(NOTE: FOR SOME REASON, THE LAST COMMENTS ARE NOT SHOWING UP IN FIREFOX, BUT ARE IN IE.)
About the Roman Catholic church and divorce and remarriage!
The more I learn, the more I realize that (as Moonshadow pointed out), the dogma/doctrine of annulment runs in the opposite direction. We can examine this dogma (or is it doctrine?) against Scripture. We know that that Scripture is my final authority (and considered here as the only infallible rule of faith and conduct). In examining traditions/dogma/doctrine of other denominations/religions I examine against Scripture to see if "it's in there".
From what I understand, getting an annulment means that you have to:
- make different "categories" of marriage (sacramental vs. "not") - which I don't find in the Bible. The website I linked to referred to "true marriage", meaning that some marriages are not true, a concept that I cannot find in the Bible.
- make a case before the church that your marriage before God never existed.
Having entered into a marriage contract (which is in the Bible and is considered "marriage"), you are married. Or (according to the Roman Catholic church) maybe not.
If you find yourself in a "not a marriage" (for lack of a better term) it's because of
- psychological reasons
- misrepresentation or fraud
- Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex)
- Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)
- Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)
- Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)
- Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.
- Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.
- Illegal "Form of Marriage" (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)
- One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.
Which of these is actually Scriptural? As one who believes that Scripture is the final and only infallible source of faith and conduct, we can examine each of these reasons against Scripture to see if they are Scripturally sound.
The first thing to look for is any place in the Bible where a marriage is labeled "not a marriage" before God. I don't find one.
- Christ, while talking to the woman at the well, said that she had had several husbands - were these all annulled? Jesus considered them valid marriages, or He would have said something different. But He didn't, He called them marriages.
- Consider Onan, who married Tamar in a Leverite marriage and didn't fulfill his end of the bargain. The Bible never tells us that it was not a valid marriage.
- Because it's the law of our land (in the USA), bigamy and incest would have the marriage not be valid to start with (without the judgment of the church). No annulment should be needed, because it was an illegal marriage. Inthe Bible, Jacob married his first cousins and the marriage was never considered anything but a marriage. In the New Testament, living with your father's wife was condemned and church leaders are prohibited from plural marriages.
- Canon Law; Scripture doesn't give a form for marriage (meaning that it must be done in a church and/or by clergy). In the Old Testament, the Law said that if a woman in captured in war, a man shaves her head, waits a period of time and then has sex with her. I suppose you could call that a "form", but it also contradicts the Roman Catholic exception for "duress" - at least for the woman). There was no ceremony in a church.
- question: if a man becomes impotent, can the wife get an annulment?
The New Testament gives us two reasons for a Biblical divorce. In the Bible, we are never told that there must be additional paperwork by the "church" in order to remarry. In the Bible, a Biblical divorce comes with the right to remarry.
The Roman Catholic Church considers a marriage valid when:
- It is celebrated in a ceremony according to church law
- both parties are free to marry each other
- each party intends from the beginning of the marriage to accept God's plan for married life, as taught by the church
- each party has the physical and psychological ability to live out the consent and commitment initially given to the marriage.
Again, let's examine this against Scripture. The Bible never tells us that a "valid" marriage must be celebrated in a ceremony.
That both parties are free is a Biblical concept.
Intentions don't appear to matter (again consider Onan) and (other than the ability to consumate the marriage) physical or psychological reasons don't appear in the Bible.
My conclusion is:
If you are divorced for Biblical reasons, the divorce is Biblical and the marriage DID exist. A person is free to remarry. You don't need an annulment.
If you are divorced for unbiblical reasons, there is still hope an forgiveness (read this). But the marriage still existed and you still don't need an annulment.
(One thing, though...I know a woman who married a man in prison and that was never consumated. Even according to our court system, that was called an annulment by the law.
- NOTE: Any debate on this post MUST be on a Biblical basis. We can examine the doctrine of annulment against Scripture or we can not discuss it.
Elena
No, men didn’t compile it. God gathered it together and the church (as a body, not a council) received it.
Oh that's interesting. Did God come down personally to collect all of the scripts and deliver them to the councils or did he have an angel do it?
Elena
No, He did not inspire men to compile His Word.
