Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

If you're not Catholic, then why do you care?

---

yah, who cares if the largest Christian denomination in the world said my 20 year marriage never had any legal standing.

Do these things ever come up outside of a Catholic trying to skirt their divorce/remarriage rules? You're marriage for 20 years and the church calls you up to say it wasn't ever legal and you have to do it again.

---

The Church has been doing it since the beginning. But maybe the Church should change a teaching from the age of the apostles because some people don't like it...

---

lol...not like today. There's no defending annulling the OP's marriage.

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

There's no defending it. A 20 year marriage should absolutely not be annulled. It's just a loophole that modern Catholics use so that they can remarry.

---

Guessing you don't know a single person who has actually gone through the process, but feel compelled to weigh in anyway?

---

I haven't gone through the process of transitioning genders either, but I can make statements of what a man and woman is and is not. And it's about the same wordsmithing that Catholics do with marriage annulment. You can't tell me that after 20 years of marriage, the Catholic church can declare that it wasn't established in the first place. Interesting that this is only discovered when one or both separated spouses want to remarry.

---

What do you think is needed for a marriage to be a real marriage? Is it a certain amount of time? Just two people saying "I do"?

---

Same line of questioning that LGBT advocates take me down when trying to convince me a person can change genders. Not even secular judges buy into it. You should question who sanctifies marriage more when it's much more difficult to get your marriage nullified by the state of Texas than your local church.

---

So no answer for a simple question, and zero idea what actually happens in the process of annulment, but you're certain that you're right. Good for you I guess

---

Catholic answer from Canon 1095: you need discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. You are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of a psychological nature.

And 20 years later, we find out that I didn't have that. Marriage nullified!

Again, secular judges don't even accept that.

---

How do we find out 20 years later? By trying to divide assets in a courtroom or by multiple years of interviews with therapists, spiritual advisors, etc reviewing every aspect of your relaitonship, going back to the first date? Oh, and we contact other people who knew y'all closely during your marriage?

That really sounds simpler that getting a divorce? Or maybe, as we figured out earlier, you have no idea what the annulment process is like but feel like weighing in anyway

---

I know exactly what the anulment process will be like. Yet still refuse to participate in its bull***** We're divorced for fault. I have no problems standing before God if I chose to get remarried. If you and your fellow papists what to believe in unicorn farts and magic beans. I'll just enjoy the delusion from my family home.

---

Dude chill out

I don't disagree with you. It is an intrusive legal fiction that IMO doesn't amount to a hill of beans as to whether GOD will forgive a remarried person

I'm just trying to figure out why you give a baker's f*** what she does? You don't believe in it, you don't care, why get on here, stomping your feet and banging your fists, insulting Christians, the vast majority of whom simply love love and worship God, follow Christ, go to church, and seek forgiveness?

For someone who doesn't care you sure seem to be riled up

Go to church or something. Or heck, drink a beer

---

You're confused as to why I give a **** that some random Catholics I've never met are going to decide whether or not my bride and I actually were serious when we stood before God and family and promised to stay faithful and true as we became one flesh.

Hah wow.!

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

I was married for 15 years. Divorced 6 years ago. Finally got my annulment granted earlier this year.

I have found the true woman of my dreams and the woman I've prayed for. Thankfully we can marry in the church again.

I don't give a damn what anyone on this board thinks about it being justified or not.

---

What are we even doing here? If the catholic church had not granted your annulment what would you have done? Join an evangelical church I assume.

You can say, "neener neener I got mine", but the way you even phrase it belies just how much of a sham catholic annulment is. You were divorced six years ago.

Divorced.

And now here comes the legal team to declare that you were never married in the first place. That a valid sacrament never took place 21 years ago.

Is there a sacrament in the catholic church that cannot be undone by a bishops decree? Can you be unbaptized? Unconfessed? Unconfirmed to be of rational age and understanding of the church?

This is all just such deeply rabbinical jewish behavior where all loopholes are endorsed and rewarded for being uncovered.

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

I was married for 15 years. Divorced 6 years ago. Finally got my annulment granted earlier this year.

I have found the true woman of my dreams and the woman I've prayed for. Thankfully we can marry in the church again.

I don't give a damn what anyone on this board thinks about it being justified or not.

---

What are we even doing here? If the catholic church had not granted your annulment what would you have done? Join an evangelical church I assume.

You can say, "neener neener I got mine", but the way you even phrase it belies just how much of a sham catholic annulment is. You were divorced six years ago.

Divorced.

And now here comes the legal team to declare that you were never married in the first place. That a valid sacrament never took place 21 years ago.

