From jswranch, is a comment on this post that begins with a statement "...before we can begin to look at something like annulments, we have to understand marriage is indissolveable. If it is dissolveable, the whole annulment thing is bunk. Is marriage dissolveable?"
I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.
But does this mean that it cannot be dissolved? What does the Bible say?
First, what is a covenant? Strong's says, b@riyth {ber-eeth'},
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
..a) between men
....treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
....constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
....agreement, pledge (man to man)
....alliance (of friendship)
....alliance (of marriage)
..b)between God and man
....alliance (of friendship)
....covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)
2)(phrases)
..a) covenant making
..b) covenant keeping
..c) covenant violation
Covenants are not meant to be broken, but can they be?
Between men (or - in the case of marriage - a man and a woman) can treaties be broken, or agreements between monarchs and subjects? Obviously, treaties are broken nearly every day. Between humans, covenants can be broken.
(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)
If we take the stand that marriage covenants cannot be broken, then divorce cannot happen. Or, at the very least, breaking a covenant in order to divorce would be a sin and that puts God in the difficult position of regulating (and not prohibiting) sin (Search the Levitical Law). Levitical priests were the only men who were prohibited from marrying divorced women, and they were also prohibited from marrying widows.
We know that covenants have terms.
Can a Covenant be broken? Can a divorce (for Biblical cause) validly break a covenant?
God seemed to say so. Jeremiah 3:6-8
The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: "Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.
God sent Israel away (for the cause of adultery) with a writ of divorce. This is a clear confirmation that sexual sin within a covenant is cause for a divorce.
What does this do to the covenant?
From Hebrews 8:6-7
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Verse 13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Note: In this passage, the author writes (verses 8-9):
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
God will make a NEW covenant with Israel and Judah - IT IS NOT THE SAME COVENANT, THE OLD ONE WAS BROKEN.
(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)
Biblically, we cannot say that a covenant cannot be broken, because God Himself has demonstrated that covenant can be broken.
Biblically, with God as the model, God Himself has demonstrated that there is Biblical cause to break a marriage covenant - because God Himself has done it.
(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)
This is Biblical and I have used Scripture as a foundation for my belief.
Carrie
Thanks Ellen for defining all these things biblically.
It is obvious from the long discussion in the previous post on this topic that the Catholic Church has no biblical basis for annulment. The scriptures only talk of divorce (breaking the marriage contract) and not annulment (saying that the marriage didn't exist in the first place).
And yet the Catholic Church tries to act as if it cherishes the "sacrament of marriage" and opposes divorce by allowing the loophole of annulment. It is unbiblical and hypocritical.
Ellen
We have a very human tendency for denial..."That's ok, it never happened..."
But there are other churches out there that put a very heavy weight on those who sin - and give them no hope for restoration.
Carrie
But there are other churches out there that put a very heavy weight on those who sin - and give them no hope for restoration.
And yet we all sin and as best I can tell from scripture, sin is sin. God doesn't look past gossiping while burning with anger against the adulterers.
So I am not sure why we are tough on some sins when we all know that we are not worthy to cast the first stone.
Clearly the church has to deal with unrepentant sinners in some way, but as you say, offer them hope of restoration.
That does mean going back and "erasing" the mistakes, but repenting and look for God's forgiveness and his will for our soiled lives.
Carrie
Another thought as I find this whole idea of annulment making things okay as baffling.
I think I mentioned this before and wonder if you will cover this in your series.
What about sex outside of marriage? Doesn't that fall under fornication?
How is fornication (what you are left with after an annulment) any better than adultery (what you are left with after a divorce and remarriage)?
Maybe John, who said that adulterers go to hell can explain how the fornicators get out of the same sentence.
Tony
There is just so much misunderstanding about the declaration of nullity of sacraments in the Catholic Church. First off, declarations of nullity do not apply only to marriage. Any of the sacraments can be declared null. A girl suffering from celiac disease whose mother brought a host made of rice for her child's first communion was declared null by the church, since because the host was rice, the consecration never occurred, and the little girl did not receive the Body and Blood of Christ. The sacrament never happened.
