Annulment Thread

[RI Patriots fan]

I'm baffled that anybody would pay a penny to a church for an annulment when they're getting divorced.

Of course I'm not a catholic, and am only slightly more familiar with hypocrisy in Judaism, whereby it does happen that exes hold up the religious divorce process to extract some concession.

Feh. When you're done you're done. Some fu(ktard -- particularly one who's never been married himself -- is not extracting tree-fitty from me to scrub up my marriage.

The truth is the truth: you used to think you wanted to share a life with someone. Now you don't. Why do you need a priest, rabbi, magisterium, or beit mishpat for that? I personally felt the same way when my first marriage ended. You know when it's over.
"
If the answer is, "well, if you want to be a good Catholic," or "well, if you want to be a good orthodox Jew," that just moves the "why would you want to do that" question elsewhere.

Because as a Catholic, you stand before God and ask him to consecrate your marriage. You take a vow that you will be faithful to that person "till death do you part".

"Let no man pull assunder what God has joined."

So the Catholic does not have the right to undo what God has done and what he/she has agreed, in free will, to do.

An annulment is not a divorce and the amount you "pay" doesn't even cover the cost of the annulment process. Annulments are "money losers" for the church.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

The problem with that interpreatation is that it doesn't account for Jesus' promise to give Peter the "keys" to the kingdom of heaven as well as the power to "bind and loosen". How exactly can a "statement" be given keys? How can a "statement" be given power? How can a "statement" be given power to loosen and bind?

Have you noticed that Peter is given a special place in the NT? He is the most mentioned Apostle by far. Have you noticed that when the Apostles are mentioned it is generally "Peter and the Apostles"? Peter is the first to speak after Penetecost. He is the first to work a miracle. At the Council of Jerusalem when Peter speaks, the issue is resolved. I could go on and on and on...it is so obvious.
But most importantly, the early christians believed that Peter was given a special office:


Tatian the Syrian



"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).



Tertullian



"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



The Letter of Clement to James



"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).



The Clementine Homilies



"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).



Origen



"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage



"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).



Origins of Peter as Pope | Catholic Answers


How can we argue with the church fathers who were closet to the Apostles?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

All one needs to know about annulments is that the ease of getting one is directly proportional to your charitable contributions to said church. IMO ... you get married of your own free will ... if it doesn't work such is life. But to get it annulled as in it never existed makes no sense to me. I am sure my ignorance on the topic is showing ... but ... it is what it is and it's not what it's not and a marriage was unless you have enough money to make it that it was not.

I've known several people who have received annulments. Not a single one of them "purchased" their annulment.

There is a reality to Catholic marriage. There are certain things that are necesssary to be married in the Catholic church. If they aren't fulfilled then there is no marriage.

Also, if these requirements are fulfilled then the marriage cannot be dissolved by the church or the the participants since the church (or anyone else for that matter) does not have the power to dissolve a valid marriage.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

God is not the Catholic Church.

Whatever you think, a divorcing couple -- or one member thereof, which is all that's required -- is under no illusion that he or she is still "joined" by God.

Additionally, in some cases, a man (or woman) has already torn asunder what God has joined.

So, the hopeful proclamation/somber warning of some traditional bit of a catholic wedding liturgy isn't magic. It's just what a group of gathered Catholics would like the outcome to be.

However, whether you think God unjoins you (sometimes through the agency of a man or woman), or whether you never believed that God has to do all the heavy lifting in a marriage in the first place, you've already come to your decision, and your union is self-evidently un-joined by that point.

So I remain mystified by the dupes who knuckle under to an organized religion's demands of them, when they're going to do what they're going to do at that point anyway -- or more to the point, have usually already done so.

I wouldn't give the time of day to some clerical twit who thinks he's got power over me to say the magic words, regardless of denomination, on a matter he or she has no experience with, again, regardless of his or her own celibacy -- to wit, my experience in marriage.

Feh. You want out, you get out. Get real.

Any church demanding that people who don't love each other stay together against their wishes needs only someone with more power than the church to start his own church for it all to go kablooey. Henry VIII says hi.

PFnV

 

[RI Patriots fan]

God is not the Catholic Church.

Whatever you think, a divorcing couple -- or one member thereof, which is all that's required -- is under no illusion that he or she is still "joined" by God.

Additionally, in some cases, a man (or woman) has already torn asunder what God has joined.

So, the hopeful proclamation/somber warning of some traditional bit of a catholic wedding liturgy isn't magic. It's just what a group of gathered Catholics would like the outcome to be.

However, whether you think God unjoins you (sometimes through the agency of a man or woman), or whether you never believed that God has to do all the heavy lifting in a marriage in the first place, you've already come to your decision, and your union is self-evidently un-joined by that point.

So I remain mystified by the dupes who knuckle under to an organized religion's demands of them, when they're going to do what they're going to do at that point anyway -- or more to the point, have usually already done so.

I wouldn't give the time of day to some clerical twit who thinks he's got power over me to say the magic words, regardless of denomination, on a matter he or she has no experience with, again, regardless of his or her own celibacy -- to wit, my experience in marriage.

Feh. You want out, you get out. Get real.

