Protestant marriages, Catholic marriages?

[Hisalone]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Hisalone you just stated you got married for the wrong reasons. Is that not what we are talking about here. If you got married for the right reasons your heart would have been in as your spouses and you would still be married.

In a Catholic Marriage there should never be family pressures, or wrong reasons. If you were pressured that in itself would be a cause for an annullment for goodness sakes.

I was pressured that it be a Catholic wedding not for a wedding. My point is that an annulment was fairly easy to get.

 

[Publisher]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Actually you don’t. You think you do but you do not understand annullment at all. You still do not get the POINT. Which is there was never a marriage as in the way God wanted at all.

If two People got married in the eyes of God and were really in love and had all intentions to make the marriage work its a true marriage and had the seal of God on it.

But when one party never really had those intentions from the Get go it is not a marriage at all. IT started out as nothing but a Lie not a marriage.

BUt in order to prove this can be very difficult. You have no idea what people really have to go through. I have had many tell me how it was and it was pure hell on them and their family. BUt many also told me it was worth it also because it showed them also how they could and should have been better people.

A divorce is simply I don’t want to be married to you anymore and I want out. Then you turn around and go back to a church and do it again. Over and over. There is a big difference between the CC and other Church’s. Not all Protestant Church’s mind, but many.

And please do not say its easy. Look at Teddy Kennedy. He didn’t see it easy at all now did he. The CHurch said NO.

Don’t get me wrong people lie to Father, just to get what they want. But to lie in order to get an annullment what would be the gain. I mean God knows you lied. Do you really think he is going to consider that marriage valid. Please. I mean who cares what the world thinks. Its God who you gotta worry about. The world could actually care less. Just look around at divorce. No one cares.

I understand that YOU believe a marriage never happened. I understand that YOU believe God never sanctioned the marriage. That’s ok…I don’t have to believe what you believe…I don’t have to “understand” all the intracacies of Catholic law as I’m not Catholic.

The point is that Catholics seem to think divorce is OK with Protestants…it’s not. Many of the divorced persons I know state the same things you did…they were too young…they didn’t realize what the commitment of marriage meant when they pledged their lives to one another…I know a man who’s wife “came out” as a lesbian after twenty years of marriage and two children…she believed marriage would “cure” her…all it did was break two hearts.

Catholics from what I understand do not believe they have the capacity to make the decision for themselves if the marriage was “valid” or not and so turn to their church for the answer…those Protestants I know who use the same reasons for “divorce” that Catholics use for “annullments” believe they do have the capacity to make that decision as they are older adults…again…for most Protestants, “Catholic annullment” is the “Protestant” version of “divorce”.

 

[Godfollower]

I understand the distinctions you are seeking to make. I may not agree that there is a distinction between what a Protestant calls a “divorce” and a Catholic calls an “annullment”…but I understand YOU do. I think the whole “Protestants allow divorce while Catholics don’t” has a lot to do with our understanding of the terms used. From a Protestant view “annulment” is just a “nice word” for “divorce” among Catholics…it is a word used to make a distinction between the “letter” of the law and the “spirit” of the law, so to speak.

“If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck” it may as well be a duck for all intents and purposes. Whether one declares their marriage is over through “divorce” or one declares their “marriage” is over because it “really never happened” even though they lived as man and wife for 30 years and raised three children together…is “hair splitting” to most Protestants.

I understand why “annullment” is OK with Catholics and why “divorce” is not…I don’t accept the distinctions necessarily as readily as Catholics do. Two people who pledged themselves in marriage to one another…are married…whether they understood all the ins and outs to the “nth” degree at the time does not necessarily make the marriage “null and void”…to many of us it is a distinction of “legalism”…that’s why it’s difficult to discuss marriage and divorce when one doesn’t draw such a fine distinction between “divorce” and “annullment”. It’s not an indictment on either tradition…they are just different.

For what it’s worth, the Catholic Church isn’t the only institution that has annulments. Civil law has them, too. For example, Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 107 deals with marital dissolution, annulment, and separation. Section 107.005 concerns annulment of a void marriage and a declaration of validity, while section 107.015 sets out the grounds for annulment or dissolution of marriage.

