that will bring you to a deeper understanding of Scripture.

ronnok20:

My problem here is that you seem to think that the Holy Spirit only relates to your magisterium which is logically ridiculous except to Catholics who believe that they are the one and only exclusive church of Christ. To discount scripture is to say that it is not the true word of God. Do you trust that your traditions have remained unblemished and unshaken for 2,000 Years? Scripture has not changed in that amount of time for sure. My soul bet would be on scripture no question.

In other words, to find out the true meaning of the words in the bible, is to follow tradition. But to read the words in English is to follow the true word of God?

:ehh:

 

[LittleDeb]

My problem here is that you seem to think that the Holy Spirit only relates to your magisterium which is logically ridiculous except to Catholics who believe that they are the one and only exclusive church of Christ. To discount scripture is to say that it is not the true word of God. Do you trust that your traditions have remained unblemished and unshaken for 2,000 Years? Scripture has not changed in that amount of time for sure. My soul bet would be on scripture no question.

(emphasis by me)
I think you have a deep misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches and therefore what I, as a Catholic, believe.

I was pointing out that in fact that there are protestant beliefs guided by the Holy Spirit. I said that there are protestants who come to the same conclusion as the Catholic Church yet do not submit to Her authority. Are they wrong or are you? They read scripture the same way you do, based on their own interpretations. Yet they hold that the Holy Spirit, through Scripture alone, tells them that divorce is condemned.

“Your traditions” is just about as loaded an assertion you can make. “My tradition” of making a gingerbread house every Christmas has certainly not remained unblemished and unshaken. One year it fell in on itself because I made it too soft.

If Scripture hasn’t changed in 2000 years why do you read an Old Testament that is missing 7 books that Jesus Himself, read? Saying to me that I “discount Scripture” is quite the presumption. I offered a deeper understanding of Scripture in the first part of this thread for the very reason that I have studied it AND that I hold it equal to Tradition and Apostolic authority. Equal to those two big guns hardly qualifies as discounting Scripture.

 

[ronnok20]

(emphasis by me)
I think you have a deep misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches and therefore what I, as a Catholic, believe.

I was pointing out that in fact that there are protestant beliefs guided by the Holy Spirit. I said that there are protestants who come to the same conclusion as the Catholic Church yet do not submit to Her authority. Are they wrong or are you? They read scripture the same way you do, based on their own interpretations. Yet they hold that the Holy Spirit, through Scripture alone, tells them that divorce is condemned.

“Your traditions” is just about as loaded an assertion you can make. “My tradition” of making a gingerbread house every Christmas has certainly not remained unblemished and unshaken. One year it fell in on itself because I made it too soft.

If Scripture hasn’t changed in 2000 years why do you read an Old Testament that is missing 7 books that Jesus Himself, read? Saying to me that I “discount Scripture” is quite the presumption. I offered a deeper understanding of Scripture in the first part of this thread for the very reason that I have studied it AND that I hold it equal to Tradition and Apostolic authority. Equal to those two big guns hardly qualifies as discounting Scripture.

This is completely centered upon your belief in the authority of the RC which I do not believe in. You are speaking of the apocrypha as the 7 missing books. Those books were rightfully omitted from sacred scripture for the several chronological errors in which they contained. There are many books including hundreds of gospels that are not included in sacred scripture. It is not the RC who holds authority over the bible. The original canonical decisions regarding scripture were made in the 4th century which was way before the primacy of Rome.

 

[LittleDeb]

This is completely centered upon your belief in the authority of the RC which I do not believe in. You are speaking of the apocrypha as the 7 missing books. Those books were rightfully omitted from sacred scripture for the several chronological errors in which they contained. There are many books including hundreds of gospels that are not included in sacred scripture. It is not the RC who holds authority over the bible. The original canonical decisions regarding scripture were made in the 4th century which was way before the primacy of Rome.

You are correct on the date the canon was defined. And in the fourth century those books were included. It was not until 1000 years later that they were removed by the reformers. Those seven books are and have always been called the Deutero-canon books, meaning “secondary canon.” The apocrypha is a completely different set of books. The books of the secondary canon are the ones that Jesus’ sect of Judaism used. Scriptures which do not contain these books is the canon defined by the Jewish sect that denied Jesus as the Messiah.

Please present your argument from Scripture alone that divorce is allowed.

 

[Sixtus]

little deb posted:

It is not the RC who holds authority over the bible. The original canonical decisions regarding scripture were made in the 4th century which was way before the primacy of Rome.

---

Ahem! It was the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who compiled the Bible.

The Primacy has always been there. See St Clement’s letters and also St Linus and St Sixtus whose name I am so unworthy to use.

Sixtus I was pope from 114 to 124, All authorities agree that he reigned about ten years. He was a Roman by birth

He passed the following three ordinances: (1) that none but sacred ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels; (2) that bishops who have been summoned to the Holy See shall, upon their return, not be received by their diocese except on presenting Apostolic letters; (3) that after the Preface in the Mass the priest shall recite the Sanctus with the people.

Source: New Advent Catholic Encylopedia

 

[LittleDeb]

little deb posted:

You have a mistaken quote. I never said that. ronnok20 said that. Please use caution when attributing quotes.

I am trying to discover if ronnok20 believes that the canon was in fact correct in the 4th century.