Since you people don't believe in sacraments, I don't understand why we're even beating this dead horse. All Protestant marriages appear to be civil marriages. You can divorce those all you want.
Ellen
Since you people don’t believe in sacraments,
That's false. We don't believe in the extra sacraments that the Roman Catholic church has imposed on her people.
The sacrament never happened.
Can you find that in the Bible? That you can participate in a sacrament and have it never have happened?
All Protestant marriages appear to be civil marriages.
Any Scripture telling me that my post is Scripturally incorrect?
Any Scripture telling me that you have any Biblical basis for telling me that a marriage may or may not be a marriage (declared so perhaps many years after the fact)?
All Protestant marriages appear to be civil marriages.
Yes. Yes they are, as are Roman Catholic marriages.
But you must not have read my previous post. Marriage is...never mind. Read it or don't.
Ellen
By the way, Tony, this post was not about "annulment", it was about "is marriage indissolvable".
As the comment that John made a couple of days ago stated at the top,
If it is dissolveable, the whole annulment thing is bunk. Is marriage dissolveable?
You have offered no Scripture to oppose the Biblical teaching that covenants (including marriage) are dissolveable.
Ellen
I don't want to "hammer" you with questions, so I'll merely repeat the ones that I've asked you in this thread.
Can you find that in the Bible? That you can participate in a sacrament and have it never have happened?
Any Scripture telling me that my post is Scripturally incorrect?
Any Scripture telling me that you have any Biblical basis for telling me that a marriage may or may not be a marriage (declared so perhaps many years after the fact)?
After you answer these three, we can address the actual post and perhaps discuss (Biblically) what a marriage is - the topic of the post.
Ellen
There is just so much misunderstanding about the declaration of nullity of sacraments in the Catholic Church...The sacrament never happened.
Yes, Tony, that's why I've been asking for Biblical basis for teaching for a disctinction between "marriage" and "not a marriage" (a marriage that never happened).
Tony, did I understand you a few days ago when you said that every marriage in the Bible was sacramental?
Ellen
Sorry...don't answer that one.
Carrie
Since you people don’t believe in sacraments, I don’t understand why we’re even beating this dead horse. All Protestant marriages appear to be civil marriages. You can divorce those all you want.
The point is that you have no biblical basis for the act of annulment. You keep dancing around, but won't just flat out admit that.
We do believe in saccraments, but only the biblical ones. The issue is the same, your church's teaching on this subject are not biblical.
The idea of annulment is not supported biblically, therefore you are "nullifying" marriages that are still marriages in God's eyes. You are allowing people in those situations to think that what they have done in God's eye's is legit and it is not.
You are therefore going against the teaching of scriptures which is a problem. I don't have a problem with tradition, but it cannot be counter-biblical. The church cannot have a process for "nullifying" a marriage and pretend that gets around God's intent for marriage.
For me at least, that is why I keep beating this dead horse. It is just one more example of how the RCC is counter-biblical and you have yet to produce any scripture to say otherwise. BUT, you keep trying to maintain that the RCC isn't counter-biblical on this one which is wrong.
You seem to think that I "have it out" for the RCC but that isn't exactly it. What I have an issue with is a church system that pretends that it is biblical when it is not.
Elena
The idea of annulment is not supported biblically, therefore you are “nullifying” marriages that are still marriages in God’s eyes. You are allowing people in those situations to think that what they have done in God’s eye’s is legit and it is not.
OK, I'm going to just see if this works, and if not, fine, I'll simply put it on my own blog.
Annullment happens only if one of the people apply for it, and then only after the divorce has gone through. Ellen has just spent a lot of time and energy to make her point that divorce is biblical and marriage is dissoluble. So if in your eyes these marriages are licitly disolved and the Catholic church just afirms, that, then what's the problem?
Elena
What I have an issue with is a church system that pretends that it is biblical when it is not.
and since I'm on a roll, the Catholic church doesn't pretend to be "biblical" in the way that you mean "biblical." It never has.
