Bob Lee said:

---

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?

---

It's not the sin per se, but that openness to children is essential to marriage. If the "marriage" isn't essentially a marriage, then it's not a marriage at all. That's the Church's position.

A shotgun wedding doesn't produce a marriage despite appearances.

A marriage either definitely did happen or it definitely didn't happen. That has to be true if an essential characteristic of marriage is indissolubility. Dissolving a marriage violates the principle of non contradiction.

---

Except marriage exists outside the church, yes? Otherwise Paul wouldn't exhort spouses to stay married to non-believers. Are you asserting that priests can only perform sacramental marriages that can't ever be confused with common law (which it would be in fraudulent circumstances), or secular marriage, even if the parties live and act like one occurred, going so far as you get a marriage license?

How is this not repackaged donatism?

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?

---

Yes it's a sin, but the annulment isn't because a sin exists. It's because fundamental part of what is needed to be married wasn't present. It's like saying a dude can marry a dude. You can't get married in the eyes of the Church if you are unwilling to have children.

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

That's something you should probably repent of, unless it's truly a joke. Been married to one woman for 10 years, and yet here I am posting on this. If she ran out on me and asked for an annulment 10 years later, my number 1 priority would be showing up to defend the validity of our marriage. Not for my sake, but for hers (because I sure as heck wouldn't remarry). The last thing I want her to do is to break the command given to us by Jesus Himself. That the one, tiny thing I could still do to help her in that theoretical scenario

---

How? Gonna say, 'nuh uh!' ? How do you defend something that old that doesn't necessarily have text messages and emails to prove it?

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

That's something you should probably repent of, unless it's truly a joke. Been married to one woman for 10 years, and yet here I am posting on this. If she ran out on me and asked for an annulment 10 years later, my number 1 priority would be showing up to defend the validity of our marriage. Not for my sake, but for hers (because I sure as heck wouldn't remarry). The last thing I want her to do is to break the command given to us by Jesus Himself. That the one, tiny thing I could still do to help her in that theoretical scenario

---

Bud it's a joke because your post in defense of annulment got four stars. I'm just joking that everyone rushing to your defense here is…a (annulled) Catholic. Evangelicals playing at home aren't going, 'yeah banned made a great point about how divorce isn't allowed but I can certainly get annulled and remarried.'

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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?

---

It's not the sin per se, but that openness to children is essential to marriage. If the "marriage" isn't essentially a marriage, then it's not a marriage at all. That's the Church's position.

A shotgun wedding doesn't produce a marriage despite appearances.

A marriage either definitely did happen or it definitely didn't happen. That has to be true if an essential characteristic of marriage is indissolubility. Dissolving a marriage violates the principle of non contradiction.

---

Except marriage exists outside the church, yes? Otherwise Paul wouldn't exhort spouses to stay married to non-believers. Are you asserting that priests can only perform sacramental marriages that can't ever be confused with common law (which it would be in fraudulent circumstances), or secular marriage, even if the parties live and act like one occurred, going so far as you get a marriage license?

How is this not repackaged donatism?

---

It has nothing to do with the priest. If you kidnap a 9 year old, and force a priest to marry you at the point of a gun, is the girl married to you or not?

The answer is no. She's not. Right now you're saying, but how is that possible? clearly the ts were crossed and the i's were dotted. bada boom. Marriage!

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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?

---

It's not the sin per se, but that openness to children is essential to marriage. If the "marriage" isn't essentially a marriage, then it's not a marriage at all. That's the Church's position.

A shotgun wedding doesn't produce a marriage despite appearances.

A marriage either definitely did happen or it definitely didn't happen. That has to be true if an essential characteristic of marriage is indissolubility. Dissolving a marriage violates the principle of non contradiction.

---

Except marriage exists outside the church, yes? Otherwise Paul wouldn't exhort spouses to stay married to non-believers. Are you asserting that priests can only perform sacramental marriages that can't ever be confused with common law (which it would be in fraudulent circumstances), or secular marriage, even if the parties live and act like one occurred, going so far as you get a marriage license?

How is this not repackaged donatism?

---

It has nothing to do with the priest. If you kidnap a 9 year old, and force a priest to marry you at the point of a gun, is the girl married to you or not?

The answer is no. She's not. Right now you're saying, but how is that possible? clearly the ts were crossed and the i's were dotted. bada boom. Marriage!