The Catholic Church doesn’t just wink and nod and say “Well, we can’t end the marriage with a divorce, so we’ll just pretend it was void from the beginning instead.” There really is a rational distinction between a decree of nullity and a divorce.

Just for example, in most states, if a woman finds out her husband is cheating on her and gets a divorce, she’ll get alimony; while if, instead, she finds out on the honeymoon that he’s really gay and she gets an annulment, she won’t get alimony. A divorce means a valid marriage ended (and therefore alimony helps support the poorer spouse), while an annulment means no valid marriage ever occurred (and therefore there’s no reason for alimony).

That’s because most state legislatures agree that the distinction between a real marriage that ended (a/k/a a divorce) and an apparent marriage that never began (a/k/a an annulment) is very real.

And so does the Catholic Church.

 

[rinnie]

I was pressured that it be a Catholic wedding not for a wedding. My point is that an annulment was fairly easy to get.

hisalone from reading your responses for the last year I can say I can understand perfectly how it would be easy for you to get. Trust me. If your understanding of marriage is how your understanding is on the Catholic faith Father indeed made the right choice.

 

[Publisher]

For what it’s worth, the Catholic Church isn’t the only institution that has annulments. Civil law has them, too. For example, Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 107 deals with marital dissolution, annulment, and separation. Section 107.005 concerns annulment of a void marriage and a declaration of validity, while section 107.015 sets out the grounds for annulment or dissolution of marriage.

The Catholic Church doesn’t just wink and nod and say “Well, we can’t end the marriage with a divorce, so we’ll just pretend it was void from the beginning instead.” There really is a rational distinction between a decree of nullity and a divorce.

Just for example, in most states, if a woman finds out her husband is cheating on her and gets a divorce, she’ll get alimony; while if, instead, she finds out on the honeymoon that he’s really gay and she gets an annulment, she won’t get alimony. A divorce means a valid marriage ended (and therefore alimony helps support the poorer spouse), while an annulment means no valid marriage ever occurred (and therefore there’s no reason for alimony).

That’s because most state legislatures agree that the distinction between a real marriage that ended (a/k/a a divorce) and an apparent marriage that never began (a/k/a an annulment) is very real.

And so does the Catholic Church.

I have a Mennonite acquaintence who petitioned the state court for an “annullment” as her husband revealed he was gay some 10 years into the marriage. She could not get married again as a Mennonite in good standing with her church unless she got the marriage annulled…divorce is not allowed for any reason among Mennonite Brethren…at least it wasn’t 25 years ago…marriage is indisoluble…the state granted the annullment and 1 year later she was “remarried” in the church. I understand the distinctions you seek to make…I just don’t believe, from my own experience with those Catholics who’ve undergone the annullment process and want to be remarried that the distinction is always as clear cut as many would have us believe.

Again, for most Protestants who accept there are circumstances where “divorce” is allowed due to one of the parties entering into the union with “blinders on” or some impediment of their sexual orientation, they do not see the fine distinction of “Protestant divorce” and “Catholic annullment.” If a couple wishes to split up, there will always be “reasons” to do so…and in many cases the respective religious body will accept those reasons and allow a “remarriage”…or in the Catholic view…a new “first marriage.”

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I understand that YOU believe a marriage never happened. I understand that YOU believe God never sanctioned the marriage. That’s ok…I don’t have to believe what you believe…I don’t have to “understand” all the intracacies of Catholic law as I’m not Catholic.

[SIGN]The point is that Catholics seem to think divorce is OK with Protestants…it’s not[/SIGN]. Many of the divorced persons I know state the same things you did…they were too young…they didn’t realize what the commitment of marriage meant when they pledged their lives to one another…I know a man who’s wife “came out” as a lesbian after twenty years of marriage and two children…she believed marriage would “cure” her…all it did was break two hearts.

Catholics from what I understand do not believe they have the capacity to make the decision for themselves if the marriage was “valid” or not and so turn to their church for the answer…those Protestants I know who use the same reasons for “divorce” that Catholics use for “annullments” believe they do have the capacity to make that decision as they are older adults…again…for most Protestants, “Catholic annullment” is the “Protestant” version of “divorce”.