Carrie
So if in your eyes these marriages are licitly disolved and the Catholic church just afirms, that, then what’s the problem?
It is not affirming the divorce, it is declaring the marriage never existed in the first place.
Why not just confirm the divorce and then allow for remarriage? I am not saying that is necessarily okay, but why the facade of annulment? It is deceptive and depending on the circumstances, still makes people into adulterers in God's eyes (although they won't know that b/c their church told them it was okay).
and since I’m on a roll, the Catholic church doesn’t pretend to be “biblical” in the way that you mean “biblical.” It never has.
By "biblical" I mean that practices or traditions cannot go AGAINST the teaching of scripture. As far as I knew, the RCC claimed to NOT be counter-scripturally.
If the RCC is counter-scriptural either openly or not, it is a false church.
Ellen
Ellen has just spent a lot of time and energy to make her point that divorce is biblical and marriage is dissoluble. So if in your eyes these marriages are licitly disolved and the Catholic church just afirms, that, then what’s the problem?
Elena - excellent! Since you're commenting, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you're admitting to and repenting of false accusations.
Let me give you a couple of scenerios.
1) a divorce is Biblical (note that I never said that all divorce is Biblical) and the Roman Catholic church says "yes, we affirm that the dissolution of this marriage is a Biblical one and you are free to remarry in the Lord." This would be ok, but not necessary.
2) a divorce is Biblical and the Roman Catholic church says, "no it's not - but we can make it so that it never happened, with this distinction between "marriage" and "not a marriage" that is never mentioned in the Bible." This, the Roman Catholic church says is necessary, and that's not ok.
and since I’m on a roll, the Catholic church doesn’t pretend to be “biblical” in the way that you mean “biblical.” It never has.
This is true. I won't deny that the Catholic church has ever pretended to be Biblical. I won't say that it never has been.
Elena
It is not affirming the divorce, it is declaring the marriage never existed in the first place.
Actually it is declaring the sacrament was void or nul. It doesn't say that civil marriage never occurred - that would be ridiculous.
and since I’m on a roll, the Catholic church doesn’t pretend to be “biblical” in the way that you mean “biblical.” It never has.
By “biblical” I mean that practices or traditions cannot go AGAINST the teaching of scripture. As far as I knew, the RCC claimed to NOT be counter-scripturally.
If the RCC is counter-scriptural either openly or not, it is a false church
The Church is what it is quite openly for 2000 years. She doesn't counter scripture because she interprets the scripture!
The point of contention then is that you don't agree with those interpretations, but that's another topic.
Elena
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you’re admitting to and repenting of false accusations.
Actually I just had something to ask and wanted to see if I was blocked. Since I'm not blocked, I removed my ban on you too Ellen and you are now free to leave comments on my blog as well. I thought that was only right.
Ellen
Elena, you never were blocked, for my hope was that you would repent.
Ellen
I removed my ban on you too Ellen and you are now free to leave comments on my blog as well.
I didn't realize that I was banned. Before I asked you to repent or not comment, I confronted you (as per Matthew 18). I'm sorry that I either missed your warning (or you didn't).
Elena
Elena, you never were blocked, for my hope was that you would repent.
LOL!! Well don't I get props for good behavior or self-control??
Ellen
Absolutely. That's why I said, "Excellent". I'm counting on it.
Ellen
The Church is what it is quite openly for 2000 years. She doesn’t counter scripture because she interprets the scripture!
Why is so hard to find the Biblical basis for teaching for a disctinction between “marriage” and “not a marriage” (a marriage that never happened).
Elena
a divorce is Biblical and the Roman Catholic church says, “no it’s not - but we can make it so that it never happened,
How about an example?
Ellen
I've got a comment that's showing up on wordpress, and in my mailbox, but not here (yet - I'm sure that it will)
Elena said, " a divorce is Biblical and the Roman Catholic church says, “no
it’s not - but we can make it so that it never happened,
How about an example?