Any church demanding that people who don't love each other stay together against their wishes needs only someone with more power than the church to start his own church for it all to go kablooey. Henry VIII says hi.

PFnV

I'm sorry but I thought this thread was about annulment and therefore the Roman Catholic church.

The church doesn't demand that a couple stay together. We believe that God demands it.

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

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


So of someone asks the Catholic church to marry them, is she supposed to ignore her own teachings on marriage?

So if you ask some Catholic clerical twit to marry you then obviously you see them as having some sort of "authority". If you didn't feel that way, then why bother asking him to marry you?

The reason that "dupes" like myself "knuckle under" to the "demands" of an organized religion is because we have faith. We have faith that the Catholic church is who she says she is and she is giving to us what she has received from God himself.

To me, this makes sense. What doesnt make sense to me is someone asking the church to marry them and then denying her authority.
To me, if someone does that, it clearly demonstrates either ignorance or dishonesty.

Henry the 8th????? Are you using him as some example of marital virtue?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

No, I'm using him as an example of the rampant spousal abuse you get when you force people who hate each other to stay together...

The greater the power differential, the greater the abuse, as Henry so clearly demonstrated.

If you believe there is no equivalently farcical ritual in other religions, that's fine. You believe a lot of things. However, I respectfully disagree -- just as I would disagree with my Orthodox relatives and often do, when it comes to the role of their interpretations in my life, and just as I disagree with Westboro Baptist Church when it screams "***" at funerals -- even if that's "just a Westboro Baptist thing."

So empty your dogma repository again, you're free to do so.

I'd have a great deal more respect for a Catholic who skipped the "annulment" thing, said "screw that," and changed over to another parish, or -- as in Henry's case, when he got tired of murdering wives -- to another sect of Christianity.

I see no value in the annulment ritual in the real world except the value of power vested in the church.

If you do, that's fine. If you are ever in such a position, get an annulment. I won't, and not just because I'm not Catholic. (Not that the situation would come up -- can't beat what I got!)

 

[IcyPatriot]

I've known several people who have received annulments. Not a single one of them "purchased" their annulment.

There is a reality to Catholic marriage. There are certain things that are necesssary to be married in the Catholic church. If they aren't fulfilled then there is no marriage.

Also, if these requirements are fulfilled then the marriage cannot be dissolved by the church or the the participants since the church (or anyone else for that matter) does not have the power to dissolve a valid marriage.

I know of 3 of them ... all purchased by daddy for his little girl.

All 3 of them were marriages of 5+ years with kids.

 

[IllegalContact]

I know of 3 of them ... all purchased by daddy for his little girl.

All 3 of them were marriages of 5+ years with kids.

Weird.......never heard of it.....

Didn't cost me anything.......but I still gave the church some $$ for the time.....no different than any other event

 

[RI Patriots fan]

No, I'm using him as an example of the rampant spousal abuse you get when you force people who hate each other to stay together...

The greater the power differential, the greater the abuse, as Henry so clearly demonstrated.

If you believe there is no equivalently farcical ritual in other religions, that's fine. You believe a lot of things. However, I respectfully disagree -- just as I would disagree with my Orthodox relatives and often do, when it comes to the role of their interpretations in my life, and just as I disagree with Westboro Baptist Church when it screams "***" at funerals -- even if that's "just a Westboro Baptist thing."

So empty your dogma repository again, you're free to do so.

I'd have a great deal more respect for a Catholic who skipped the "annulment" thing, said "screw that," and changed over to another parish, or -- as in Henry's case, when he got tired of murdering wives -- to another sect of Christianity.

I see no value in the annulment ritual in the real world except the value of power vested in the church.

If you do, that's fine. If you are ever in such a position, get an annulment. I won't, and not just because I'm not Catholic. (Not that the situation would come up -- can't beat what I got!)

It sounds like people who hate each other in marriage need to learn what being married actually means.

Why would you have respect for someone who takes a vow and then breaks a vow for selfish reasons? I respect the person who takes a vow and struggles through to honor their vow.

Henry "created" another christian sect to maintain and solidify his powerbase in England. He was an abuser and a murderer and it had nothing to do with marriage.

Well, of course you see no value in an annulment because you see no value in marriage. Oh, I'm sure you will protest. But what value is there to marriage if you can break it off at any moment? Just live together and forget the pretense of a marriage.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

I know of 3 of them ... all purchased by daddy for his little girl.

All 3 of them were marriages of 5+ years with kids.

The length of the marriage and the number of kids is immaterial in the case of an annulment. An annulment is not a judgement on the marriage itself but whether the conditions and requirements were met for a valid marriage when the couple is first married.

I highly doubt that they were "purchased" since the fee is fixed and there is a marriage tribunal that gathers information. Unless you're saying that you have evidence to show that the entire tribunal was bribed.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

It sounds like people who hate each other in marriage need to learn what being married actually means.

Why would you have respect for someone who takes a vow and then breaks a vow for selfish reasons? I respect the person who takes a vow and struggles through to honor their vow.

Henry "created" another christian sect to maintain and solidify his powerbase in England. He was an abuser and a murderer and it had nothing to do with marriage.

