Let me add to the previous post that in considering an annulment, it is the marriage that examined, not the individuals. The Catholic Church attempts to err on the side of validity in this matter, although in this day and age there are so many that cheapen the meaning of marriage so as to make annulments much more common. Marriages that are current are not even open for examination.
Technically, it could be, if God were to so order it. I do not think there is anything inherent that would have prevented God from doing things differently. But we see this as something God does not do, anymore than he permits us to reproduce asexually, or not procreate at all.
Divorces were happening long before the Catholic Church existed. Would you agree that divorcees always believed they were actually dissolving a marriage? If so, were they simply mistaken? If not, what do you suppose they were thinking?
This little game of yours is still cute.This is very Catholic of you to say, Doki!
I just realized what it is about this statement that bothers me about this. If that’s really true, Jesus’ statements on divorce (and, in particular, the exceptions having to do with it) must be rather similar to a hypothetical situation where Jesus says no man is permitted to reproduce asexually except under certain circumstances. If it is impossible for such a thing to actually happen, why would Jesus talk about it in this way. It’s not really a question- He wouldn’t. He talks about it in this way because divorce is something that actually happens and in some situations, a dissolved marriage is, in fact, what it purports to be. In God’s eyes.
And he didn’t, from a Catholic point of view. Divorce does not dissolve a marriage. That is why he was clear that a writ of divorce was an accommodation for sin. Again, I am speaking from a Catholic understanding of this passage. So for me, a dissolved marriage is a hypothetical, while divorce is not.
Well the Pharisees from Mark 10 sure thought that marriage could be dissolved, so yes, I am sure it was believed my many. Even today the civil nature of divorce is confused with the spiritual reality, again from a Catholic POV, and I am referring to Cathlics that do not understand it.
No need to apologize, cooterhein.
My response is for the many many lurkers who are on the CAFs–to empasize the 
nature of your point.)Perhaps in OT times; but as Jesus came and fulfilled the OT revelation, divorces of “actual marriages” did not occur.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic here or not, Doki.This little game of yours is still cute.
He didn’t. There is no divorce for a marriage. If the union was formed from porneia, (that is, illicit sexual union), then it can be dissolved.
I believe I have to correct you on this, pnewton.
Correct. I changed the meaning of terms by accident.
Yes. It’s very common, in every day language, for Catholics to talk about having their “marriages” annulled; however, I think it’s important to change the language that we use, at least in this case, to reflect more accurately the doctrine that we’re proclaiming.
If this practice of yours bothers people, why do you continue using it? Wouldn’t it be nicer to say, “as a catholic, I believe this too”? Do you always have to be making your point that you think all Bible truths come from the CC (or through the CC)? According to John, it comes directly to each believer (surely with limitations of learning and sin).Not sure if you’re being sarcastic here or not, Doki.
But, regardless, when you profess Catholic thought I like to highlight that it is, and that we are agreed on that particular issue.
Some seem to be insulted by my comment that they are being very Catholic in their comment. That is puzzling to me, as they are on a *Catholic *forum proclaiming Catholic teaching, whether they realize it’s Catholic teaching or not.
Could you list several reasons a marriage did not exist?
The Catholic Church recognizes four impediments to marriage.
Firstly, I do take into consideration what bothers and offends people. Ever since you (or perhaps it was 1beleevr?) stated that being called a “Protestant” was bothersome to you, I have tried to use the term “non-Catholic Christians” as much as possible. When I remember.
We only claim that which Christ claims. He claims that He is the Way and the Truth…
This is, well, very Catholic of you to say.
Actually, as scandalous as this is to say, I am a former Catholic Seminarian from 1979 to 1980. I dated a girl for almost 4 years after the seminary trying to prove to myself and other that I was straight after a priest and a seminarian tried to make passes on me. The priest invited me over one weekend and being the naive young man I was I went and didn’t think twice about the arrangements until … In 1985, after joining the military and turning to scandalous living in my anger at God for allowing all of this sin to happen to me I finally submitted and repented. From there I struggled with what God wanted from me and finally in 1987 I submitted that God wanted me to become a priest and vowed to become a priest unless He led me to a Godly woman, Catholic. I moved stateside and looked for an order to join trying to see if it fit. I then realized I’d probably become a diocesan priest and then I met my now wife, then fundamentalist in the Church of Christ, the faith I always believed to be true. I was a bible on Catholic and never really understood Sacred Tradition. I thought it was mans tradition until I began to understand. The Holy Spirit shut me up several times which taught me to be more humble in my faith walk. In 1996, God finally called my bluff and pulled me back into the Catholic Church, but He also answered my stubborn prayer that if he wanted me to be Catholic He had to first prove it by converting my wife first without my doing.Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Picasso. I just want to add that I hope that you do not ever reach the “point of leaving” the Catholic Church (or perhaps you only meant your parish?).
Stay in a Church that proclaims the Truth and one ought to conform his beliefs to that Truth; one ought not find a church that you feel proclaims your truth.
Church shopping (not that you were even alluding to that, Picasso) really bemuses me. Isn’t it the height of arrogance to shop around for a church that preaches what you believe?