Annulment. It's what we were discussing in "I was totally wrong"
Where a person can be married for many years and have many children, but have never been married in the eyes of God. I'm looking for a Biblical basis for that distinction.
Elena
Why is so hard to find the Biblical basis for teaching for a disctinction between “marriage” and “not a marriage” (a marriage that never happened).
Because the Catholic church doesn'tlook at the bible as a cookbook or a rule book. Therefore while "all scripture is good" not "only scripture" is what we need to know or believe. Scripture itself doesn't give it's self sole authority.
Now in the case of sacramental marriage, the authority to loose and bind is given to the church. Therfore the rules for a sacramental marriage, and determining what is "loosed or bound" are under the authority of the church.
Elena
Where a person can be married for many years and have many children, but have never been married in the eyes of God. I’m looking for a Biblical basis for that distinction.
I was looking for a more concrete example.
How about lying and deceit, clearly anti-biblical. A husband or wife that goes into marriage never intending to follow through with their marriage vows have never been married because they lied.
Elena
How about immaturity or mental illness? For example a girl that marries just so she can feel like a grownup, or to escape her parent's home but has not because she is willing or even able to know what it means to be a wife and/or a mother.
Or what about an individual who simply does not have the mental competence to make a lifelong vow.
How about someone who marries under duress?
How can any of those types of people have the capability of making a real vow?
Tony
I can always tell when I made a point by the number of responses that follow each other from the same person without having my having a chance to respond. 🙂
I said: Since you people don’t believe in sacraments,
Ellen said: That’s false. We don’t believe in the extra sacraments that the Roman Catholic church has imposed on her people.
Well, you don't seem to believe in sacramental marriage. If you don't, why are we even having this discussion. Why are you looking for biblical authority to render something null that you don't believe happened in the first place?
Seems that to you, all Catholic sacramental marriages are null from the beginning by your definition.
All marriages are civil in your Church.
I said: The sacrament never happened.
Ellen said: Can you find that in the Bible? That you can participate in a sacrament and have it never have happened?
Since we define our own sacraments, I don't have to find that in the Bible because quite simply we have Tradition on which Scripture relies and Scripture on which Tradition relies. The twin "wings" of the Holy spirit.
What happens when you are missing a wing? You flop around in circles.
All Protestant marriages appear to be civil marriages.
Any Scripture telling me that my post is Scripturally incorrect?
Any Scripture telling me that you have any Biblical basis for telling me that a marriage may or may not be a marriage (declared so perhaps many years after the fact)?
Since you don't accept the validity of the sacrament as Biblical, it makes no sense to discuss the declaration of nullity of the sacrament as Biblical. If you'd like to talk common sense, real world examples of why this might be, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Otherwise you might want to let it drop.
All Protestant marriages appear to be civil marriages.
Yes. Yes they are, as are Roman Catholic marriages.
But you must not have read my previous post. Marriage is…never mind. Read it or don’t.
Ellen
I was looking for a more concrete example.
I'm afraid that I can't give you one, Elena. That's what we've been asking for.
How about lying and deceit, clearly anti-biblical. A husband or wife that goes into marriage never intending to follow through with their marriage vows have never been married because they lied.
Can you give me a Biblical example of any covenant being null because of a false intent?
In Joshua 9, Joshua made a covenant with with the people of Gibeon (who lied in order to enter into the covenant). The covenant still was valid.
Intent does not appear to matter when entering into a covenant.
Ellen
How about immaturity or mental illness? For example a girl that marries just so she can feel like a grownup, or to escape her parent’s home but has not because she is willing or even able to know what it means to be a wife and/or a mother.
1) I think that very few people go into marriage and have it be what they expect.
2) Please give me a Biblical example of a marriage being "not a marriage" for that reason.
Or what about an individual who simply does not have the mental competence to make a lifelong vow.
Please give me a Biblical example of a marriage being "not a marriage" for that reason.
How about someone who marries under duress?
Please give me a Biblical example of a marriage being "not a marriage" for that reason.
How can any of those types of people have the capability of making a real vow?