Is there a sacrament in the catholic church that cannot be undone by a bishops decree? Can you be unbaptized? Unconfessed? Unconfirmed to be of rational age and understanding of the church?

This is all just such deeply rabbinical jewish behavior where all loopholes are endorsed and rewarded for being uncovered.

---

You clearly misunderstand how an annulment works. No one is "undoing" a sacrament. It's acknowledging that a sacrament never took place. And you would be the prime example of a hypocrite if you said the church has no right to weigh in on that. Does your church not deem a baptism valid or invalid? Do they not say certain churches have no valid sacraments because they don't have apostolic authority? Would your church not say that a "confession" given where the confessor isn't actually sorry, fully intends on remaining in sin and is using the confessional as some sort of "get out of jail free" card not a valid sacramental confession?

Maybe try reading into what an annulment IS (which goes back to 1 Corinthinans 7, councils going back to the 300s, etc) before weighing in on the topic.

---

AGC said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

I was married for 15 years. Divorced 6 years ago. Finally got my annulment granted earlier this year.

I have found the true woman of my dreams and the woman I've prayed for. Thankfully we can marry in the church again.

I don't give a damn what anyone on this board thinks about it being justified or not.

---

What are we even doing here? If the catholic church had not granted your annulment what would you have done? Join an evangelical church I assume.

You can say, "neener neener I got mine", but the way you even phrase it belies just how much of a sham catholic annulment is. You were divorced six years ago.

Divorced.

And now here comes the legal team to declare that you were never married in the first place. That a valid sacrament never took place 21 years ago.

Is there a sacrament in the catholic church that cannot be undone by a bishops decree? Can you be unbaptized? Unconfessed? Unconfirmed to be of rational age and understanding of the church?

This is all just such deeply rabbinical jewish behavior where all loopholes are endorsed and rewarded for being uncovered.

---

Just like NFP is birth control, as zobel pointed out months ago.

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

I was married for 15 years. Divorced 6 years ago. Finally got my annulment granted earlier this year.

I have found the true woman of my dreams and the woman I've prayed for. Thankfully we can marry in the church again.

I don't give a damn what anyone on this board thinks about it being justified or not.

---

What are we even doing here? If the catholic church had not granted your annulment what would you have done? Join an evangelical church I assume.

You can say, "neener neener I got mine", but the way you even phrase it belies just how much of a sham catholic annulment is. You were divorced six years ago.

Divorced.

And now here comes the legal team to declare that you were never married in the first place. That a valid sacrament never took place 21 years ago.

Is there a sacrament in the catholic church that cannot be undone by a bishops decree? Can you be unbaptized? Unconfessed? Unconfirmed to be of rational age and understanding of the church?

This is all just such deeply rabbinical jewish behavior where all loopholes are endorsed and rewarded for being uncovered.

---

No one is "undoing" a sacrament. It's acknowledging that a sacrament never took place.

---

How does it work that you just say it never happened?

---

The same way, presumably, that your church would look at a Mormon baptism and say that person was never baptized and needs to be baptized again. Also, presumably, how you'll look at a fallen away believer and say that person never had any faith. Your church tradition has no problem saying certain things that may have appeared to be one way actually never were

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I understand what you mean, but with faith, you really just never know, right? Only God does.

In a marriage you presumably had a priest officiate a ceremony in which two Catholic members gave vows. And now you say it just never happened? I guess I don't understand what that even means.

---

What if one person never intended on having kids and hid it from the other person?

What if one person was sleeping around and never intended to stop, but never told the other person?

What if one person didn't believe marriage was a sacrament to begin with?

What if one person feels like they "have to" for a whole host of reasons: already spent the money, baby on the way, parents would disown them, etc.

There are a whole host of issues that have been considered, going back to Paul in 1 Corinthians.

That's what I gave the analogy of a Mormon baptism. Clearly a baptism ritual happened in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but your Church would still say a baptism "never happened". There are other examples too. Like someone being baptized against their will, someone baptized in the name of the Father alone, etc. It's what we call both the form and intent

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

II was married for 15 years. Divorced 6 years ago. Finally got my annulment granted earlier this year.

I have found the true woman of my dreams and the woman I've prayed for. Thankfully we can marry in the church again.

I don't give a damn what anyone on this board thinks about it being justified or not.

---

What are we even doing here? If the catholic church had not granted your annulment what would you have done? Join an evangelical church I assume.

You can say, "neener neener I got mine", but the way you even phrase it belies just how much of a sham catholic annulment is. You were divorced six years ago.

Divorced.

And now here comes the legal team to declare that you were never married in the first place. That a valid sacrament never took place 21 years ago.

