Ask a Catholic

[Kansasdad]

Sorry, but since you didnt answer my question, instead asking me almost the same question, I didnt see a point to continue on that. (Its a topic to ask catholics questions and get answers as I recall) I am asking about annulment and how that is scriptural.

I have answered your question. An annulment states that a marriage never happened in the first place. I think a very legitimate question then is ...OK what constitutes a marriage, recognised by God. If you don't want to explore What constitutes a marriage recognised by God that's OK, but you have your answer. The Church through the annulment process discovers that there was not a legitimate marriage in the first place. If the person was not married in the first place then there is no issue with them getting married in Gods eyes for the first time. There is still the issue of living in a state of fornication, which repentance is needed. But this is a different issue then the annulment. Can you see how the question I asked is different. You stated that you couldn't accept this because a marriage is a marriage in Gods eyes and it could not be separated. An annulment says that a marriage never took place. I would think to progress any further we would need to establish what exactly constitutes a marriage. I have given you examples of what the Catholic Church see are reason that a sacramental marriage never took place. You have asked where In scripture this is supported. As far as I know there are not any verses that address this issue specifically. If there are please post them I truly would like to see them. What is the definition of a marriage sanctified by God according to scripture? Is a legal marriage all that is required, if so where in scripture do we see this? If a person is stoned on chemicals in Vegas and gets married by the Judge, is that marriage sanctified by God? If so please give me scripture to support that. My point is that sometimes Scripture does not give us all the direct answers to our questions. The Catholic Church has given us some guidelines, based on oral teaching passed on through the generations and the general concepts portrayed through out the Bible, ie; considering free will, culpability, full knowledge, deception, and the unfathomable mercy of God.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Elisabeth]

I'm with Ayin Jade. We have asked for Biblical justification for annulments. I would be curious to know when annulments were started by RCC church leaders ... I'm guessing it did not exist at the time of Henry VIII or he could have gone that route ...

As far as the question about what constitutes a marriage, and who joins them:

The Bible mentions the word marriage or married well over 100 times; the word husband over 100 times; the word wife over 300 times; the word widow over 100 times; the word divorce over 30 times. Jesus spoke of marriage and divorce. This is not something that is hard to define.

It's very clear in the OT and NT that marriage was the "standard" while divorce (or a subsequent annulment) is not part of God's order.

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Luke 16:18

I don't understand how any church leader (in any church) has the right to supersede that Scripture.

Those are my questions/thoughts on this.

Thanks again.

[Elisabeth]

An annulment says that a marriage never took place. I would think to progress any further we would need to establish what exactly constitutes a marriage. I have given you examples of what the Catholic Church see are reason that a sacramental marriage never took place. You have asked where In scripture this is supported.

I think it's safe to say that some of us simply don't agree with the RCC on this one. I think my concern (this is just my own opinion) isn't so much the lack of Scriptural support for annulment, but rather my belief that it contradicts Scripture.

Whether we agree or not, Jesus is still Lord and Savior of all.

[CellShade]

It is important to note that nothing in RCC doctrine is anti-Biblical,

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God.

That's anti-biblical.

Agrees.

You are absolutely correct, Eric, Catholics are not "sola scriptura" believers. We believe that Jesus blessed us with not only the Bible, but with an oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles; and a Church---guided by the Holy Spirit---to interpret Scripture and guide us in our faith journey.

We revere the word of God and believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We simply believe that Jesus left us with much more than a book.

All this is defensible from Scripture.

Blessings,

Fiosh

Can you point me to the scripture you speak of?

Where does scripture mention oral traditions to be passed down?

Man I don't think you are reading the replies. This has been answered several times, but here it is again,

Kansasdad Yesterday, 04:41 PM Post #311

I think this accurately describes each position:

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church

[Pax]

I'm with Ayin Jade. We have asked for Biblical justification for annulments. I would be curious to know when annulments were started by RCC church leaders ... I'm guessing it did not exist at the time of Henry VIII or he could have gone that route ...

As far as the question about what constitutes a marriage, and who joins them:

The Bible mentions the word marriage or married well over 100 times; the word husband over 100 times; the word wife over 300 times; the word widow over 100 times; the word divorce over 30 times. Jesus spoke of marriage and divorce. This is not something that is hard to define.

It's very clear in the OT and NT that marriage was the "standard" while divorce (or a subsequent annulment) is not part of God's order.

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Luke 16:18

I don't understand how any church leader (in any church) has the right to supersede that Scripture.

Those are my questions/thoughts on this.

Thanks again.

You must understand that Catholics also believes that a valid Sacramental marriage cannot be seperated and the couple is married for life. If this couples seperates and subsequently remarries they have committed adultry. If one receives a declaration of nullity there never was a valid marriage in the first place. Like KansasDad has asked, how do you define marriage? Every person that stands in front of a judge, priest, minister, some Elvis look alike in Las Vegas, Buddist monk, and says "I do", are now in a valid marriage?

[Pax]

It is important to note that nothing in RCC doctrine is anti-Biblical,

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God.

That's anti-biblical.

Agrees.

You are absolutely correct, Eric, Catholics are not "sola scriptura" believers. We believe that Jesus blessed us with not only the Bible, but with an oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles; and a Church---guided by the Holy Spirit---to interpret Scripture and guide us in our faith journey.

We revere the word of God and believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We simply believe that Jesus left us with much more than a book.

All this is defensible from Scripture.

Blessings,

Fiosh

Can you point me to the scripture you speak of?

Where does scripture mention oral traditions to be passed down?

Man I don't think you are reading the replies. This has been answered several times, but here it is again,

Kansasdad Yesterday, 04:41 PM Post #311

I think this accurately describes each position:

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church

[cjrose]

Whether we agree or not, Jesus is still Lord and Savior of all.

Amen Sis!!

[Guest man]

If you guys aren't going to answer my questions...please be kind enough to say so.

[Fiosh]

If you guys aren't going to answer my questions...please be kind enough to say so.

man,

I truly apologize for the delay. As I explained, I simply haven't had much time this week. And, we are putting a new roof on our house this weekend--doing the job ourselves. My husband is on the roof as I type this. I couldn't resist a quick peek before I joined him up there.

I promise to get back to you and the others as soon as I can.

Peace,

Fiosh

[Arthur Durnan]

Did I read "restorationists" with a wink, wink yet? How about, much rather, "Obstructionists Supreme"? It does seem spot on target. So again, which particular disciple referred to himself as a "Roman Catholic"? For that matter, which Church of Rome parish did Jesus attend? Game, set, match indeed!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com