From The Harris Guidelines: NUMBER FOUR: He who asserts must prove.
You are asserting that the Bible (according to the Roman Catholic church) teaches that these are "not a marriage." I'm asking you to Biblically prove it.
Ellen
If you don’t, why are we even having this discussion. Why are you looking for biblical authority to render something null that you don’t believe happened in the first place?
From The Harris Guidelines: NUMBER FOUR: He who asserts must prove.
You are asserting that the Bible (according to the Roman Catholic church) teaches that these are “not a marriage.” I’m asking you to Biblically prove it.
Elena
I was looking for a more concrete example.
I’m afraid that I can’t give you one, Elena. That’s what we’ve been asking for.
How about lying and deceit, clearly anti-biblical. A husband or wife that goes into marriage never intending to follow through with their marriage vows have never been married because they lied.
Can you give me a Biblical example of any covenant being null because of a false intent?
In Joshua 9, Joshua made a covenant with with the people of Gibeon (who lied in order to enter into the covenant). The covenant still was valid.
Intent does not appear to matter when entering into a covenant.
I would point to David and Bathsheba. In the beginning their marriage certainly was based on deceit, and the prophet Nathan pointed this out to David strongly in no uncertain terms. There was also a terrible price to be paid for that deceit - the death of their first child.
Perhaps because of David's reptentence they were able to make a true marriage after that and God blessed it.
Ellen
Please show me where the marriage was "not a marriage before repentence?
The prophet Nathan said, "Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'
If Nathan considered this to be "not a marriage", wouldn't that have been a good time to say so?
Elena
1) I think that very few people go into marriage and have it be what they expect.
Well yes and no. I was 20 when I married and although I had fine examples of marriage to model after, it is a bit different than actually living it yourself!!
Nonetheless when I entered marriage I fully intended to be a Christian wife and mother. I was not trying to escape one terrible, sad situation. I was also not marrying because I was in rebellion. I was capable and mature enough to make an oath.
2) Please give me a Biblical example of a marriage being “not a marriage” for that reason.
David's marriage to Michal always struck me as one that was for reasons other than right reasons for marriage.
Elena
Please give me a Biblical example of a marriage being “not a marriage” for that reason.
Dinah after the rape. That sure didn't go well!
Elena
You are asserting that the Bible (according to the Roman Catholic church) teaches that these are “not a marriage.”
Not at all. I'm asserting that God gives the Cathoilc church the authority to teach as she does.
Elena
The prophet Nathan said, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’
If Nathan considered this to be “not a marriage”, wouldn’t that have been a good time to say so?
I see that sentence as simply stating a fact. Indeed David did take the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be his wife. That is a factual statement. It does not mean that the marriage was blessed in the eyes of God at that point.
Ellen
David’s marriage to Michal always struck me as one that was for reasons other than right reasons for marriage.
Now Saul's daughter Michal loved David. And they told Saul, and the thing pleased him...But Saul had other ideas...
Show me where the marriage is labeled "not a marraige"
Dinah after the rape. That sure didn’t go well!
What that called "not a marriage", or was that called "murder"?
Especially since the Bible doesn't say that Shechem and Dinah ever married, only that they had sex.
Carrie
we have Tradition on which Scripture relies and Scripture on which Tradition relies. The twin “wings” of the Holy spirit.
The Church is what it is quite openly for 2000 years. She doesn’t counter scripture because she interprets the scripture!
Scripture itself doesn’t give it’s self sole authority.
Now in the case of sacramental marriage, the authority to loose and bind is given to the church. Therfore the rules for a sacramental marriage, and determining what is “loosed or bound” are under the authority of the church.
It appears Elena and Tony have huddled and have a new game plan.
Throw up more counter-scriptural ideas and maintain that the RCC is right b/c the RCC says it is right.
It sounds like the biblical support for annulment is based on the unbiblical fact the the Roman Catholic Church has authority over all matters of moral and faith.
Ellen
"He who asserts must prove."
Where does it say that David's marriage to Bathsheba was "not a marriage"?