---

Now try a realistic scenario where two people fell in love in college and got married, and one is now requesting an annulment. Because that's the real discussion here. This is as bad as the hypothetical Mormon marriage.

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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?

---

It's not the sin per se, but that openness to children is essential to marriage. If the "marriage" isn't essentially a marriage, then it's not a marriage at all. That's the Church's position.

A shotgun wedding doesn't produce a marriage despite appearances.

A marriage either definitely did happen or it definitely didn't happen. That has to be true if an essential characteristic of marriage is indissolubility. Dissolving a marriage violates the principle of non contradiction.

---

Except marriage exists outside the church, yes? Otherwise Paul wouldn't exhort spouses to stay married to non-believers. Are you asserting that priests can only perform sacramental marriages that can't ever be confused with common law (which it would be in fraudulent circumstances), or secular marriage, even if the parties live and act like one occurred, going so far as you get a marriage license?

How is this not repackaged donatism?

---

It has nothing to do with the priest. If you kidnap a 9 year old, and force a priest to marry you at the point of a gun, is the girl married to you or not?

The answer is no. She's not. Right now you're saying, but how is that possible? clearly the ts were crossed and the i's were dotted. bada boom. Marriage!

---

Now try a realistic scenario where two people fell in love in college and got married, and one is now requesting an annulment. Because that's the real discussion here. This is as bad as the hypothetical Mormon marriage.

---

The extreme hypothetical can be instructive. It's possible to be married by all appearances, but not actually married. Do.you agree?

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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?

---

It's not the sin per se, but that openness to children is essential to marriage. If the "marriage" isn't essentially a marriage, then it's not a marriage at all. That's the Church's position.

A shotgun wedding doesn't produce a marriage despite appearances.

A marriage either definitely did happen or it definitely didn't happen. That has to be true if an essential characteristic of marriage is indissolubility. Dissolving a marriage violates the principle of non contradiction.

---

Except marriage exists outside the church, yes? Otherwise Paul wouldn't exhort spouses to stay married to non-believers. Are you asserting that priests can only perform sacramental marriages that can't ever be confused with common law (which it would be in fraudulent circumstances), or secular marriage, even if the parties live and act like one occurred, going so far as you get a marriage license?

How is this not repackaged donatism?

---

It has nothing to do with the priest. If you kidnap a 9 year old, and force a priest to marry you at the point of a gun, is the girl married to you or not?

The answer is no. She's not. Right now you're saying, but how is that possible? clearly the ts were crossed and the i's were dotted. bada boom. Marriage!

---

Now try a realistic scenario where two people fell in love in college and got married, and one is now requesting an annulment. Because that's the real discussion here. This is as bad as the hypothetical Mormon marriage.

---

The extreme hypothetical can be instructive. It's possible to be married by all appearances, but not actually married. Do.you agree?

---

No. Marriage is not a thing that only exists when you and your spouse feel like it.

Question for the catholics.

If a catholic does not get married in a catholic church are they eligible for an annulment? I think there's a couple options:

-Yes they can get the easiest annulments and yes they can get divorced. The catholic church claims there is no sacramental power of marriage bestowed by a priest that day because a catholic priest wasn't there. There was nothing special going on that day and they lived in sin their whole sham marriage. There are sham marriages among the pious laity as we speak.
-No they are not eligible for an annulment because annulling a marriage is specifically nullifying a catholic marriage. But they can get secularly divorced because Catholicism has no jurisdiction over their secular, sham marriage that never actually was a sacramental marriage.
-No they are not eligible for an annulment nor can they get a divorce. Annulment is for catholic marriages. They are still not allowed to get a divorced under penalty up to excommunication because they have been declared married and consummated their marriage and have been accepted as catholic in a catholic church.

The third one is what I actually think catholic doctrine would say. Which would make marriages outside of the church more binding that marriages inside of the church.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

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?

---

21 years ago you got baptised in a Mormon church. Everyone agreed that God was in the midst of and provided grace during that sacrament. Something happened in the spiritual realm that everyone agreed happened.

You continued to live the "Christian" life as prescribed by the Mormon church for 15 years. Then you leave the church and become an atheist.

5 years later you discover the EO Church and we get a ruling that there never was a sacrament 21 years ago.

