Protestants and annulments

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In other words, to determine if they are bound in marriage, or if there was an impediment to a binding marriage.

That is the purpose.

Validity is the means to achieve that purpose.
 
Ammi said:
In other words, to determine if they are bound in marriage, or if there was an impediment to a binding marriage.

That is the purpose.

Validity is the means to achieve that purpose.
Click to expand...
The task of the Tribunal is to determine if the marriage is valid or not. No expansion on that is needed.
 
Ammi said:
For what purpose?
Click to expand...
We are just going around in circles (again) on this. If the marriage is valid, the couple is not free to remarry.
“Ammi said:
“Validity is the means to achieve that purpose.”

Validity is not a means to a purpose. It is the state of being of the marriage—it’s either valid or not.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
A civilly divorced Protestant is not free to remarry merely because he thinks he is.
Click to expand...
A civilly divorced protestant is not “not free to remarry” merely because the Catholic Church says so.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that a marriage tribunal does not consider sacramentality of a marriage. It’s only purpose is to determine whether a prior marriage was valid or not. Valid or null. The Church presumes the validity of any marriage until proven otherwise, including marriages between two non-Catholics. The tribunal does not look at sacramentality. It only looks at validity.

When Jesus prohibited divorce, He did not say, “this only applies to Catholics.”
 
JimG said:
My understanding is that a marriage tribunal does not consider sacramentality of a marriage. It’s only purpose is to determine whether a prior marriage was valid or not. Valid or null. The Church presumes the validity of any marriage until proven otherwise, including marriages between two non-Catholics. The tribunal does not look at sacramentality. It only looks at validity.

When Jesus prohibited divorce, He did not say, “this only applies to Catholics.”
Click to expand...
Jesus said “except on porneia” and “except a case of porneia”

Which St Jerome (and fathers) saw as adultery, yet not resulting in remarriage.

But the current Church sees it as referring to an invalid marriage and/or illicit sexual union.

I actually think the latter is more accurate. Though Jerome’s interpretation doesnt violate the position regarding divorce/remarriage.

It’s the only thing I’ve ever felt that St Jerome wasnt exactly accurate interpreting.
 
Last edited:
I mean determining validity is the means to recognize whether the marriage is binding or not.

But I do admit I did not understand some things about non Sacramental marriages being binding after civil divorce.

For that, thank you. And sorry to argue falsely.
 
ChuckB said:
A civilly divorced protestant is not “not free to remarry” merely because the Catholic Church says so.
Click to expand...
It would be true even if it were just the Catholic Church saying so. Everyone is subject to God’s authority, and God delegated teaching authority to his Church: the Catholic Church.
 
Non Catholic Christians are divided over divorce and remarriage. Which is very serious.

There are prominent Protestant leaders and denominations which agree that Matthew’s exceptions clauses do not refer to adultery
 
Last edited:
It’s not what I think. It’s what is written.
What God joins together, let no man put asunder.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
It’s not what I think. It’s what is written.
What God joins together, let no man put asunder.
Click to expand...
And what the Church says is that if certain conditions exist then God hasn’t joined them so there is no putting asunder involved.
 
I think that the Orthodox church does allow for divorced people to remarry…again I think they do take it very serious but due to mans fallen nature they will allow them to remarry…hopefully there is an Orthodox poster here who can answer…sorry in advance if I haven’t got that right
 
Over the years, the Church has said a lot of stuff.
I remember as a boy growing up when eating meat on Friday was a sin. Now, it is not.
God never wavers.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
Over the years, the Church has said a lot of stuff.
I remember as a boy growing up when eating meat on Friday was a sin. Now, it is not.
God never wavers.
Click to expand...
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
The Church was given the power to make certain decisions. Changing disciplines is not going against God.
 
MichaelP3 said:
Does this mean you believe a non-Catholic Church can confer a valid marriage but in the same breath you also say that this Church in question cannot evaluate the marriage regarding its supposed validity?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church presumes all marriages are valid. But not all weddings are sacramental. If a man and a woman are married in the Methodist Church, then the Catholic Church presumes this a valid marriage.

If the Methodist Church wants to do annulments that doesn’t affect the validity of the marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church. There is no ‘annulment’ process another church can put in place that the Catholic Church would accept.
 
vsedriver said:
The Catholic Church presumes all marriages are valid. But not all weddings are sacramental. If a man and a woman are married in the Methodist Church, then the Catholic Church presumes this a valid marriage.
Click to expand...
For the record, it also presumes it is sacramental, assuming they are both baptized Christians.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top