Protestant marriages, Catholic marriages?

[4Squarebaby]

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…

It reminds me of the Philippines. Along with Malta to only place on earth where there are no divorces. Unless you married under sharia law that is. Filipino Muslims have proven that they will fight to keep certain civil rights.

In the Philippines there are some annulments because the couple was underaged, gay or already married but most of the 7000 per year annulments are granted for what looks like an unreconcilible difference divorce case. Only the system is set up that a doctor gives psycho babble and then the court basically makes a decision saying that one party was to retarded to get married in the first place.

At which point the government investigates to see if the couple were in cohoots to break up so did not fight the doctor’s and inevitable court decision. Which of course what has happened unless papa just abandoned the family and child care completely.

 

[Publisher]

[SIGN][/SIGN]
Publisher;5784035:

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,

You are right…I should have used the word “marriage” instead of “wedding” since we are speaking of fine distinctions between words…one can get a license, buy rings, have a wedding and go through the motions and recite the vows and have the priest pronounce the couple “man and wife” and and have children and not be married according to the Catholic church. I do get that…if they split up they can go through another formal process and have that “marriage” declared “null” and then move on to the next wedding which may or may not produce a “marriage.”

I understand that the second wedding typically isn’t “annulled” but I would ask…is it impossible to have ones second wedding decalred “null” of marriage?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Rinnie,

You are right…I should have used the word “marriage” instead of “wedding” since we are speaking of fine distinctions between words…one can get a license, buy rings, have a wedding and go through the motions and recite the vows and have the priest pronounce the couple “man and wife” and and have children and not be married according to the Catholic church. I do get that…if they split up they can go through another formal process and have that “marriage” declared “null” and then move on to the next wedding which may or may not produce a “marriage.”

I understand that the second wedding typically isn’t “annulled” but I would ask…is it impossible to have ones second wedding decalred “null” of marriage?

No I guess nothing is impossible for God but its rare. The whole idea of the annul. process is that the other party did not understand or was not in the right mental frame of mind at the time.

As we all know mental illness or disorders are often hidden from many. Even Doctors at times. But also what the main difference of an annullment and divorce is this, Help. If someone does marry and does not understand or is forced etc and is given an ann. the Church’s main goal is to help them get it right. So when they do stand in front of God and the other they are in it with Gods grace and they know that they must give up alot also. The Church wants them to see that it is a commitment to eachother and God the way God wanted it to be.

A divorce is heres your paper better luck next time. How can you see your fault in a divorce. It may take 3 or 4 marriages to see it. In the Church they show you that you also are to blame to a point. They either show you what you missed or refused to see in the beginning or what you must be willing to accept. Its a second chance for many but not all.

You can also receive a annullment and not be able to remarry also. There are many kinds according to your situation. Its very detailed and complex. Especially for the true Catholics who want to live Gods plan.

To the ones who could care less its easy, money or whatever they want to make it. BUt for the true Catholics its a very eye opening experience and not a fun process at all. Its hard and they are ashamed, but they are also held for their share of the blame also.

Like I said there are many different kinds. But I have had someone tell me on this site if it was not for the annul. and the hell it was on her she could never have had the marriage she has today. She would have repeated the mistake over and over again. Sometimes people don’t realize they cannot commit. They do not realize what they must gve up. ITs not alway 50 50 it sometimes 90 10. Its hard work, but with the grace of God and Church and communion and all the other graces its possible.

 

[rinnie]

Also publisher you have no idea how many marriages the Church saved. Many went for an annullment and were refused and went to classes and retreats and had their marriage saved. The Church does all it can to try to save a marriage also.

Its when that is impossible that it is annulled. It has to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt this should never have been and never could or will be. It never was a marriage in the true word according to Gods plan from the beginnning. Thats the big difference.

 

[happilycatholic]

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.

Respectfully Publisher, the reason you don’t “accept” the differences is because you think of marriage as a fulfillment of human will. We look at marriage as a fulfillment of God’s Will.