So did a sacrament clearly happen or no? Does your church not weigh in on this issue? Why is marriage the only sacrament that isn't subject to this judgement?

To your bolded, I've told you this before: there are multiple councils in the East that have discussed nullity of marriage, well before the split. Paul gave an example of it. Annulment is a real thing. If the church you are in can't do this, then you're in the wrong church.

---

How is that the same? Its clearly not. You're jumping between whole different religions and then churches here.
This discussion is about roman catholics doing roman catholic things in roman catholic churches and then other roman catholics claiming roman catholic things didn't happen in their roman catholic church.

---

No, you're questioning how an apparent sacrament can be found invalid after the fact. Your church does this.

But to avoid this very rebuttal, I mention, yet again, that the Church in the East has councils talking about null marriages in the past. So that is EO doing EO thing in EO churches. Your church used to be able to declare nullity. Why can't it do that anymore? What changed?

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

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

---

That's something you should probably repent of, unless it's truly a joke. Been married to one woman for 10 years, and yet here I am posting on this. If she ran out on me and asked for an annulment 10 years later, my number 1 priority would be showing up to defend the validity of our marriage. Not for my sake, but for hers (because I sure as heck wouldn't remarry). The last thing I want her to do is to break the command given to us by Jesus Himself. That the one, tiny thing I could still do to help her in that theoretical scenario

---

How? Gonna say, 'nuh uh!' ? How do you defend something that old that doesn't necessarily have text messages and emails to prove it?

---

By giving my side of the story. Go back to what I said earlier: The Church doensn't make something invalid. It doesn't undo a sacrament. The mission is to find out whether the sacrament was there or not, and there is potential for mistake due to one spouse lying. That is on the lying spouse, as they are not only lying, but entering into adultery. If I don't do what I can to help prevent that, then I have sinned. But I can only do what I can do

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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?

---

It's not the sin per se, but that openness to children is essential to marriage. If the "marriage" isn't essentially a marriage, then it's not a marriage at all. That's the Church's position.

A shotgun wedding doesn't produce a marriage despite appearances.

A marriage either definitely did happen or it definitely didn't happen. That has to be true if an essential characteristic of marriage is indissolubility. Dissolving a marriage violates the principle of non contradiction.

---

Except marriage exists outside the church, yes? Otherwise Paul wouldn't exhort spouses to stay married to non-believers. Are you asserting that priests can only perform sacramental marriages that can't ever be confused with common law (which it would be in fraudulent circumstances), or secular marriage, even if the parties live and act like one occurred, going so far as you get a marriage license?

How is this not repackaged donatism?

---

It has nothing to do with the priest. If you kidnap a 9 year old, and force a priest to marry you at the point of a gun, is the girl married to you or not?

The answer is no. She's not. Right now you're saying, but how is that possible? clearly the ts were crossed and the i's were dotted. bada boom. Marriage!

---

Now try a realistic scenario where two people fell in love in college and got married, and one is now requesting an annulment. Because that's the real discussion here. This is as bad as the hypothetical Mormon marriage.

---

The extreme hypothetical can be instructive. It's possible to be married by all appearances, but not actually married. Do.you agree?

---

No. Marriage is not a thing that only exists when you and your spouse feel like it.

---

So we go back to what I asked another poster earlier: What is marriage? Is is just two people living together and giving a flawed human vow, or is it something higher than that?

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Question for the catholics.

If a catholic does not get married in a catholic church are they eligible for an annulment? I think there's a couple options:

-Yes they can get the easiest annulments and yes they can get divorced. The catholic church claims there is no sacramental power of marriage bestowed by a priest that day because a catholic priest wasn't there. There was nothing special going on that day and they lived in sin their whole sham marriage. There are sham marriages among the pious laity as we speak.
-No they are not eligible for an annulment because annulling a marriage is specifically nullifying a catholic marriage. But they can get secularly divorced because Catholicism has no jurisdiction over their secular, sham marriage that never actually was a sacramental marriage.
-No they are not eligible for an annulment nor can they get a divorce. Annulment is for catholic marriages. They are still not allowed to get a divorced under penalty up to excommunication because they have been declared married and consummated their marriage and have been accepted as catholic in a catholic church.

The third one is what I actually think catholic doctrine would say. Which would make marriages outside of the church more binding that marriages inside of the church.

---

Option 4: The couple talks to a priest to determine if proper form and intent existed at the time of the marriage, regardless of where the marriage took place.

