Confused about annulment

[Seatuck]

It probably will not change what you have been told, however it might be wise to find out more about him before you marry.

Marriages occur in many forms sacramental marriages are blessed, registered, and recognized in the Church. Other forms of marriages are not registered in the church, some are not recognized. Sacramental marriages did not exist until about 600 years after Christ

I think you are missing something here. She didn’t find out her first husband was Catholic until last night. She isn’t planning to marry him , they are divorced. It seems they were invalidly married. She is currently in an invalid marriage with a person she knew to be Catholic who is attempting to make things right with God and the Church.
You are mistaken about Sacramental marriages. Christ raised marriage to a Sacrament while he was here with us on earth. Please provide a resource to the contrary.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

“Sacramental marriages did not exist until about 600 years after Christ”

Where do you get that from?

It was taught in a Catholic marriage class and seems reasonable. If you read catholic literature on the subject you will typically find two sets of reference 1) The council of Trent (1500’s) and 2) biblical references. The problem is the bible references precede the Church, and do not acknowledge “catholic form” or for that matter do not even describe Jesus or the apostles performing any such ceremony. Exactly when “catholic form”, and marriage ceremonies inside the church began is unclear. Most church writing indicate the acknowledgement of the marriage “sacrament of marriage” to extend to all the marriages of biblical time regardless of the marriage form. It is truly unfortunate that today we feel a need to call others INVALIDLY married. We should say the marriage is not considered a catholic sacramental marriage, or invalid as a catholic sacrament. Calling others marriage invalid to simply unwise, it implies we know the opinion of god in reference to their marriage vows and clearly we do not.

I think you are missing something here. She didn’t find out her first husband was Catholic until last night. She isn’t planning to marry him , they are divorced. It seems they were invalidly married. She is currently in an invalid marriage with a person she knew to be Catholic who is attempting to make things right with God and the Church.
You are mistaken about Sacramental marriages. Christ raised marriage to a Sacrament while he was here with us on earth. Please provide a resource to the contrary.

By your very own logic, if Christ raised marriage to a sacrament then the new marriages which occured as the old marriages would be sacraments,- not invalid?

 

[Phemie]

It is truly unfortunate that today we feel a need to call others INVALIDLY married. We should say the marriage is not considered a catholic sacramental marriage, or invalid as a catholic sacrament. Calling others marriage invalid to simply unwise, it implies we know the opinion of god in reference to their marriage vows and clearly we do not.

By your very own logic, if Christ raised marriage to a sacrament then the new marriages which occured as the old marriages would be sacraments,- not invalid?

You seem to be missing the fact that a marriage can be perfectly valid but not sacramental. The marriage of two Jews may well be valid but it can’t be sacramental because they are not baptized. Only two validly baptized Christian (trinitarian baptism) can contract a sacramental marriage. All sacramental marriages are valid not all valid marriages are sacramental, even those celebrated in the Catholic Church.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thank you but I am not sure I can follow you, for starters most catholic writings are clear that as a sacrament marriage must be as old as man. (both created by god). Second who, and how could a marriage be declared invalid prior to 600? (the Pope wrote of second marriages as invalid). Simply if your mentioned Jews married in 400BC who is to say if this is a sacramental marriage as written of by current catholic authors or declare the marriage as invalid from improper baptism?

---

From the perspective of Christian daily life, the most important of the canons of Trent was Tametsi (1563) dealing with marriage law. This decree restated the Catholic position that marriage was a sacrament and subject to ecclesiastical regulation, in opposition to the Protestant view that marriage was fundamentally a civil matter. Tametsi required parental consent, witnesses, formal recording of the marriage, and a blessing by a priest. This ended the older practice of secret marriage entered into by two persons without witnesses, a situation that caused a great deal of confusion for the ecclesiastical courts. Finally, Tametsi forbade secular rulers from interfering in any way with the freedom of their subjects to marry as they wished, thus stressing the right of the individual to enter a marriage without compulsion, a right protected by the requirement that the marriage ceremony be celebrated publicly and in the presence of witnesses.answers.com/topic/canon-law

Though we have to be careful about getting this thread off track

 

[Phemie]

Thank you but I am not sure I can follow you, for starters most catholic writings are clear that as a sacrament marriage must be as old as man. (both created by god). Second who, and how could a marriage be declared invalid prior to 600? (the Pope wrote of second marriages as invalid). Simply if your mentioned Jews married in 400BC who is to say if this is a sacramental marriage as written of by current catholic authors or declare the marriage as invalid from improper baptism?

---

From the perspective of Christian daily life, the most important of the canons of Trent was Tametsi (1563) dealing with marriage law. This decree restated the Catholic position that marriage was a sacrament and subject to ecclesiastical regulation, in opposition to the Protestant view that marriage was fundamentally a civil matter. Tametsi required parental consent, witnesses, formal recording of the marriage, and a blessing by a priest. This ended the older practice of secret marriage entered into by two persons without witnesses, a situation that caused a great deal of confusion for the ecclesiastical courts. Finally, Tametsi forbade secular rulers from interfering in any way with the freedom of their subjects to marry as they wished, thus stressing the right of the individual to enter a marriage without compulsion, a right protected by the requirement that the marriage ceremony be celebrated publicly and in the presence of witnesses.answers.com/topic/canon-law

Though we have to be careful about getting this thread off track

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, everyone. It’s not fair to the OP to go off on tangents. Take any side discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you.