Okay I will give you that. But why then can people get married and divorced married and divorced time and time again in a Protestant Church. I know many many who have done this over and over.

While I agree an annullment could give you grounds to remarry in the Church annullment’s is not common at all. If you got one you are very lucky. But try getting many. But it is not the same with the protestatant Church do you not agree?

 

[Jean_1958]

Hi Hisalone,

I was pressured that it be a Catholic wedding not for a wedding. My point is that an annulment was fairly easy to get.

If you were pressured into something that you did not willing want, then the marriage was indeed invaild and it was correct for the annulment to be granted.

What do you consider easy to get vise hard to get?

Jean

 

[rinnie]

I have a Mennonite acquaintence who petitioned the state court for an “annullment” as her husband revealed he was gay some 10 years into the marriage. She could not get married again as a Mennonite in good standing with her church unless she got the marriage annulled…divorce is not allowed for any reason among Mennonite Brethren…at least it wasn’t 25 years ago…marriage is indisoluble…the state granted the annullment and 1 year later she was “remarried” in the church. I understand the distinctions you seek to make…I just don’t believe, from my own experience with those Catholics who’ve undergone the annullment process and want to be remarried that the distinction is always as clear cut as many would have us believe.

Again, for most Protestants who accept there are circumstances where “divorce” is allowed due to one of the parties entering into the union with “blinders on” or some impediment of their sexual orientation, they do not see the fine distinction of “Protestant divorce” and “Catholic annullment.” If a couple wishes to split up, there will always be “reasons” to do so…and in many cases the respective religious body will accept those reasons and allow a “remarriage”…or in the Catholic view…a new “first marriage.”

Again there is no such thing a new first marriage. According to the Church there was never a marriage at all. It has been proven to the CHurch that this was not a marriage at all.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

When I married it was with a Protestants minister and a Catholic priest.
Unfortunately I caved in to family preasures. After seven years, we got a divorce. [SIGN]I got married for wrong reasons and before I came to Christ.[/SIGN]When the divorce was finalized I got an annulement. The annulement was no more difficult than the divorce.

Again right there you just said you got married for the wrong reason’s. And Father agreed with you thats why it was easy. You cannot blame the CC because you got married for the wrong reason for goodness sakes. And you cannot blame the Priest. You are the one who stood up in front of God and made the promise not Father. He can’t read your mind.

And the divorce should have been hard, Not many people have I ever heard say this Protestant or Catholic. A divorce for many people is like a death. A loss of what could have been. Or maybe even should have been, but even if it didn’t work out it still is hard and horrible on many people. divorce should not be easy. It should be alot of work so that when they do take this commitment again if they do they realize it is just not a promise to eachother and God but to everyone. Many innocent people get hurt.

So hisalone not many people feel like you do thank goodness.

 

[Godfollower]

I have a Mennonite acquaintence who petitioned the state court for an “annullment” as her husband revealed he was gay some 10 years into the marriage. She could not get married again as a Mennonite in good standing with her church unless she got the marriage annulled…divorce is not allowed for any reason among Mennonite Brethren…at least it wasn’t 25 years ago…marriage is indisoluble…the state granted the annullment and 1 year later she was “remarried” in the church. I understand the distinctions you seek to make…I just don’t believe, from my own experience with those Catholics who’ve undergone the annullment process and want to be remarried that the distinction is always as clear cut as many would have us believe.

Again, for most Protestants who accept there are circumstances where “divorce” is allowed due to one of the parties entering into the union with “blinders on” or some impediment of their sexual orientation, they do not see the fine distinction of “Protestant divorce” and “Catholic annullment.” If a couple wishes to split up, there will always be “reasons” to do so…and in many cases the respective religious body will accept those reasons and allow a “remarriage”…or in the Catholic view…a new “first marriage.”

Well, no, you’re right. There are plenty of Catholics out there who think of annulments as “Catholic divorces” due to their own misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there are even a lot of Catholics out there who know full well the difference between an annulment and a divorce but then say whatever they need to – that is, they lie – to persuade the tribunal that a decree of nullity should issue, so that they can get what is really a divorce. And, in both cases, they give a negative example of marriage and annulment to others.