I think you really, really don't understand what it is the annulment process is trying to uncover. It's not about the ceremony, the sex afterward, or any amount of sin the occurred before or after. It's about whether or not the two people understand the tenets of marriage at all

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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?

---

It's not the sin per se, but that openness to children is essential to marriage. If the "marriage" isn't essentially a marriage, then it's not a marriage at all. That's the Church's position.

A shotgun wedding doesn't produce a marriage despite appearances.

A marriage either definitely did happen or it definitely didn't happen. That has to be true if an essential characteristic of marriage is indissolubility. Dissolving a marriage violates the principle of non contradiction.

---

Except marriage exists outside the church, yes? Otherwise Paul wouldn't exhort spouses to stay married to non-believers. Are you asserting that priests can only perform sacramental marriages that can't ever be confused with common law (which it would be in fraudulent circumstances), or secular marriage, even if the parties live and act like one occurred, going so far as you get a marriage license?

How is this not repackaged donatism?

---

It has nothing to do with the priest. If you kidnap a 9 year old, and force a priest to marry you at the point of a gun, is the girl married to you or not?

The answer is no. She's not. Right now you're saying, but how is that possible? clearly the ts were crossed and the i's were dotted. bada boom. Marriage!

---

Now try a realistic scenario where two people fell in love in college and got married, and one is now requesting an annulment. Because that's the real discussion here. This is as bad as the hypothetical Mormon marriage.

---

The extreme hypothetical can be instructive. It's possible to be married by all appearances, but not actually married. Do.you agree?

---

No. Marriage is not a thing that only exists when you and your spouse feel like it.

---

When has a marriage occurred? Are there any pre requisites?

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Because in EO, annulment has never become this loaded word that has to exist as a pressure relief valve to allow some form of marital separation.

-You can get divorced in EO churches.
-They never deny that sacrament never happened. Because they don't have to search for some reason to dress up the word divorce to allow some forms of separation.
-It is extremely serious. The priest will not appear at the reception. There is an expectation that the celebration for a second marriage caused by divorce reflect the totality of what happened here - a divorce and a remarriage.
-The priest can absolutely deny to re-marry you and deny you communion after your divorce for as long as they see fit.

The expectation is that you stay married. You live our your life and struggle with your marriage. The generally biblical quotations for divorce still stand - abandonment, sexual unfaithfulness, and serious abuse.

Just like you can be baptized in the orthodox church, fully receive that sacrament and then walk away from God fully and completely for the rest of your life. That doesn't remove the sacramental power that happened during baptism. You can be married, receive that sacrament and walk away from your marriage. In both cases, to your own detriment.

This whole discussion points back to the distinction that orthodox church is a hospital. The catholic church is a courtroom.

---

It's not a pressure relief valve in the Catholic Church. That is how you are caricaturizing it.

In order to enter into a valid marriage, the couple needs to truly understand what they're doing.

1.Do they know this is supposed to be forever, no matter what. You would be surprised how many couples I've talked to about this that ultimately admit they have a list of things that would cause them to leave the marriage. That person should not be married.

2. Do they intend to have kids? If no, don't get married.

3. Are you willing to do whatever you need to do to help your spouse in their earthly journey towards Heaven? If the primary reason for getting married is feelings, don't get married.

If you are reading this and thinking "barely any American marriage pass this bar", you will see the problem. People can get married and comply with these bullet points without spelling them all out, therefore there can be marriage outside of the Church. These people can also grow to understand these 3 points more and more as time passes. But if it is found that someone always had divorce as an option, never wanted to have kids, or just got married because it felt good, there is reason to investigate if it was ever a valide marriage

TSJ said:

---

The Banned said:

---

It's not a pressure relief valve in the Catholic Church. That is how you are caricaturizing it.

---

---

Definitely couldn't be a joke of some kind

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Because in EO, annulment has never become this loaded word that has to exist as a pressure relief valve to allow some form of marital separation.

-You can get divorced in EO churches.
-They never deny that sacrament never happened. Because they don't have to search for some reason to dress up the word divorce to allow some forms of separation.
-It is extremely serious. The priest will not appear at the reception. There is an expectation that the celebration for a second marriage caused by divorce reflect the totality of what happened here - a divorce and a remarriage.
-The priest can absolutely deny to re-marry you and deny you communion after your divorce for as long as they see fit.