So you see no need to differentiate between the validity of marriage in the eyes of God and the civil end of a marriage in the eyes of society.

Mark 10:9

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

When you marry you do not simply make a promise to your intended spouse, you make a promise to God.

We cannot break covenants with the Holy Spirit. It takes the Church to discern whether that covenant properly was instituted.

It does not require your acceptance.

It is what it is.

Blessings,

HC

 

[Publisher]

Also publisher you have no idea how many marriages the Church saved. Many went for an annullment and were refused and went to classes and retreats and had their marriage saved. The Church does all it can to try to save a marriage also.

Its when that is impossible that it is annulled. It has to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt this should never have been and never could or will be. It never was a marriage in the true word according to Gods plan from the beginnning. Thats the big difference.

Rinnie,

My point to all of this is not that I wish to cast any doubt upon the Catholic churches commitment to marriage…it’s only that I hope in this dialog the Catholic characterization that some how Protestants do not have the same commitment to marriage is dispelled.

Catholics on this board, from what I have read, and my experience in the matters is not exhaustive by the way, tend to find “fault” with Protestants whenever they can, and minimize the same problems Catholics exhibit…IMO…and again…my experience is not exhaustive on the subject.

There are marriage encounters within many if not most Protestant churches…and those Protestants who have marriage problems there are avenues for those problems to be addressed…divorce/annullment is not a Protestant problem…it is a human problem not restricted to any one particular faith tradition.

That the Catholic church seeks to address the issue and give an avenue for a successful marriage by declaring a marriage null, is admirable…while Protestants may often use the word “divorce” when if the process of the Catholic church was used would find the marriage “null” is more of a semantic problem and not a divorce problem.

IMO, some of the “annimosity” toward Protestants has to do with the Catholic view of Henry VIII and the English departure from Rome. Henry saw other monarchs and noblemen getting annullments from Rome…he wanted one but since Catherine was related to the King of Spain, a great Catholic supporter of Rome, he was slighted…his not being provided an annullment by Rome was more political than religious and in this Protestants view an abuse Henry saw in the church and took matters into his own hands and removed himself and the English church from the influence of the Roman church and took matters into his own hands…right or wrong is a matter of debate now.

Protestants do not believe in “divorce” any more than Catholics do…in a very real world situation for all intents and purposes “Catholic annullments” really are the answer to “Protestant divorces”…the effect is the same…there are “second weddings” and sadly “third weddings” and even “fourth weddings” in Protestant circles.

My aunt was “married” three times and “divorced” three times before she became Catholic…her fourth “wedding” was conducted in a simple ceremony at a small Catholic church in Santa Clara, California to a Catholic man…those of us in our respective Protestant communities simply scratched our heads and smile now when we hear that Catholics do not believe in “divorce”…I do understand how Catholics get around the whole “divorce” issue much clearer now…this is not an indictment against the Catholic church…it is a simple fact of our society and our humanity.

 

[Publisher]

Respectfully Publisher, the reason you don’t “accept” the differences is because you think of marriage as a fulfillment of human will. We look at marriage as a fulfillment of God’s Will.

So you see no need to differentiate between the validity of marriage in the eyes of God and the civil end of a marriage in the eyes of society.

Mark 10:9

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

When you marry you do not simply make a promise to your intended spouse, you make a promise to God.

We cannot break covenants with the Holy Spirit. It takes the Church to discern whether that covenant properly was instituted.

It does not require your acceptance.

It is what it is.

Blessings,

HC

No you are mistaken…marriage is the union of two people by God in covenant relationship with each other and with God. I have a very Quaker belief of marriage.

 

[happilycatholic]

No you are mistaken…marriage is the union of two people by God in covenant relationship with each other and with God. I have a very Quaker belief of marriage.

This is what I stated:

*"When you marry you do not simply make a promise to your intended spouse, you make a promise to God.