Is there a sacrament in the catholic church that cannot be undone by a bishops decree? Can you be unbaptized? Unconfessed? Unconfirmed to be of rational age and understanding of the church?

This is all just such deeply rabbinical jewish behavior where all loopholes are endorsed and rewarded for being uncovered.

---

No one is "undoing" a sacrament. It's acknowledging that a sacrament never took place.

---

How does it work that you just say it never happened?

---

The same way, presumably, that your church would look at a Mormon baptism and say that person was never baptized and needs to be baptized again. Also, presumably, how you'll look at a fallen away believer and say that person never had any faith. Your church tradition has no problem saying certain things that may have appeared to be one way actually never were

---

So is video footage of the ceremony and premarital counseling is reviewed? Confessions re-litigated? How bad is clerical training if the ceremony is ineffective to confer a sacrament? Sin occurs in all our lives, what does the romish church know of the future, to say those people cannot or will not change? It's such an indefensible stance when those married to non-believers are exhorted to stay in the marriage.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I wouldn't say that the Mormon baptism "never happened." It literally did happen, although it did not bring about any kind of Christian benefit. I am not sure how I would classify it, but obviously someone would need to get re-baptized in the correct faith.

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

II was married for 15 years. Divorced 6 years ago. Finally got my annulment granted earlier this year.

I have found the true woman of my dreams and the woman I've prayed for. Thankfully we can marry in the church again.

I don't give a damn what anyone on this board thinks about it being justified or not.

---

What are we even doing here? If the catholic church had not granted your annulment what would you have done? Join an evangelical church I assume.

You can say, "neener neener I got mine", but the way you even phrase it belies just how much of a sham catholic annulment is. You were divorced six years ago.

Divorced.

And now here comes the legal team to declare that you were never married in the first place. That a valid sacrament never took place 21 years ago.

Is there a sacrament in the catholic church that cannot be undone by a bishops decree? Can you be unbaptized? Unconfessed? Unconfirmed to be of rational age and understanding of the church?

This is all just such deeply rabbinical jewish behavior where all loopholes are endorsed and rewarded for being uncovered.

---

No one is "undoing" a sacrament. It's acknowledging that a sacrament never took place.

---

How does it work that you just say it never happened?

---

The same way, presumably, that your church would look at a Mormon baptism and say that person was never baptized and needs to be baptized again. Also, presumably, how you'll look at a fallen away believer and say that person never had any faith. Your church tradition has no problem saying certain things that may have appeared to be one way actually never were

---

So is video footage of the ceremony and premarital counseling is reviewed? Confessions re-litigated? How bad is clerical training if the ceremony is ineffective to confer a sacrament? Sin occurs in all our lives, what does the romish church know of the future, to say those people cannot or will not change? It's such an indefensible stance when those married to non-believers are exhorted to stay in the marriage.

---

Hence the reason for the annulment process. If the OP cared to, he would sit in front of the same people his ex will talk to and give them all the reasons for why he believes they were validly married. He could recount their premarital conditions, how he tried to steer her away from infidelity, how he didn't want to divorce in the first place, etc. OP doesn't care to do that, so one could assume that maybe he doesn't actually have what the Catholic Church believes is needed for a marriage. Maybe he does. We don't know because he hasn't shared that (nor does he need to on a public forum).

It's also important to note that the annulment process is a human process. The Church doesn't create nullity or "undo" a valid marriage. People can and do lie to get an annulment. The Church is only capable of making a human judgement on the matter. If OP and his ex were in a truly valid marriage and she is lying to get another marriage, she is as guilty of adultery as any other remarried person.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

But how is it that someone can get re-married then? Is that not adultery if the Church recognizes a "human" or worldly marriage still, even if not sacramentally? So someone can be married twice in the world but just once sacramentally?

---

AGC said:

---

That's the whole thing about granting it though, right? You have no idea who's telling the truth and if they've always felt that way, or will always feel that way. 'The Church' isn't really in a position to evaluate these claims.

It can, however, evaluate what Paul says about being married to a non-believer (which indicates, btw, that marriage exists outside the church and without its blessing) - 1 Cor 7.

Paul also teaches how you behave in a marriage: you emulate Christ, rather than predicating your behavior on your spouse (submit, as unto Christ, love as Christ loved the church).

Divorce is granted for the hardness of heart of men, per Christ himself. Call it annulment if you wish, but it's super pharisaical.

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

That's the whole thing about granting it though, right? You have no idea who's telling the truth and if they've always felt that way, or will always feel that way. 'The Church' isn't really in a position to evaluate these claims.