The expectation is that you stay married. You live our your life and struggle with your marriage. The generally biblical quotations for divorce still stand - abandonment, sexual unfaithfulness, and serious abuse.

Just like you can be baptized in the orthodox church, fully receive that sacrament and then walk away from God fully and completely for the rest of your life. That doesn't remove the sacramental power that happened during baptism. You can be married, receive that sacrament and walk away from your marriage. In both cases, to your own detriment.

This whole discussion points back to the distinction that orthodox church is a hospital. The catholic church is a courtroom.

---

It's not a pressure relief valve in the Catholic Church. That is how you are caricaturizing it.

---

There are catholics, on this very thread, explicitly viewing the church granting them an annulment as the final step in...them getting a divorce.

Its a pressure relief valve. You can't force people to stay married if they don't want to. Everyone else approaches divorce pretty reasonably. Catholicism is off in left field here having to examine the state of mind and everyones motivations to see if they can find an out.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

---

So in other words, you already know the truth and anything that counters your opinion doesn't matter. Some people just never stop Protesting, no matter which church they converted to

Also, you never answered: why can't your church tell what when a marriage is null anymore? Or can they and you don't like the fact your church can do, and has done, the very thing your deriding?

Sheesh. It's about time for this thread to get annulled.

South Platte said:

---

Sheesh. It's about time for this thread to get annulled.

---

Just to be really aggravating: Nothing "gets" annulled. This thread was either null from the beginning or it wasn't. And based on OP saying he doesn't even care that his ex is seeking annulment, I agree with you

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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?

---

It's not the sin per se, but that openness to children is essential to marriage. If the "marriage" isn't essentially a marriage, then it's not a marriage at all. That's the Church's position.

A shotgun wedding doesn't produce a marriage despite appearances.

A marriage either definitely did happen or it definitely didn't happen. That has to be true if an essential characteristic of marriage is indissolubility. Dissolving a marriage violates the principle of non contradiction.

---

Except marriage exists outside the church, yes? Otherwise Paul wouldn't exhort spouses to stay married to non-believers. Are you asserting that priests can only perform sacramental marriages that can't ever be confused with common law (which it would be in fraudulent circumstances), or secular marriage, even if the parties live and act like one occurred, going so far as you get a marriage license?

How is this not repackaged donatism?

---

It has nothing to do with the priest. If you kidnap a 9 year old, and force a priest to marry you at the point of a gun, is the girl married to you or not?

The answer is no. She's not. Right now you're saying, but how is that possible? clearly the ts were crossed and the i's were dotted. bada boom. Marriage!

---

Now try a realistic scenario where two people fell in love in college and got married, and one is now requesting an annulment. Because that's the real discussion here. This is as bad as the hypothetical Mormon marriage.

---

The extreme hypothetical can be instructive. It's possible to be married by all appearances, but not actually married. Do.you agree?

---

No. Marriage is not a thing that only exists when you and your spouse feel like it.

---

When has a marriage occurred? Are there any pre requisites?

---

Sure, but the RCC doesn't have exclusive domain, as evidenced by the fact that they occur outside your church too. When one person sins against another, it doesn't negate the bond, just like sin doesn't negate baptism. Your obligations in marriage are as Christ relates to His church; they're not contingent upon someone else's behavior outside of the aforementioned adultery, abuse, neglect.

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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?

---

It's not the sin per se, but that openness to children is essential to marriage. If the "marriage" isn't essentially a marriage, then it's not a marriage at all. That's the Church's position.

A shotgun wedding doesn't produce a marriage despite appearances.

A marriage either definitely did happen or it definitely didn't happen. That has to be true if an essential characteristic of marriage is indissolubility. Dissolving a marriage violates the principle of non contradiction.

---

Except marriage exists outside the church, yes? Otherwise Paul wouldn't exhort spouses to stay married to non-believers. Are you asserting that priests can only perform sacramental marriages that can't ever be confused with common law (which it would be in fraudulent circumstances), or secular marriage, even if the parties live and act like one occurred, going so far as you get a marriage license?

How is this not repackaged donatism?

---

It has nothing to do with the priest. If you kidnap a 9 year old, and force a priest to marry you at the point of a gun, is the girl married to you or not?