We cannot break covenants with the Holy Spirit. It takes the Church to discern whether that covenant properly was instituted."*

How does that differ from what you just stated??? If you enter into a covenant with God (and whomever) how can a man sever that? No man can.

The Church must discern whether God was involved in the covenant. Obviously, if there was no love in the marriage from the day of consent, God was not present in their vows. They did not allow God into their covenant. So no marriage occurred and no promise to God was made.

Take the marriage of two atheists who were never baptized. Now there’s a fine example of a nullable marriage.

Sad, but nevertheless null.

Blessings,

HC

 

[Publisher]

"Respectfully Publisher, the reason you don’t “accept” the differences is because you think of marriage as a fulfillment of human will. We look at marriage as a fulfillment of God’s Will."

This was the statement I was addressiing…I was not disputing your belief of marriage. You stated the “reason” is because I think something about marriage I do not…I know some Catholics have the gift of seeing into others hearts…but I would dispute you see into mine.

 

[happilycatholic]

"Respectfully Publisher, the reason you don’t “accept” the differences is because you think of marriage as a fulfillment of human will. We look at marriage as a fulfillment of God’s Will."

This was the statement I was addressiing…I was not disputing your belief of marriage. You stated the “reason” is because I think something about marriage I do not…I know some Catholics have the gift of seeing into others hearts…but I would dispute you see into mine.

Forgive me. I assumed since you were sort of stuck on the similarities between a catholic Decree of Nullity and a civil divorce, you didn’t recognize the differences between the two.

I was not going on what is in your heart, but what is on the thread. I kinda stick to that because I’m not a mind reader and I don’t claim to know people by the things they write here. People make mistakes and like me, some fall short of satisfactorily getting their thoughts across in words.

Again, forgive me. I should have stated that differently as I have no intention of characterizing you morally or spiritually.



Blessings,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

Publisher:

This quote from one of your posts is an example of my last comment:

"That the Catholic church seeks to address the issue and give an avenue for a successful marriage by declaring a marriage null, is admirable…while Protestants may often use the word “divorce” when if the process of the Catholic church was used would find the marriage “null” is more of a semantic problem and not a divorce problem. "

You obviously have the mistaken opinion that divorce and annulment are the same thing. They are not. A divorce looks at what ended the marriage. An annulment looks at the formation of the marriage at the time of consent.

In order to even divorce someone don’t you have to know if you were married in the eyes of God? Or do you believe contrary to Scripture, that man can indeed put asunder a marriage that is a valid covenant with God?

That is the bottom line here. You first have to view marriage as a three-party covenant. Then in order to have said covenant it must have certain elements. If those elements are present, viola! Covenant is formed. If not, no covenant.

It’s pretty simple.

Your most interesting question was whether the covenant can come along later. I believe that by the definition of a covenant, it can. Because vows are usually ceremonial in nature. The actual promise is written on our hearts as all covenants with the Holy Spirit are. So I believe the covenant can evolve over time and an invalid marriage can become valid.

A sacramental marriage can become sacramental through Baptism and marriage in the Church so, it would make sense that an invalid marriage could become valid.

Blessings,

HC

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Rinnie,

My point to all of this is not that I wish to cast any doubt upon the Catholic churches commitment to marriage…it’s only that I hope in this dialog the Catholic characterization that some how Protestants do not have the same commitment to marriage is dispelled.

Catholics on this board, from what I have read, and my experience in the matters is not exhaustive by the way, tend to find “fault” with Protestants whenever they can, and minimize the same problems Catholics exhibit…IMO…and again…my experience is not exhaustive on the subject.

There are marriage encounters within many if not most Protestant churches…and those Protestants who have marriage problems there are avenues for those problems to be addressed…divorce/annullment is not a Protestant problem…it is a human problem not restricted to any one particular faith tradition.