Well then how was it done. Were they like zombies under the control of the puppet master? Did they lose their free will and then choose the books like in a trance? Did the completed canon just mysteriously appear on the table and they robotically just put a stamp on it? I'm just fascinated to know how you think that came about Ellen?
Ellen
Yes, or no.
It isn’t what the Bible says that is important, it is what Rome says it says.
It doesn’t matter whether or not a doctrine is Biblical, if Rome says it the doctrine is infallible.
Did God come down personally to collect all of the scripts and deliver them to the councils or did he have an angel do it?
Are we getting a little sarcastic?
Yes. I believe it's called the Holy Spirit.
Elena, another yes or no question, since you've commented and ignored them.
If the Bible and Rome appear to disagree, Rome must be correct. yes or no.
Elena
It isn’t what the Bible says that is important, it is what Rome says it says.
WEll we've seen the result of the bible being read without any background and interpretation - 500 years of splintering. What the bible says is important, but so is theinterpretation. I believe the Catholic church has the authority and the graces to interpret correctly as God meant for it to be interpreted.
It doesn’t matter whether or not a doctrine is Biblical,
Since the bible is not authoritative by itself, not everything we are required to believe has to be mentionedin the bible.
if Rome says it the doctrine is infallible.
On matters of faith and moral issues, based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, yes that is correct.
Ellen
Elena, you can ask without the sarcasm.
Drop it. (the sarcasm). If you need to be able to relate to someone who disagrees with you without sarcasm.
When you ask the question in a way that is not sarcastic, we'll look at it again.
Elena
Did God come down personally to collect all of the scripts and deliver them to the councils or did he have an angel do it?
Are we getting a little sarcastic?
Yes. I believe it’s called the Holy Spirit.
You believe the HOly Spirit flew around and collected all of the scripts and delivered them to the councils?
Elena, another yes or no question, since you’ve commented and ignored them.
If the Bible and Rome appear to disagree, Rome must be correct. yes or no.
If the bible and Rome appear to disagree, then I submit it's because of something lacking in the reader. That is why we have the church to give the proper interpretation.
Ellen
Elena, please answer the questions that I asked, in the way that I asked them, yes or no, in the way that I asked to have them answered.
It isn’t what the Bible says that is important, it is what Rome says it says. yes or no
It doesn’t matter whether or not a doctrine is Biblical, if Rome says it the doctrine is infallible. yes or no
Elena
Elena, you can ask without the sarcasm.
Drop it. (the sarcasm). If you need to be able to relate to someone who disagrees with you without sarcasm.
When you ask the question in a way that is not sarcastic, we’ll look at it again
I'm not being sarcastic but your answers just beg the question - how the heck did the scripts get there? You tell me God did it. Now apparently God as the Holy Spirit. The next logical question is, "The Holy Spirit flew around to collect the scripts and deliver them?"
Ellen
Enough sarcasm.
ENOUGH
Elena
Elena, please answer the questions that I asked, in the way that I asked them, yes or no, in the way that I asked to have them answered.
You would have made a good Pharisee Ellen. I answered your questions completely.
Elena
Enough sarcasm.
ENOUGH
No sarcasm intended. How did the scripts get there Ellen?
Ellen
Elena, I've asked that you relate without sarcasm and I trust that you know exactly what I mean. I've asked you to stop.
I have made a sincere effort to not be offensive in any way (except to disagree with doctrine) and I would sure appreciate it if you did the same.
Elena
OK so let me ask you Ellen. How did the scripts get to the councils? How did they know which ones to read, which ones were inspired, which ones were not? How?
Ellen
You would have made a good Pharisee Ellen.
"Pharisee" is known as being a derogative. Would you please refrain?
Elena
OK, how about you are not a prosecutor and I am not on trial. I answered your questions to the best of my ability as completely as I could. That should be satisfactory.
Carrie
Elena,
Maybe you have all this information, I haven't had the time to dig it up (if it can be dug up).
Which men were at the council? What is your proof that all of these men were true believers (and hence indwelled by the Holy Spirit)?
Which books were being disputed? What was the criteria used to "pick"? Was the vote unanimous?
Ellen
Elena, "yes" or "no" would have been just as easy (let your yes be yes and your no be no).
Let me pick through answers.
Since the bible is not authoritative by itself, not everything we are required to believe has to be mentionedin the bible.