It can, however, evaluate what Paul says about being married to a non-believer (which indicates, btw, that marriage exists outside the church and without its blessing) - 1 Cor 7.

Paul also teaches how you behave in a marriage: you emulate Christ, rather than predicating your behavior on your spouse (submit, as unto Christ, love as Christ loved the church).

Divorce is granted for the hardness of heart of men, per Christ himself. Call it annulment if you wish, but it's super pharisaical.

---

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying the Church should never grant nullity at all, while also recognizing that Paul did grant nullity in certain cases?

ETA: Yes, the Church still grants that marriage can exist outside of the Church.

ETA 2: Paul's teachings on being married to a non-believer is still apart of the annulment process today. If it is found that one never believed in the sacramental definition of marriage (lasts until death, with full intent towards the good of the other, and open to children) then they had incorrect belief, even if they called themselves a Christian. The bolded is the one most commonly missing in America today, which is why annulment is a distinctly American problem. Most people are entering marriage because of what they get from the other rather than what they can do for and with the other

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

That's the whole thing about granting it though, right? You have no idea who's telling the truth and if they've always felt that way, or will always feel that way. 'The Church' isn't really in a position to evaluate these claims.

It can, however, evaluate what Paul says about being married to a non-believer (which indicates, btw, that marriage exists outside the church and without its blessing) - 1 Cor 7.

Paul also teaches how you behave in a marriage: you emulate Christ, rather than predicating your behavior on your spouse (submit, as unto Christ, love as Christ loved the church).

Divorce is granted for the hardness of heart of men, per Christ himself. Call it annulment if you wish, but it's super pharisaical.

---

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying the Church should never grant nullity at all, while also recognizing that Paul did grant nullity in certain cases?

ETA: Yes, the Church still grants that marriage can exist outside of the Church.

ETA 2: Paul's teachings on being married to a non-believer is still apart of the annulment process today. If it is found that one never believed in the sacramental definition of marriage (lasts until death, with full intent towards the good of the other, and open to children) then they had incorrect belief, even if they called themselves a Christian. The bolded is the one most commonly missing in America today, which is why annulment is a distinctly American problem. Most people are entering marriage because of what they get from the other rather than what they can do for and with the other

---

You're Roman Catholic so annulment is baked into the cake. Dissolving the marriage because someone sinned isn't exactly wiling the good of the other either, it's simply hitting eject and justifying things ex post facto. Peoples memory's are fallible and we've all rewritten the past whether we know it or not. Your investigation is just red tape for clerical feels.

I suppose we're done at this point.

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

That's the whole thing about granting it though, right? You have no idea who's telling the truth and if they've always felt that way, or will always feel that way. 'The Church' isn't really in a position to evaluate these claims.

It can, however, evaluate what Paul says about being married to a non-believer (which indicates, btw, that marriage exists outside the church and without its blessing) - 1 Cor 7.

Paul also teaches how you behave in a marriage: you emulate Christ, rather than predicating your behavior on your spouse (submit, as unto Christ, love as Christ loved the church).

Divorce is granted for the hardness of heart of men, per Christ himself. Call it annulment if you wish, but it's super pharisaical.

---

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying the Church should never grant nullity at all, while also recognizing that Paul did grant nullity in certain cases?

ETA: Yes, the Church still grants that marriage can exist outside of the Church.

ETA 2: Paul's teachings on being married to a non-believer is still apart of the annulment process today. If it is found that one never believed in the sacramental definition of marriage (lasts until death, with full intent towards the good of the other, and open to children) then they had incorrect belief, even if they called themselves a Christian. The bolded is the one most commonly missing in America today, which is why annulment is a distinctly American problem. Most people are entering marriage because of what they get from the other rather than what they can do for and with the other

---

You're Roman Catholic so annulment is baked into the cake. Dissolving the marriage because someone sinned isn't exactly wiling the good of the other either, it's simply hitting eject and justifying things ex post facto. Peoples memory's are fallible and we've all rewritten the past whether we know it or not. Your investigation is just red tape for clerical feels.

I suppose we're done at this point.

---

This shows that either I have done an extremely terrible job of explaining or you have done an extremely horrible job of understanding. This is 100% not grounds for annulment. You still don't know what an annulment IS. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better. Either that or you're not willing to understand

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

That's the whole thing about granting it though, right? You have no idea who's telling the truth and if they've always felt that way, or will always feel that way. 'The Church' isn't really in a position to evaluate these claims.

It can, however, evaluate what Paul says about being married to a non-believer (which indicates, btw, that marriage exists outside the church and without its blessing) - 1 Cor 7.