Ellen
Not at all. I’m asserting that God gives the Cathoilc church the authority to teach as she does.
Exactly what we've been saying right along. There is no Biblical basis for annulment, only a Roman Catholic basis.
Thank you.
Carrie
It does not mean that the marriage was blessed in the eyes of God at that point.
Then what are the hallmarks of a marriage blessed by God according to the Bible?
Ellen
Scripture itself doesn’t give it’s self sole authority.
Different comment for a different point.
The Authority of Scripture
Elena
Where does it say that David’s marriage to Bathsheba was “not a marriage”?
Here's the thing Ellen. The Pope, all of the bishops, probably every Catholic on this board would say that Britney Spears and Kevin Federline are married. All the above mentioned would probably look at Elizabeth Taylor and say she had been married 7 times, because indeed she had been! Civil unions exist in all of those examples. David was married to Bethsheba.
The question you are trying to ask is was it a sacramental marriage. First of all, Jesus instituted the sacraments during his ministry on earth. David and Bethsheba did not have a sacramental marriage because sacraments simply did not exist at that time. Nonetheless, we can see by the scripture God's thought on the manner in which this marriage came about and it displeased him. They were punished. Clearly then not all unions are pleasing in the eyes of the Lord.
Elena
Scripture itself doesn’t give it’s self sole authority.
Different comment for a different point.
Very true. Yet if you want to distill every discussion we have had down to it's basic element, it comes down to does the Catholic Church have the authority, or is the bible have the sole authority. That is the basis for this and all of the other disagreements on this and Carrie's blog.
Elena
Now Saul’s daughter Michal loved David. And they told Saul, and the thing pleased him…But Saul had other ideas…
Show me where the marriage is labeled “not a marraige”
Again, it was a marriage. Was it a sacramental marriage? No because sacraments were institutited by Christ. Was it a marriage that pleased God? Apparently not.
Dinah after the rape. That sure didn’t go well!
What that called “not a marriage”, or was that called “murder”
Well to recap, Dinah was raped and then her rapist wanted to take her as his wife. Her father and kin slaughtered her rapist/husband and his family. Clearly not a blessed union!
Especially since the Bible doesn’t say that Shechem and Dinah ever married, only that they had sex.
Well according to what you've been saying, they don't need a marriage ceremony, only sex. So according to your understanding of biblical marriage, they were married.
Ellen
Nonetheless, we can see by the scripture God’s thought on the manner in which this marriage came about and it displeased him. They were punished.
Absolutely! Murder displeases God very much!
Yet if you want to distill every discussion we have had down to it’s basic element, it comes down to does the Catholic Church have the authority, or is the bible have the sole authority. That is the basis for this and all of the other disagreements on this and Carrie’s blog.
My blog reflects my belief about the authority of God's Word, "Scripture".
Your blog reflects your beliefs about praying to and for the dead, indulgences and other things.
it comes down to does the Catholic Church have the authority, or is the bible have the sole authority.
Yes. That is the question. Who has the authority, the church, or God's Word?
Elena
There is no Biblical basis for annulment, only a Roman Catholic basis.
The biblical basis, comes with the authority.
Ellen
Well according to what you’ve been saying, they don’t need a marriage ceremony, only sex. So according to your understanding of biblical marriage, they were married.
Ummm...What post did you read?
Because the one that I wrote says,
- 2) Marriage means to leave and hold fast (sex can happen without leaving and holding fast)
- 3) Marriage is a covenant - and God is the witness. (sex can happen without that)
- 4) Marriage is a relationship that is recognized and/or regulated by law. (sex can happen without that)
Perhaps you'd like to take a moment and rephrase that accusation of me teaching "sex = marriage"? I'd sure appreciate that, Elena.
Elena
It sounds like the biblical support for annulment is based on the unbiblical fact the the Roman Catholic Church has authority over all matters of moral and faith.
The biblical support for annulment i based on the very biblical fact the Roman Catholic Churh has authority over matters of morals and faith.
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."