Ok. That is a NO. It does not matter if a doctrine is Biblical.
If the bible and Rome appear to disagree, then I submit it’s because of something lacking in the reader. That is why we have the church to give the proper interpretation.
That is a yes. If the Bible and Rome appear to disagree, Rome gets the point.
Thanks.
Ellen
OK so let me ask you Ellen. How did the scripts get to the councils? How did they know which ones to read, which ones were inspired, which ones were not? How?
I have said before, in other places that I have no problem with God supernaturally protecting His Word. I have no problem with men asking for wisdom and being granted that protection, in a very unique way.
If you care to read my posts on "Sola Scriptura", that would be nice. The answers to your questions should be there.
(name the insertion for the gluteus maximus)
Elena
I have said before, in other places that I have no problem with God supernaturally protecting His Word. I have no problem with men asking for wisdom and being granted that protection, in a very unique way.
If you care to read my posts on “Sola Scriptura”, that would be nice. The answers to your questions should be there.
Well then Ellen it appears then that we really do agree on all points. God used men to write the books, he used men to compile the books, and God supernaturally protected (against error) the writing and compilation of his canon. We agree.
phd4jesus
Ellen give me an example of the bible “appearing to say one thing and the Magesterium another.”
Infant baptism is not biblical and is exemplified in the following catechism
1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.
This catechism indicates that infant baptism did not begin until some time in the 2nd century.
Elena
That is a yes. If the Bible and Rome appear to disagree, Rome gets the point.
The bible and Rome never disagree. Any discrepancies are due to a lack of understanding, education or other on the part of the reader. The church compiled the bible and she interprets it. It's her book. That is leadership and Christian unity.
Of course the other model, the Protestant model is disagreement, and splintering. The fruits of which are churches that support such atrocities as abortion, same sex marriage, divorce, women clergy etc. etc. If everyone interprets however they choose (all claiming to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit) the result is the fracturing we see in the Protestant branch of Chrisianity.
Carrie
Of course the other model, the Protestant model is disagreement, and splintering. The fruits of which are churches that support such atrocities as abortion, same sex marriage, divorce, women clergy etc. etc. If everyone interprets however they choose (all claiming to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit) the result is the fracturing we see in the Protestant branch of Chrisianity
I suppose pedophilia among priests is a good fruit?
We ALL have the same issues - our fallen nature causes some even in leadership to mess up. The difference is, we don't call ourselves the one, true church founded by Jesus Christ on which the gates of Hades won't prevail.
If clergy molesting children isn't Hades prevailing then I don't know what is.
Elena
I suppose pedophilia among priests is a good fruit?
The priests were not following the teachings of their own church! They were dissenting from the teachings of the church - dissenting, and almost Protestant in the rationalizations to make it square.
No Carrie, Hades would have prevailed if these minority priests had been somehow able to change the teachings of the church to encompass and embrace their abominations. But the knees of the church did not bend. She prevailed.
Carrie
The priests were not following the teachings of their own church!
Then maybe we should talk about the burning of heretics.
But the knees of the church did not bend. She prevailed.
Yeah, “she prevailed” after the victims exposed not only the sins of the priests but the sins of the hierarchy who were covering up this behavior.
Again, the issues you raise with Protestantism are not due to the fact that we use the Bible as our sole authority but because the church is made up of fallen men. Your church has the same problem.
If you don’t want to take responsibility for the sins of your church leadership then don’t point the finger at Protestant denominations. My teachings are all from the Bible, I can’t control the fact that some people get it wrong.
Elena
But the knees of the church did not bend. She prevailed.
Yeah, “she prevailed” after the victims exposed not only the sins of the priests but the sins of the hierarchy who were covering up this behavior.
Yep. Carrie, no one ever said the people in the church were perfect. All of the Biblical leaders were flawed persons. I'm afraid that we will always have sinners among us until judgement day! That's just a fact of this life. Yet God continues to use and put up with all of us regardless of our sins; we are all still part of His plan.
Again, the issues you raise with Protestantism are not due to the fact that we use the Bible as our sole authority but because the church is made up of fallen men. Your church has the same problem.
Actually it very much is the same problem. Fallen men, who decide to be their own magisterium, relying on their own understanding and rejecting the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, they are very similar.