Paul also teaches how you behave in a marriage: you emulate Christ, rather than predicating your behavior on your spouse (submit, as unto Christ, love as Christ loved the church).

Divorce is granted for the hardness of heart of men, per Christ himself. Call it annulment if you wish, but it's super pharisaical.

---

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying the Church should never grant nullity at all, while also recognizing that Paul did grant nullity in certain cases?

ETA: Yes, the Church still grants that marriage can exist outside of the Church.

ETA 2: Paul's teachings on being married to a non-believer is still apart of the annulment process today. If it is found that one never believed in the sacramental definition of marriage (lasts until death, with full intent towards the good of the other, and open to children) then they had incorrect belief, even if they called themselves a Christian. The bolded is the one most commonly missing in America today, which is why annulment is a distinctly American problem. Most people are entering marriage because of what they get from the other rather than what they can do for and with the other

---

You're Roman Catholic so annulment is baked into the cake. Dissolving the marriage because someone sinned isn't exactly wiling the good of the other either, it's simply hitting eject and justifying things ex post facto. Peoples memory's are fallible and we've all rewritten the past whether we know it or not. Your investigation is just red tape for clerical feels.

I suppose we're done at this point.

---

This shows that either I have done an extremely terrible job of explaining or you have done an extremely horrible job of understanding. This is 100% not grounds for annulment. You still don't know what an annulment IS. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better. Either that or you're not willing to understand

---

If someone never intended to have children and hid it, which you have as a reason for an annulment, isn't that a sin?

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

That's the whole thing about granting it though, right? You have no idea who's telling the truth and if they've always felt that way, or will always feel that way. 'The Church' isn't really in a position to evaluate these claims.

It can, however, evaluate what Paul says about being married to a non-believer (which indicates, btw, that marriage exists outside the church and without its blessing) - 1 Cor 7.

Paul also teaches how you behave in a marriage: you emulate Christ, rather than predicating your behavior on your spouse (submit, as unto Christ, love as Christ loved the church).

Divorce is granted for the hardness of heart of men, per Christ himself. Call it annulment if you wish, but it's super pharisaical.

---

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying the Church should never grant nullity at all, while also recognizing that Paul did grant nullity in certain cases?

ETA: Yes, the Church still grants that marriage can exist outside of the Church.

ETA 2: Paul's teachings on being married to a non-believer is still apart of the annulment process today. If it is found that one never believed in the sacramental definition of marriage (lasts until death, with full intent towards the good of the other, and open to children) then they had incorrect belief, even if they called themselves a Christian. The bolded is the one most commonly missing in America today, which is why annulment is a distinctly American problem. Most people are entering marriage because of what they get from the other rather than what they can do for and with the other

---

You're Roman Catholic so annulment is baked into the cake. Dissolving the marriage because someone sinned isn't exactly wiling the good of the other either, it's simply hitting eject and justifying things ex post facto. Peoples memory's are fallible and we've all rewritten the past whether we know it or not. Your investigation is just red tape for clerical feels.

I suppose we're done at this point.

---

This shows that either I have done an extremely terrible job of explaining or you have done an extremely horrible job of understanding. This is 100% not grounds for annulment. You still don't know what an annulment IS. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better. Either that or you're not willing to understand

---

If someone never intended to have children and hid it, which you have as a reason for an annulment, isn't that a sin?

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Who is acknowledging this? God? 21 years ago, everyone agreed that God was in the midst of and provided grace during a sacrament. Something happened in the spiritual realm that everyone agreed happened. Nobody that day said, 'who knows if this actually is sacrament, maybe one day if he gets an annulment nothing actually happened here. We have no way of knowing this today.'

And then he proceeded to consummate the marriage and they live as married people. But its a Schrodinger's marriage because this sacrament might not have actually happened. So they aren't actually married. They are just living in sin.

And then 15 years later. They separate. If they had a sacramental marriage this is a sin. If they did not have a sacramental marriage there is no sin here because they aren't married.

And then 5 years after this separation, we finally get a ruling that God was not performing a sacrament 21 years ago.

So if there wasnt a sacrament what do you make of the couple that now has to stand before God and judgement for their non-married life together? Some hand waive about mercy and human judgement. This is just the church punting this back to God.

Clearly, the answer is that yes there is a sacrament that happened. And annulment isn't a thing. Its still separating what God joined together because of a very specific set of circumstances. Circumstances more strict that what even God gave the Israelites begrudgingly.

And you also believe this type of ruling goes back to the first ecumenical counsel which was called to form a defense against Arianism and the Begottenness of Jesus?

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

At the time of this posting, 4 people have revealed themselves as divorced catholics based upon how many stars you have been given.

---