On the other hand, there are so many Catholics in this day and age who have no clue what marriage is about, that I believe that most decrees of nullity are in fact correct, because there are a whole lot of Catholic marriages out there in which one or the other spouse doesn’t believe in life-long fidelity.

Where I have a bone to pick with the Church is that I don’t believe it issues enough prohibitions. There are plenty of people out there who are entitled to decrees of nullity because, at the time they married, they were incapable of forming a lifelong bond. I’m not so sure that all of them are now able to do so.

 

[Publisher]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Okay I will give you that. But why then can people get married and divorced married and divorced** time and time again **in a Protestant Church. I know many many who have done this over and over.

While I agree an annullment could give you grounds to remarry in the Church annullment’s is not common at all. If you got one you are very lucky. But try getting many. But it is not the same with the protestatant Church do you not agree?

I am sure there are some Protestant churches that allow their members who have undergone divorce more than once to be remarried again…I am not acquainted with which religious bodies allow this…your point seems to suggest that while divorce and remarriage is viewed as an “necessary evil” among some Protestants…it is a frequent occurance and happens “time and time again”…I would suggest that while it may occur…it is looked upon with the same disdain as Catholics look upon it…but since many Protestants bodies allow it’s members to make their own choices and life determinations in their marriages, they place them in God’s hands. There may be some disiplinary action taken and many of these members will not be allowed to serve on the board of deacons or as teachers or ministers, it is not necessarily with the rigor that Catholicism takes…but to characterize it as a “time and time again” occurance is to show the same “lack of understanding” I have been told I have of the situation.

 

[Publisher]

Again there is no such thing a new first marriage. According to the Church there was never a marriage at all. It has been proven to the CHurch that this was not a marriage at all.

I understand…but when the couple was first “fake married” they believed they were getting “married”…even though according to Catholic belief they really were never married…but the couple believed they were getting married…so the “new first marriage” since the “fake first marriage” never occured.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I understand…but when the couple was [SIGN]first “fake married[/SIGN]” they believed they were getting “married”…even though according to Catholic belief they really were never married…but the couple believed they were getting married…so the “new first marriage” since the “fake first marriage” never occured.

I am not sure if you find this funny or what. But there is nothing fake about a Catholic Marriage in the eyes of Jesus Christ. Marriage in the RCC is a Sacrament, not a fake anything. If in the eyes of the Church this was not a Sacrament in the way God intended it to be it is not valid. Marriage is a Sacrament a outward sign instituted by Christ to give Grace. If this were a true marriage it would indeed be considered a sacrament and be given that special Grace by God and would still exist today as the day the vow was taken.

God does not give out Fake Sacraments. I am sorry!

 

[Publisher]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I am not sure if you find this funny or what. But there is nothing fake about a Catholic Marriage in the eyes of Jesus Christ. Marriage in the RCC is a Sacrament, not a fake anything. If in the eyes of the Church this was not a Sacrament in the way God intended it to be it is not valid. Marriage is a Sacrament a outward sign instituted by Christ to give Grace. If this were a true marriage it would indeed be considered a sacrament and be given that special Grace by God and would still exist today as the day the vow was taken.

God does not give out Fake Sacraments. I am sorry!

Rinnie…do not take offense where none was intended…I do not consider divorce a laughing matter…but it was you who chose to make the distinction of "there never was a “first marriage” since it never occured…not I.

 

[Jean_1958]

Hi,

For anyone on this thread who truly wants a better understanding of what the RCC teaches in regards to annulments, please read this book:

ANNULMENT: The Wedding That Was, How the Church Can Declare a Marriage Null

The author is Michael Smith Foster and the ISBN is 0-80913844-1

Jean

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Rinnie…do not take offense where none was intended…I do not consider divorce a laughing matter…[SIGN]but it was you who chose to make the distinction of "there never was a “first marriage” since it never occured…not I./[/SIGN]QUOTE]

No I never said that. I said and I will repeat that in the eyes of the Church which also means in the eyes of God the Marriage did not exist. I never said the wedding never occurred. There is a big difference.