If you don’t want to take responsibility for the sins of your church leadership then don’t point the finger at Protestant denominations.
Uh? I personally had nothing to do with the sins of the 4% of abusive American homosexual priests, or the bishops any more than I have anything to do with the PCUSA giving the thumbs up to abortion and same-sex marriage. As a Christian I can decry both of them however.
My teachings are all from the Bible, I can’t control the fact that some people get it wrong.
This was a nice dance with the strawman, but nontheless you make my point. The father we get from Catholic teachings, the farther from the truth we get. Surprisingly Carrie, you might actually be closer to Catholicism than those abusive priests were! ; )
Elena
If you don’t want to take responsibility for the sins of your church leadership then don’t point the finger at Protestant denominations.
Someone will have to explain that bit of logic to me Carrie. It's so twisted it made my neck hurt!
Carrie
The farther we get from Catholic teachings, the farther from the truth we get.
NO. The farther we get from GOD’s Word the farther we get from the truth.
The Bible is not the RCC’s book, it is God’s. It is HIS Word and HIS truth.
This was a nice dance with the strawman
No again. The strawman is the old “30,000 Protestant denominations” supporting gay marriage, abortion , etc.
Your church has just as many if not more skeletons in the closet therefore it is foolish to even bring it up.
Carrie
Someone will have to explain that bit of logic to me Carrie.
How about : People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
If we want to talk about church scandals as a barometer of “being in the truth” your church will certainly not fare well.
So why don’t we stick with doctrine and drop the sarcasm.
Elena
Someone will have to explain that bit of logic to me Carrie.
How about : People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
If we want to talk about church scandals as a barometer of “being in the truth” your church will certainly not fare well.
How about let's compare apples with tomatoes?
The priest scandal was about dissenting priests who ignored the teachings of the church on chastity (not to mention homosexuality). It had nothing to do with what the church taught
Protestantism is a constant division of the church due to disagreements in scriptural interpretation.
One has little if anything to do with the other!
but it's interesting thatyou find the divisions in protestantism on par with homosexual ephebophilia.
Elena
The farther we get from Catholic teachings, the farther from the truth we get.
NO. The farther we get from GOD’s Word the farther we get from the truth.
shrug... same thing.
The Bible is not the RCC’s book,
Under God's watchful and loving eye She wrote it and compiled it.
it is God’s.
Um... why would God need a book?
It is HIS Word and HIS truth.
No argument there.
This was a nice dance with the strawman
No again. The strawman is the old “30,000 Protestant denominations” supporting gay marriage, abortion , etc.
It's true! And all of those demoninations use scripture to support their stance. If you like Carrie I can introduce you to a very nice lady minister in New Jersey on line who supports all of those things and can take you task with scripture to make her points. I know, I've debated her before.
Your church has just as many if not more skeletons in the closet therefore it is foolish to even bring it up.
You are confusing scandals ( Rev. Haggard anyone?) with the divisions caused by misinterpreting scripture. Two entirely different topics.
Carrie
You are confusing scandals ( Rev. Haggard anyone?) with the divisions caused by misinterpreting scripture. Two entirely different topics.
No, you can't seem to understand that scandals and denominational divisions do not determine who is right.
but it’s interesting that you find the divisions in protestantism on par with homosexual ephebophilia.
You really are impossible.
I see you are back to twisting my words to try and make me look bad. I'm done.
Pingback:
MzEllen & Co. » Blog Archive » Is Marriage Indissolvable?
Ellen
As with the other thread, I've had enough.
For all of the accusations of hatred that come flying from you and Tony, Elena, it is YOU who use sarcasm, accusations, name-calling (by inference) and Tony who outright used the words "I HATE" and openly admitted that he posted a letter belittling "Bible literalists" (us).
Elena, it is YOU who needs to take a look at the log in your eye before you make any more accusations of "feeling" hate...because unlike you, I can supply quotes.
Comments are closed, and I am well aware that there may well be whining and complaining on other blogs. My behavior on these two threads will stand for itself. I have made a sincere effort to keep personalities out of it, yet have had to ask you to refrain.
Comments are closed. If either one of you would seriously like to contact me, with the intent of settling accounts, per Biblical foundations, the way to contact me is in the sidebar.