 

[Seatuck]

It was taught in a Catholic marriage class and seems reasonable. If you read catholic literature on the subject you will typically find two sets of reference 1) The council of Trent (1500’s) and 2) biblical references. The problem is the bible references precede the Church, and do not acknowledge “catholic form” or for that matter do not even describe Jesus or the apostles performing any such ceremony. Exactly when “catholic form”, and marriage ceremonies inside the church began is unclear. Most church writing indicate the acknowledgement of the marriage “sacrament of marriage” to extend to all the marriages of biblical time regardless of the marriage form. It is truly unfortunate that today we feel a need to call others INVALIDLY married. We should say the marriage is not considered a catholic sacramental marriage, or invalid as a catholic sacrament. Calling others marriage invalid to simply unwise, it implies we know the opinion of god in reference to their marriage vows and clearly we do not.

By your very own logic, if Christ raised marriage to a sacrament then the new marriages which occured as the old marriages would be sacraments,- not invalid?

Are you saying that Christ didn’t raise marriage to be a Sacrament?

Baptism is required for a marriage to be Sacramental.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Christ the Lord raised marriage to a Sacrament.

**1601 **"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

 

[Seatuck]

One more quick question related to the same topic~since my exhusband is Catholic and was married before he married me (he divorced his first wife, they were not married in the Catholic church) what impact does that have? I am going to call our priest this evening and give him this information, since I didn’t know it when we started all of this. Thanks and sorry for asking so much. Michelle

Michelle, It’s always best to go to the Priest or the tribunal with questions. The annullment process should be fairly simple for you if your husband was baptized Catholic and did not seek marriage under the proper form with a dispensation or request disparity of cult or take marriage preparation classes. Providing the documents will most likely be all that is needed. His previously attempted marriage shouldn’t have an impact on your attempted marriage.
Praying it goes smoothly.

 

[jblake]

“Sacramental marriages did not exist until about 600 years after Christ”

I’m guessing that several things are being conflated there.

• Historically, marriage has been an economic union, celebrated as a social event. There is first century evidence that suggests that couples requested a religious blessing, during part of the social festivities that constituted their marriage celebration;
• From around the Tenth Century, the Catholic church has had policies and procedures on marriage;
• The Council of Trent formalized the basis of most of the current doctrine and practices of marriage, for the Catholic church;

Depending upon how “Sacramental marriage” is defined, any of those dates can be used as the date of first occurrence.

xan

jonathon

 

[JulianN]

I thought he wasn’t baptized~I didn’t find out he was Catholic until last night!! I’m even more confused then before. What does lack of form mean? There is no way he’s going to get an annulment from his first wife he thinks that the annulment process is all about money. So if my marriage to him isn’t valid does that mean that the Church doesn’t recognize it?

Even if you needed a full investigation for a declaration of nullity (annulment), it really isn’t ever all about money. The church does not charge enough for the process to even cover expenses.

If your ex-husband was baptized Catholic, and did not get permission to marry in another church, then your marriage was not valid in the eyes of the church. This type of annulment is called a “lack of form” and simply means that your ex-husband did not follow the rules of the church into which he was baptized.

It usually takes about two weeks to get this processed, costs little (around $25 in our diocese) or nothing, and requires very little paperwork. You will need a copy of your ex’s baptismal certificate that no older than 6 months – it should be requested from the parish where he was baptized. You’ll also need copies of the marriage license and divorce decree.

Make sure to let the priest or your procurator advocate know the circumstances – and God bless!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

It was taught in a Catholic marriage class and seems reasonable. If you read catholic literature on the subject you will typically find two sets of reference 1) The council of Trent (1500’s) and 2) biblical references. The problem is the bible references precede the Church, and do not acknowledge “catholic form” or for that matter do not even describe Jesus or the apostles performing any such ceremony. Exactly when “catholic form”, and marriage ceremonies inside the church began is unclear. Most church writing indicate the acknowledgement of the marriage “sacrament of marriage” to extend to all the marriages of biblical time regardless of the marriage form. It is truly unfortunate that today we feel a need to call others INVALIDLY married. We should say the marriage is not considered a catholic sacramental marriage, or invalid as a catholic sacrament. Calling others marriage invalid to simply unwise, it implies we know the opinion of god in reference to their marriage vows and clearly we do not.

By your very own logic, if Christ raised marriage to a sacrament then the new marriages which occured as the old marriages would be sacraments,- not invalid?

That is what is confusing about the statement from the Marriage class essentially that Sacramental Marriages didn’t exist before the 600’s! That clearly conflicts with the teaching of the Church that Christ raised Marriage between (Baptized) Christians to the level of a Sacrament in the Gospel of Matthew. It would be more correct to say that Sacramental Marriage slowly developed over time. There is also the mention of Marriage and the Bishops permission or blessing in the writings of Ignatius at the end of the first century, beginning of the second.