Protestants and annulments

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Having gone through the process myself AND not wanting to read through all 60 comments, I offer these views (as well as apologies if someone else mentioned these):
  1. “Annulment” is NOT “divorce”. Divorce is the dissolution of a contract. Annulment is a determination that a valid marriage never existed from the beginning. The conditions that the Church considers in determining validity have grown over the past 2,000 years, from “currently being in a valid marriage that has not been ended by the death of the partner” to “planning, committing, or participating in the murder of a partner to enable the spouse to marry.”
  2. Other, more serious consideration, is if one partner withheld information from the other partner that would have affected the partner’s choice in marrying. The example I use is if a couple marry when they’re 20, and produce no children. They adopt, instead, and have a happy life together. On their 50th wedding anniversary, the husband reveals that the reason they never had children was because before they met, he had a vasectomy. He had never told her about this procedure. When I ask people how easy it would be for the wife to divorce the husband, people invariable answer incorrectly. The correct answer is “impossible”. Because he withheld information from her that would have affected her choice to marry him, the marriage was invalid from the start; therefore they would not get a divorce but an annulment.
  3. Another reason is something rarely considered: Marriage is a three-way contract. In civil terms, it is a contract between the husband, wife, and the State; in the Church, it’s a contract between the the husband, the wife, and God. Breaking the contract means getting approval from all 3 parties. The State is only concerned with the welfare of any children and the equitable distribution of property. God is concerned with our souls, desiring that we all reach heaven to spend eternity with Him. As such, any and all contracts with God are eternal and cannot be broken or dissolved by Man. God, however, will not hold us bound to a contract which is invalid, which is why the Catholic Church has “annulments”; and why an annulment is NOT “Catholic divorce.” If the two Protestants were in a valid marriage before God, with no invalidating conditions, they cannot marry someone else after a civil divorce while their ex is still alive.
Hope this helps.
 
Ammi said:
Validity of the Sacrament is assumed, if there is not determined and impediment
Click to expand...
It’s not always a sacrament. The Tribunal might be hearing a case between a baptized and I baptized person or between two unbaptized persons. Validity of marriage is presumed unless found otherwise, not only sacramental marriage.
 
JulianN said:
40.png
Ammi:
Validity of the Sacrament is assumed, if there is not determined and impediment
Click to expand...
It’s not always a sacrament. The Tribunal might be hearing a case between a baptized and I baptized person or between two unbaptized persons. Validity of marriage is presumed unless found otherwise, not only sacramental marriage.
Click to expand...
Then an impediment to the Sacrament exists.
 
Validity of the Sacrament is assumed, if there is not determined and impediment.

One or both persons who are not Baptized is an impediment to the Sacrament.
 
You said,
Ammi said:
Rather it is investigating whether an impediment to the Sacrament existed at the wedding.
Click to expand...
The Tribunal is not investigating whether an impediment to the sacrament existed at the wedding —they are investigating whether the marriage was valid. It has nothing to do with it being a sacrament or not.
 
JulianN said:
You said,
40.png
Ammi:
Rather it is investigating whether an impediment to the Sacrament existed at the wedding.
Click to expand...
The Tribunal is not investigating whether an impediment to the sacrament existed at the wedding —they are investigating whether the marriage was valid. It has nothing to do with it being a sacrament or not.
Click to expand...
I’m under the Impression that a tribunal cannot guarantee a marriage is a Sacrament, rather only if there is a known impediment. Instead, a Sacrament is assumed, without proof of an impediment.
 
JulianN said:
You said,
40.png
Ammi:
Rather it is investigating whether an impediment to the Sacrament existed at the wedding.
Click to expand...
The Tribunal is not investigating whether an impediment to the sacrament existed at the wedding —they are investigating whether the marriage was valid. It has nothing to do with it being a sacrament or not.
Click to expand...
This cannot be true.
 
Ammi said:
This cannot be true.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. If the Tribunal is hearing a case where one of the parties was baptized and the other was not, then it was never a sacrament. It was considered a good and natural marriage. The Tribunal is determining validity when it examines a case, not sacramentality.
 
That makes no sense. The point, is to determine whether an impediment to the Sacrament existed at the time of the wedding. If there is no proof of an impediment, then the Sacrament is assumed.

The tribunal requires civil divorce before investigation, so the point is to determine if there was an impediment to the Sacrament, which cannot be divorced.
 
Ammi said:
hat makes no sense. The point, is to determine whether an impediment to the Sacrament existed at the time of the wedding. If there is no proof of an impediment, then the Sacrament is assumed.

The tribunal requires civil divorce before investigation, so the point is to determine if there was an impediment to the Sacrament, which cannot be divorced.
Click to expand...
You keep talking as if all marriages are sacraments. They are not.
 
JulianN said:
40.png
Ammi:
hat makes no sense. The point, is to determine whether an impediment to the Sacrament existed at the time of the wedding. If there is no proof of an impediment, then the Sacrament is assumed.

The tribunal requires civil divorce before investigation, so the point is to determine if there was an impediment to the Sacrament, which cannot be divorced.
Click to expand...
You keep talking as if all marriages are sacraments. They are not.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not. I’m saying the exact opposite.

The Tribunal is investigating whether the marriage in question had an impediment to the Sacrament. It may not have had an impediment to the civil marriage, but that marriage is already divorced, in the eyes of the State.

The marriage is assumed to be a Sacrament by the Church, so long as the investigation finds no proof of an impediment.

The Tribunal will not guarantee validity of a marriage, rather the marriage is assumed a Sacrament, which cannot be divorced, unless proven to have had an impediment at the time of the wedding.
 
Ammi said:
The marriage is assumed to be a Sacrament by the Church, so long as the investigation finds no proof of an impediment.
Click to expand...
No. The marriage is assumed to be valid until a decision otherwise is reached. You canno presume something is a sacrament that never was.
 
JulianN said:
40.png
Ammi:
The marriage is assumed to be a Sacrament by the Church, so long as the investigation finds no proof of an impediment.
Click to expand...
No. The marriage is assumed to be valid until a decision otherwise is reached. You canno presume something is a sacrament that never was.
Click to expand...
Please tell me how my statement and your’s are different.
 
Because you are assuming all marriages are sacraments. They are not, and that is not what the Tribunal is investigating. They are investigating validity.

Here’s an example: A Catholic marries a non-baptized person in a Catholic Church, witnessed by a priest. They received the appropriate dispensation.

That marriage is not a sacrament. It is presumed valid, but it can only become a sacrament if the non-baptized person is baptized.

If there is a divorce, the Tribunal is not presuming a sacrament existed, they are presuming a valid marriage existed. Marriage is not always a sacrament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top