That the Catholic church seeks to address the issue and give an avenue for a successful marriage by declaring a marriage null, is admirable…while Protestants may often use the word “divorce” when if the process of the Catholic church was used would find the marriage “null” is more of a semantic problem and not a divorce problem.

IMO, some of the “annimosity” toward Protestants has to do with the Catholic view of Henry VIII and the English departure from Rome. Henry saw other monarchs and noblemen getting annullments from Rome…he wanted one but since Catherine was related to the King of Spain, a great Catholic supporter of Rome, he was slighted…his not being provided an annullment by Rome was more political than religious and in this Protestants view an abuse Henry saw in the church and took matters into his own hands and removed himself and the English church from the influence of the Roman church and took matters into his own hands…right or wrong is a matter of debate now.

Protestants do not believe in “divorce” any more than Catholics do…in a very real world situation for all intents and purposes “Catholic annullments” really are the answer to “Protestant divorces”…the effect is the same…there are “second weddings” and sadly “third weddings” and even “fourth weddings” in Protestant circles.

[SIGN]My aunt was “married” three times and “divorced” three times before she became C[/SIGN]atholic…her fourth “wedding” was conducted in a simple ceremony at a small Catholic church in Santa Clara, California to a Catholic man…those of us in our respective Protestant communities simply scratched our heads and smile now when we hear that Catholics do not believe in “divorce”…I do understand how Catholics get around the whole “divorce” issue much clearer now…this is not an indictment against the Catholic church…it is a simple fact of our society and our humanity.

But do you understand the difference. Do you think it would be fair for the RCC to hold a non-catholic responsible for something they had no knowledge.

Let me put it this way. I was 19 when I got married in the CC. My husband was 21 and protestant. IF we got divorced I would be held bound but at the time he would not. Do you think thats fair?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

"Respectfully Publisher, the reason you don’t “accept” the differences is because you think of marriage as a fulfillment of human will. We look at marriage as a fulfillment of God’s Will."

This was the statement I was addressiing…I was not disputing your belief of marriage. You stated the “reason” is because I think something about marriage I do not…I[SIGN] know some Catholics have the gift of seeing into others hearts…[/SIGN]but I would dispute you see into mine.

This is untrue. Only God has the gift of seeing in others hearts. Catholic’s can be fooled just like anyone else.

 

[rinnie]

No you are mistaken…marriage is the union of two people by God in covenant relationship with each other and with God. I have a very Quaker belief of marriage.

Well that may be a quaker belief but it is also a RC belief. But if two people are not in that true covenant with God and Eachother no marriage exists. That union is just that 2 souls that vow to be united to eachother and mean that vow. There are people who have no intention of meaning that vow and the Church is stuck with the mess to clean up. With the help of the HS they must find the truth.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Publisher:

This quote from one of your posts is an example of my last comment:

"That the Catholic church seeks to address the issue and give an avenue for a successful marriage by declaring a marriage null, is admirable…while Protestants may often use the word “divorce” when if the process of the Catholic church was used would find the marriage “null” is more of a semantic problem and not a divorce problem. "

You obviously have the mistaken opinion that divorce and annulment are the same thing. They are not. A divorce looks at what ended the marriage. An annulment looks at the formation of the marriage at the time of consent.

In order to even divorce someone don’t you have to know if you were married in the eyes of God? Or do you believe contrary to Scripture, that man can indeed put asunder a marriage that is a valid covenant with God?

That is the bottom line here. You first have to view marriage as a three-party covenant. Then in order to have said covenant it must have certain elements. If those elements are present, viola! Covenant is formed. If not, no covenant.

It’s pretty simple.

[SIGN]Your most interesting question was whether the covenant can come along later. I believe that by the definition of a covenant, it can[/SIGN]. Because vows are usually ceremonial in nature. The actual promise is written on our hearts as all covenants with the Holy Spirit are. So I believe the covenant can evolve over time and an invalid marriage can become valid.

A sacramental marriage can become sacramental through Baptism and marriage in the Church so, it would make sense that an invalid marriage could become valid.