Well, of course you see no value in an annulment because you see no value in marriage. Oh, I'm sure you will protest. But what value is there to marriage if you can break it off at any moment? Just live together and forget the pretense of a marriage.

Not just an archbishop in ordinary Rhode Island clothes, but a bona fide telepath to boot!

Ladies and gentlemen, the comedy stylings of our own Rhode Island Patriot!

PFnV

 

[Lifer]

Yeah PFnV, OBVIOUSLY you see "no value in marriage". Lol. Let Mrs PFnV after this class act. Hey RI Pats Fan, let hear about your great marriage. You must be just a delight at home. (Eyeball roll)

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yeah PFnV, OBVIOUSLY you see "no value in marriage". Lol. Let Mrs PFnV after this class act. Hey RI Pats Fan, let hear about your great marriage. You must be just a delight at home. (Eyeball roll)

So, lots of pride, that's a given. Think this one is wrath or envy?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Not just an archbishop in ordinary Rhode Island clothes, but a bona fide telepath to boot!

Ladies and gentlemen, the comedy stylings of our own Rhode Island Patriot!

PFnV

Telepath....archbishop.....neither of these.

But I think it's a fair statement.

Why have the pretense of a marriage if either party can break it off at any moment simply because they choose to do so?

 

[Lifer]

Telepath....archbishop.....neither of these.

But I think it's a fair statement.

Why have the pretense of a marriage if either party can break it off at any moment simply because they choose to do so?

You got her buried in the basement, dont you?

 

[The Brandon Five]

The problem with that interpreatation is that it doesn't account for Jesus' promise to give Peter the "keys" to the kingdom of heaven as well as the power to "bind and loosen". How exactly can a "statement" be given keys? How can a "statement" be given power? How can a "statement" be given power to loosen and bind?

Well, the difference between "petra" and "petros" is not a matter of interpretation.

Have you noticed that Peter is given a special place in the NT? He is the most mentioned Apostle by far. Have you noticed that when the Apostles are mentioned it is generally "Peter and the Apostles"? Peter is the first to speak after Penetecost. He is the first to work a miracle. At the Council of Jerusalem when Peter speaks, the issue is resolved. I could go on and on and on...it is so obvious.

I do recall him being the only apostle that Jesus addressed thusly:

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Matthew 16:23

So arguments can be made on both sides. It's not as cut and dry as your are making it out to be. I don't fault you for your choice nor do I intend to sway you, I am just addressing the idea that there is no choice to make here.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Well, the difference between "petra" and "petros" is not a matter of interpretation.




I do recall him being the only apostle that Jesus addressed thusly:



So arguments can be made on both sides. It's not as cut and dry as your are making it out to be. I don't fault you for your choice nor do I intend to sway you, I am just addressing the idea that there is no choice to make here.

Jesus said what he said to Peter because he was thinking like men would think and not what God thought. It just goes to show that Peter can make mistakes when he's not speaking ex cathedra.

But I disagree with you about not being cut and dry. Just look at the history....how can anyone look at what the Patristics had to say about Peter and his office and then tell me that Peter wasn't the "rock".

To deny it is to deny history itself.

BTW, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.



"The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is ************’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.


Origins of Peter as Pope | Catholic Answers

 

[The Brandon Five]

Jesus said what he said to Peter because he was thinking like men would think and not what God thought. It just goes to show that Peter can make mistakes when he's not speaking ex cathedra.

How do we know when he is speaking ex-cathedra and when he isn't?

But I disagree with you about not being cut and dry. Just look at the history....how can anyone look at what the Patristics had to say about Peter and his office and then tell me that Peter wasn't the "rock".

To deny it is to deny history itself.

That's ex-post facto.

BTW, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

Let me know when you find the Aramaic text.

"The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is ************’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

Why would he modify it in the same sentence?

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

I'd like to meet the author of that. He must be very old indeed to know what was said in Aramaic.

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time,
culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.


Origins of Peter as Pope | Catholic Answers

"Church Fathers" vs. "church Fathers". It's fine if you don't believe that the millions of Protestants are part of the church. It's still a matter of opinion. You are absolutely entitled to yours.

 

[Lifer]

RI wants to have it both ways. He keeps saying his Faith is built on the church and not on scripture but then to prove his points he cites scripture.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

How do we know when he is speaking ex-cathedra and when he isn't?




Let me know when you find the Aramaic text.





I'd like to meet the author of that. He must be very old indeed to know what was said in Aramaic.



"Church Fathers" vs. "church Fathers". It's fine if you don't believe that the millions of Protestants are part of the church. It's still a matter of opinion. You are absolutely entitled to yours.

You can know he is speaking "ex cathedra" because he will say that he is speaking ex cathedra or definitvely.

As for the Aramaic, we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, for sure. There is no question about that. In fact, the Gospel writers made sure they even quoted Jesus in Aramaic....."Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" So when we look at anything Jesus says we must take into account what he said in his native tongue.

Im not sure how u can discount the witness of the church fathers since they were closet to the Apostles in every way.

Ive never said that Protestants aren't part of the church. Ive said that many of them are part of church as "separated brethren".