The answer is no. She's not. Right now you're saying, but how is that possible? clearly the ts were crossed and the i's were dotted. bada boom. Marriage!

---

Now try a realistic scenario where two people fell in love in college and got married, and one is now requesting an annulment. Because that's the real discussion here. This is as bad as the hypothetical Mormon marriage.

---

The extreme hypothetical can be instructive. It's possible to be married by all appearances, but not actually married. Do.you agree?

---

No. Marriage is not a thing that only exists when you and your spouse feel like it.

---

When has a marriage occurred? Are there any pre requisites?

---

Sure, but the RCC doesn't have exclusive domain, as evidenced by the fact that they occur outside your church too. When one person sins against another, it doesn't negate the bond, just like sin doesn't negate baptism. Your obligations in marriage are as Christ relates to His church; they're not contingent upon someone else's behavior outside of the aforementioned adultery, abuse, neglect.

---

An annulment doesn't dissolve a marriage. If a marriage has occured, then I would even argue that adultery, abuse, and neglect don't dissolve it either.

so there's marriage that everyone else uses in the vernacular; then,

there's this other thing the roman catholics call marriage which is something else entirely and has (potentially unknowable) conditions (for one party or the other, or the priest) at the time that can appear to have happened but not have happened, given the revealing of time or of further information, or in hindsight.

catholics are only saying the second thing never happened, even if the first thing (which everyone else calls marraige) did. and that's annulment.

yall are talking about different things and thats why people get annoyed.

if the rcc wants to create this other thing parallel to the thing everyone else recognizes as marriage, and make rules about it - have at it. they can dissolve, or not dissolve, or post-facto cancel, or hey even say people who thought they weren't married are! its their sandbox and their rules.

anyway once armed with clarity above the immediate question becomes - what then is the marriage? the point that the marriage bond is dissoluble is separate to this question.

because the latin framework of nullity is a contractual claim. youve seen it here - contract is null because of defect in consent, capacity, intent, etc. this is is all latin medieval canon coming out of roman law in the 1100s. comparing this contracting framework to St Paul's words on marriage is a severe anachronism.

christianity isn't based on roman law. it is based on the torah, given by Christ. marriage was an objective change of status that created concrete rights an obligations, rather than an invisible legal object created by an interior act of consent.

becoming a wife was a thing that happened, concretely, subject to a question of fact - not a legal inquiry of in the time past this person have this intent.

the standard of marriage being made by consent vs intercourse "Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit" is not a quote from St Paul or even from a Christian. it comes from roman law - a guy named Ulpian who lived in the early third century. so are we talking about Christian marriage or roman law?

being charitable, the later framework is a synthesis of existing roman law about marriage being applied to a Christian framework. it really doesn't get completely systematized until the 1100s*. however the same people who insist so strongly on this will tell you the current US government has no role in marriage whatsoever. there is some irony here.


*these ancient canonical texts do not give a complete list of impediments, much less a general theory concerning them. It is only at the end of the twelfth century that we find, for the first time, the use of the word "impediment" in its technical sense, together with a catalogue of matrimonial impediments
Catholic Encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Why didn't Jacob ask for a null marriage when he was tricked into marrying Leah? Seems to be an open and shut case here.

---

this is the key point I think.

Later medievalists would clearly say this is not a marriage but that concept is completely foreign to the text. She was his wife.

Zobel said:

---

so there's marriage that everyone else uses in the vernacular; then,

there's this other thing the roman catholics call marriage which is something else entirely and has (potentially unknowable) conditions (for one party or the other, or the priest) at the time that can appear to have happened but not have happened, given the revealing of time or of further information, or in hindsight.

catholics are only saying the second thing never happened, even if the first thing (which everyone else calls marraige) did. and that's annulment.

yall are talking about different things and thats why people get annoyed.

if the rcc wants to create this other thing parallel to the thing everyone else recognizes as marriage, and make rules about it - have at it. they can dissolve, or not dissolve, or post-facto cancel, or hey even say people who thought they weren't married are! its their sandbox and their rules.

---

I was going to post something similar except the last paragraph. The problem is that kids of a 20 year not marriage don't perceive that at all, and neither does an aggrieved spouse. They live a real, incarnated marriage and familial relationship. And that's ultimately the problem, even if the RCC doing a Mormon or JH 'wink wink nod nod, say no more, say no more' definitional inversion switcheroo of the word 'marriage'. It's speaking a not reality into existence. The sacramental was made manifest and real for many of these relationships for a period of time, and no ex post facto proclamation can undo that, even with their own rules.