If both party’s went into this marriage and asked for Gods grace and received it, and continued to pray and go to God for assistance the Marriage would still be valid. But in order for an annullment to happen one or both party’s never had this full intent in mind.

Again marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. If the CHurch feels this Sacrament was indeed valid in the eyes of God no annullment would be granted. In order for an annullment to be granted again the Church would have to be shown that no marriage indeed existed. You must understand what the word marriage means in the Catholic Church. It is just not just a wedding. If those vows were not honored then the marriage did not exist.

You cannot be held to a vow by the CC if you really do not understand or did not understand what that vow consisted of. If you can prove that you did not understand what you were commiting to you can be given a paper that states that. And the Church will not hold you liable to that marriage.

So how could there possibly be a first marriage if the person did not even understand what marriage is? Marriage is a vow to GOd and that other person. If you say that you really did not understand that vow how can it exist? How can a Priest or God or anyone hold you to something you really did not understand. So again the marriage was non-existant in the eyes of God. It therefore was not a first marriage. It was no marriage. Again it was not valid. So if something was never valid it cannot be first. It is considered void.

 

[rinnie]

Hi,

For anyone on this thread who truly wants a better understanding of what the RCC teaches in regards to annulments, please read this book:

ANNULMENT: The Wedding That Was, How the Church Can Declare a Marriage Null

The author is Michael Smith Foster and the ISBN is 0-80913844-1

Jean

Thank-you Jean. Maybe somehow this book can show how in order to be divorced a couple has to be married in the first place. And in the eyes of the Church being married is a vow taken between two People who intend with the help of Gods Grace to honor it.

And for a marriage to be valid they agree to honor that promise to the best of their ablility. To love eachother and follow the example of Gods love the way it is written. If a couple know this and intend to do this, and understand this completely no one can separate this couple. And if the church see’s this they would never give an annullment. In the eyes of the Church divorce or no divorce what God has joined together no one will take apart.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Most Protestants do not accept the “distinction” that Catholics make regarding “divorce” and “annulment”.

Among Catholics if a person has been “married” for thirty years and have produced 8 children and decide they wish to split up, they can petition the church to review their marriage and issue an “annulment” stating that a “real marriage” never occured…which to most Protestants seems very “suspect”. “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…”

The differences betweeen Protestant “divorce” and Catholic “annulment” is lost on most of us…especially with marriages that have lasted for decades and produced children then by formal decree by the Catholic church “annulled” tends to muddy the whole idea of what true marriage really entails.

As a Cathloic I have a problem with annulments a very good friend was married to a very good cathloic girl and after 15 years he got a annulment and he has 3 kids. He just got tire of her,I was best man at the wedding he just paid the fee and walk away,he had been putting money away for 5 years.so it was no big deal

 

[Janet1983]

As a Cathloic I have a problem with annulments a very good friend was married to a very good cathloic girl and after 15 years he got a annulment and he has 3 kids. He just got tire of her,I was best man at the wedding he just paid the fee and walk away,he had been putting money away for 5 years.so it was no big deal

Then in the end a Catholic annulment and a Protestant divorce are one and the same thing, just that the RCC uses a loophole by just calling it invalid from the start…

 

[rinnie]

As a Cathloic I have a problem with annulments a very good friend was married to a very good cathloic girl and after 15 years he got a annulment and he has 3 kids. He just got tire of her,I was best man at the wedding he just paid the fee and walk away,he had been putting money away for 5 years.so it was no big deal

Hi Bill, While I can understand you being upset about your friend, and we all hate to see any marriage fail you have to remember one thing. The RCC does not give annullments just because a person is tired of the other. Your friend had to have shown grounds for this.

THere is more to annul. then money. I know that on the outside we see what People want us to see. But you didn;t live with this women either. And while you can guess you do not know a heart, And I am sure that your friend showed the Priest and had many others tell the Priest things you don’t know about or understand.

Remember Bill there are 3 sides to every story. Her side, his side, and the Truth,