Blessings,

HC

I also found this interesting and wanted to address it too. I agree with you. While at the time of the marriage maybe one party is not as open as the other. And while they may have half meant those vows at the time. I also believe with the help of the Church, the Holy Spirit and the Grace Of God it can develope into the real thing. Just an example of Gods Grace in action. They can also become the better example of Gods love.

 

[Bluegoat]

There are a variety of reasons other groups have a different understanding, and language around marriage than Catholics do.

There are some Protestant groups that are actually more strict than Catholics are at this time. The only way a marriage could end is to get an annulment for things like bigamy, or impersonation. Otherwise, no getting out of it, and many modern Catholic annulments would be seen as very wrong.

In other cases, the reasoning is actually very similar to Catholic reasoning - the same reasons that would allow for an annulment are what are considered acceptable for a divorce. There is not the same hierarchy for making the decision - usually it is the couple along with some authority figure. It comes down to the same kind of thing but a different word.

Another factor, as a pp mentioned, is the exception for divorcing an adulterous spouse. So those groups feel that although there is some kind of special union, there seems to be the possibility of it being dissolved by actions committed after the union came to be. In order to reconcile that passage, they have to change the theology of marriage - it is one of the reasons many Protestants do not think it can be a sacrament, even ones that do accept a sacramental theology.

I think it would be fair to say most see marriage for all as very similar to what Catholics might call natural marriage.

And I think that what that comes down to is a slightly different understanding of marriage comes about. Something objective is seen to happen. It is a vehicle of grace. It has it’s own nature created by God. But it is considered both that a marriage that starts without that grace being accepted can later gain it, and those that accepted it may later reject it.

Most Protestant groups do not really encourage/allow for multiple serial marriages. Although it happens, I think it can be compared to when one sees similar things among Catholics who do not respect their own process. (And I have ever heard of a person who actually received three annulments!) And, sad as it is, there have been annulments given inappropriately, and when someone complained they were overturned - which suggests that there may well have been others that were not discovered. Many might think from looking that members of my church divorce willy-nilly. In fact a divorced Anglican here is not supposed to be able to remarry without the express permission of the Bishop.

But I think it is very odd that no one has pointed out that the Orthodox, who do have a sacramental theology of marriage, allow divorce and remarriage.

 

[Reuben_J]

You obviously have the mistaken opinion that divorce and annulment are the same thing. They are not. A divorce looks at what ended the marriage. An annulment looks at the formation of the marriage at the time of consent.

In order to even divorce someone don’t you have to know if you were married in the eyes of God? Or do you believe contrary to Scripture, that man can indeed put asunder a marriage that is a valid covenant with God?

That is the bottom line here. You first have to view marriage as a three-party covenant. Then in order to have said covenant it must have certain elements. If those elements are present, viola! Covenant is formed. If not, no covenant.

It’s pretty simple.

Your most interesting question was whether the covenant can come along later. I believe that by the definition of a covenant, it can. Because vows are usually ceremonial in nature. The actual promise is written on our hearts as all covenants with the Holy Spirit are. So I believe the covenant can evolve over time and an invalid marriage can become valid.

A sacramental marriage can become sacramental through Baptism and marriage in the Church so, it would make sense that an invalid marriage could become valid.

Blessings,

HC

The OP and this post do a good job in differentiating annulment and divorce. Despite what Protestants may think, they are not the same. There is no loophole to annulment. The marriage cannot be annulled unless the couple did not understand what it entails of a marriage in which case it was not sacramental. A divorce can be granted when both parties decide they do not want to stay married. Catholic does not grant divorce and will not annul marriage based solely on that reason.

God bless.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher:

This quote from one of your posts is an example of my last comment:

"That the Catholic church seeks to address the issue and give an avenue for a successful marriage by declaring a marriage null, is admirable…while Protestants may often use the word “divorce” when if the process of the Catholic church was used would find the marriage “null” is more of a semantic problem and not a divorce problem. "

You obviously have the mistaken opinion that divorce and annulment are the same thing. They are not. A divorce looks at what ended the marriage. An annulment looks at the formation of the marriage at the time of consent.