That is how I view the debate: if all participants in it perceive it as such and it has license, it is a falsehood to say it never existed. It's the trans argument: the physical has no bearing on the metaphysical or mental.

AGC said:

---

Zobel said:

---

so there's marriage that everyone else uses in the vernacular; then,

there's this other thing the roman catholics call marriage which is something else entirely and has (potentially unknowable) conditions (for one party or the other, or the priest) at the time that can appear to have happened but not have happened, given the revealing of time or of further information, or in hindsight.

catholics are only saying the second thing never happened, even if the first thing (which everyone else calls marraige) did. and that's annulment.

yall are talking about different things and thats why people get annoyed.

if the rcc wants to create this other thing parallel to the thing everyone else recognizes as marriage, and make rules about it - have at it. they can dissolve, or not dissolve, or post-facto cancel, or hey even say people who thought they weren't married are! its their sandbox and their rules.

---

I was going to post something similar except the last paragraph. The problem is that kids of a 20 year not marriage don't perceive that at all, and neither does an aggrieved spouse. They live a real, incarnated marriage and familial relationship. And that's ultimately the problem, even if the RCC doing a Mormon or JH 'wink wink nod nod, say no more, say no more' definitional inversion switcheroo of the word 'marriage'. It's speaking a not reality into existence. The sacramental was made manifest and real for many of these relationships for a period of time, and no ex post facto proclamation can undo that, even with their own rules.

That is how I view the debate: if all participants in it perceive it as such and it has license, it is a falsehood to say it never existed. It's the trans argument: the physical has no bearing on the metaphysical or mental.

---

Then if all participants don't perceive it as such then we can say it never existed?

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Zobel said:

---

so there's marriage that everyone else uses in the vernacular; then,

there's this other thing the roman catholics call marriage which is something else entirely and has (potentially unknowable) conditions (for one party or the other, or the priest) at the time that can appear to have happened but not have happened, given the revealing of time or of further information, or in hindsight.

catholics are only saying the second thing never happened, even if the first thing (which everyone else calls marraige) did. and that's annulment.

yall are talking about different things and thats why people get annoyed.

if the rcc wants to create this other thing parallel to the thing everyone else recognizes as marriage, and make rules about it - have at it. they can dissolve, or not dissolve, or post-facto cancel, or hey even say people who thought they weren't married are! its their sandbox and their rules.

---

I was going to post something similar except the last paragraph. The problem is that kids of a 20 year not marriage don't perceive that at all, and neither does an aggrieved spouse. They live a real, incarnated marriage and familial relationship. And that's ultimately the problem, even if the RCC doing a Mormon or JH 'wink wink nod nod, say no more, say no more' definitional inversion switcheroo of the word 'marriage'. It's speaking a not reality into existence. The sacramental was made manifest and real for many of these relationships for a period of time, and no ex post facto proclamation can undo that, even with their own rules.

That is how I view the debate: if all participants in it perceive it as such and it has license, it is a falsehood to say it never existed. It's the trans argument: the physical has no bearing on the metaphysical or mental.

---

Then if all participants don't perceive it as such then we can say it never existed?

---

If only that's what I'd said…

Rex Racer said:

---

The Banned said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

This kind of stuff is the weirdest thing to me. My 100% catholic wife and I got married by a Methodist priest outdoors. We've been married for 22 years. Is it not real? Not valid? Legal? So freakin' weird the scam the churches got going on with this stuff. I really think folks need to focus on more important things like making it work and honoring the vow rather than what some big religious organization or business or government thinks.

I've read the thread and still don't "get" why the hell the difference is between annulment and divorce and I still don't understand what the hell the OP means or is trying to figure out after 20 years. Anyone got a very very brief cliff note? Mostly academic curiosity for me at this point.

---

There were councils convened to deal with these issues prior to Christianity even being legalized. To not care about the details of marriage would be the novel position to take.

---

There were marriages that took place prior to the establishment of the RCC. For instance, Jesus went to a wedding in Cana where he performed a certain water to wine miracle. I guess that marriage wasn't valid.

---

You either didn't read any of the rest of this thread, or you did a poor job of comprehending the rest of this thread