Protestants and annulments

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JulianN said:
Because you are assuming all marriages are sacraments. They are not, and that is not what the Tribunal is investigating. They are investigating validity.
Click to expand...
Show where I am assuming all marriages are Sacraments. Because I have not related or implied that. I understand the difference between natural marriage and Sacrament marriage.
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.
Click to expand...
Of course they wouldn’t assume it’s a Sacrament. There was already established an impediment. Therefore, the tribunal would not be concerned if the natural marriage was valid or not, but whether it had an impediment to be a Sacrament, of which there would be proof with moral certitude to have.

All you have done, is provide an example of a marriage that had a known impediment to be a Sacrament.
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
There was already established an impediment. Therefore, the tribunal would not be concerned if the natural marriage was valid or not, but whether it had an impediment to be a Sacrament, of which there would be proof with moral certitude to have.
Click to expand...
You are still misunderstanding what the Tribunal does. The Tribunal would indeed be concerned whether the natural marriage was valid or not — that’s what they do. What they don’t do is concern themselves with sacramentality.
 
Ammi said:
The Tribunal is investigating whether the marriage in question had an impediment to the Sacrament.
Click to expand...
NO.
The tribunal investigates whether there was an impediment or a defect to a valid marriage.

If a marriage is valid, and both parties are baptized, it is also a sacrament.

If a marriage is valid, and one or both parties are unbaptized, it is a valid, natural marriage.
 
1ke said:
40.png
Ammi:
The Tribunal is investigating whether the marriage in question had an impediment to the Sacrament.
Click to expand...
NO.
The tribunal investigates whether there was an impediment or a defect to a valid marriage.

If a marriage is valid, and both parties are baptized, it is also a sacrament.

If a marriage is valid, and one or both parties are unbaptized, it is a valid, natural marriage.
Click to expand...
That is no different than my statement. Only the concern of the tribunal is whether or not the marriage has an impediment to be a Sacrament.

There is no “investigation” so to speak, of a marriage with one or both spouses being unBaptized. If there is, then the impediment to a Sacrament is already known (unless evidence of Baptism is in dispute) and it doesnt matter since that marriage was divorced by the State and there is no Sacramental bond.

The point of a tribunal investigation is to determine if there is NO KNOWN Sacramental bond between the persons in question.
 
Ammi said:
That is no different than my statement.
Click to expand...
It is entirely different than what you said.
Ammi said:
Only the concern of the tribunal is whether or not the marriage has an impediment to be a Sacrament.
Click to expand...
NO. The concern of the tribunal is whether or not a marriage is VALID.

A marriage can be VALID and NOT a sacrament.
Ammi said:
There is no “investigation” so to speak, of a marriage with one or both spouses being unBaptized.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is.
Ammi said:
The point of a tribunal investigation is to determine if there is NO KNOWN Sacramental bond between the persons in question.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Please stop posting things that are not true.

You seem to believe that there can be no valid marriage involving an unbaptized person. This is simply not Church teaching.
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
That is no different than my statement. Only the concern of the tribunal is whether or not the marriage has an impediment to be a Sacrament.

There is no “investigation” so to speak, of a marriage with one or both spouses being unBaptized. If there is, then the impediment to a Sacrament is already known (unless evidence of Baptism is in dispute) and it doesnt matter since that marriage was divorced by the State and there is no Sacramental bond.

The point of a tribunal investigation is to determine if there is NO KNOWN Sacramental bond between the persons in question.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. The Tribunal is not investigating if there is a sacramental bond—they are investigating if there is a valid marriage.

And yes, of course there are investigations of non-sacramental marriages. A civil divorce, even if both parties are unbaptized, has zero bearing on validity.
 
Last edited:
In order to determine if a marriage was not valid, they have to find an impediment. That’s what tribunals do. They are trained to look for an impediment.
 
1ke said:
40.png
Ammi:
In order to determine if a marriage was not valid, they have to find an impediment.
Click to expand...
Yes, impediments to validity. Not impediments to sacramentality.
Click to expand...
Impediments to validity of the Sacrament. So yes, impediments to the Sacrament is the whole point.

Whether a Sacrament took place or not.
 
1ke said:
40.png
Ammi:
Whether a Sacrament took place or not
Click to expand...
No.

Whether or not a valid marriage took place. A marriage can be valid without being a sacrament.
Click to expand...
It doesnt matter if a marriage is valid, if it’s not a Sacrament. The Sacrament is all that matters to someone approaching the tribunal. Was there an impediment, or not to be a Sacrament. So the tribunal scrutinizes to find an impediment to the Sacrament.
 
Ammi said:
It doesnt matter if a marriage is valid, if it’s not a Sacrament. The Sacrament is all that matters to someone approaching the tribunal. Was there an impediment, or not to be a Sacrament . So the tribunal scrutinizes to find an impediment to the Sacrament.
Click to expand...
No. They do not. They determine whether a marriage was valid. Period.
 
Ammi said:
It doesnt matter if a marriage is valid, if it’s not a Sacrament.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. This is what you aren’t understanding.

A Catholic can marry an unbaptized person validly. The marriage is valid, but it is not a sacrament.
 
Of course I understand.

The point is to find an impediment to a valid Christian marriage, which is called a Sacrament.

The point of that, is because one or more assumed spouse either hope’s it’s not, and or has doubts it is a Sacrament.
 
Ammi said:
The point is to find an impediment to a valid Christian marriage, which is called a Sacrament.

The point of that, is because one or more assumed spouse either hope’s it’s not, and or has doubts it is a Sacrament.
Click to expand...
No. That’s not the point, and not what the Tribunal does.
 
No. The Tribunal determines validity of a marriage. As others have said it is possible to have a valid natural marriage that is not a sacrament.

I will use my own situation as an example. I was married to a Jewish man with a dispensation from the bishop. I was well aware that my marriage was not sacramental.

When I petitioned for a declaration of nullity the Tribunal investigated my marriage and ruled that it was invalid for reasons that had nothing to do with sacramentality.
 
Anne1964 said:
No. The Tribunal determines validity of a marriage. As others have said it is possible to have a valid natural marriage that is not a sacrament.

I will use my own situation as an example. I was married to a Jewish man with a dispensation from the bishop. I was well aware that my marriage was not sacramental.

When I petitioned for a declaration of nullity the Tribunal investigated my marriage and ruled that it was invalid for reasons that had nothing to do with sacramentality.
Click to expand...
The point is that even if it was valid, you still would have been free to marry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top