In order to even divorce someone don’t you have to know if you were married in the eyes of God? Or do you believe contrary to Scripture, that man can indeed put asunder a marriage that is a valid covenant with God?

That is the bottom line here. You first have to view marriage as a three-party covenant. Then in order to have said covenant it must have certain elements. If those elements are present, viola! Covenant is formed. If not, no covenant.

It’s pretty simple.

Your most interesting question was whether the covenant can come along later. I believe that by the definition of a covenant, it can. Because vows are usually ceremonial in nature. The actual promise is written on our hearts as all covenants with the Holy Spirit are. So I believe the covenant can evolve over time and an invalid marriage can become valid.

A sacramental marriage can become sacramental through Baptism and marriage in the Church so, it would make sense that an invalid marriage could become valid.

Blessings,

HC

No, I do understand the difference that Catholics assign to each process…'annullment" and “divorce”…as I have often said we “speak past one another” at times.

While I cannot apply “Protestant understandings” to “Catholic concepts” and have it come out in a meaningful dialog with all thigs equal…so Catholics cannot ascribe “Catholic understandings” of concepts and meanings which Protestants embrace.

I understand the difference that Catholics give the two concepts and the reasons they would allow an “annullment” vs. a “divorce”. The nuances of what constitutes an invalid marriage for a Protestant…are…“lost” in many cases between us. Catholics do not believe in “divorce”…understood. They will consider a “marriage” null and void under certain circumstances…no matter how long the “marriage” lasted or how many children are involved…this simply seems a bit “nuts” to me…but then…I’m pretty thick headed…I don’t accept the fine “distinctions” Catholics make…to my simple mind and belief system…it is a way for Catholics to “get past the letter of the law” so to speak and keep their spiritual integrity by not “believing in divorce”. Right or wrong it is this Protestants view…as thick headed as I am of course.

We each “speak” different religious languages…and I understand the “difference” Catholics seek to make, to me it is “spiting hairs”. In many cases when a Protestant “divorces”…they may get a civil divorce…but religiously in their minds it is an “annullment” with their respective religious body giving them the “authority” to declare their marriage “annulled”. Protestants don’t have the same concept of priesthood so here again lies a difference. Catholics “need” the church to declare the “marriage” “invalid”. Catholics work within the heirarchy of their church…Protestants have no such view of “heirarchy”. It is our repsonsibility to determine the mind and will of God on any given subject and it is a repsonsibility we embrace…if there is “hell to pay” we accept that from the hand of God and accept that responibility…this may not be true for all Protestants…as I am speaking from my own perspective.

I do understand the Catholic view…I simply don’t embrace it.

 

[Publisher]

Well that may be a quaker belief but it is also a RC belief. But if two people are not in that true covenant with God and Eachother no marriage exists. That union is just that 2 souls that vow to be united to eachother and mean that vow. There are people who have no intention of meaning that vow and the Church is stuck with the mess to clean up. With the help of the HS they must find the truth.

One aspect of “marriage” is the sexual union between two people. Paul warns of joining with prostitutes because of the spiritual union which occurs. When two people join in sexual relationship…they form a “marriage bond”. In scripture when a couple were considered married was the day the groom arrived at the brides house and took her to his home to be his wife…it was this “joining” physically that made the “marriage”. “Two becoming one flesh.”

When two people come together and pledge themselves to one another in marriage…while their understanding of what is lacking to make a marriage may exist…the marriage is “sealed” through sexual intimacy…which binds the couple together…which Paul warned against when fornication was involved.

 

[Publisher]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

This is untrue. Only God has the gift of seeing in others hearts. Catholic’s can be fooled just like anyone else.

Rinnie,

That was an attempt at humor…I seem to have failed.