|
|
|
|
Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divorce Differently?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divorce ... - 4/11/2005 2:04:52 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: online
|
What are the differences in how Protestants and Catholics view marriage and divorce?
_____________________________
Fred "Fritz" Alberti
Director of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Read today's Bible verse from my favorite online Bible
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 12:34:25 AM
|
|
|
S.Benedict
Posts: 29
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Here is the Catholic point of view.
[b]The Permanence of Matrimony
When Jesus came, he elevated matrimony to the same status it had originally possessed between Adam and Eve—the status of a sacrament. Thus, any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacramental marriage and, once consummated, cannot be dissolved. Jesus, therefore, taught that if anyone so married divorces and remarries, that person is living in perpetual adultery, a state of mortal sin.
He said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).
Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).
This applied, of course, only to sacramental marriages—those between baptized people. For marriages involving an unbaptized party, a different rule applied (1 Cor. 7:12–15).
In the midst of the Greco-Roman culture, which allowed for easy divorce and remarriage, the early Church Fathers proclaimed Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage—just as the Catholic Church does today in our modern, secular, easy-divorce culture (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1614–1615). Other denominations have modified their teachings to accommodate the pro-divorce ethos that dominates modern culture, but the Catholic Church preserves the teaching of Jesus and the early Christians.
While their ex-spouses are alive, the only time that a baptized couple can remarry after divorce is when a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the first place. For example, for a marriage to be contracted, the two parties must exchange valid matrimonial consent. If they do not, the marriage is null. If the competent authority (a diocesan marriage tribunal) establishes this fact, a decree of nullity (commonly called an annulment) can be granted, and the parties are free to remarry (CCC 1629). In this case there is no divorce followed by remarriage in God’s eyes because there was no marriage before God in the first place, merely a marriage in the eyes of men.
If, however, the parties are genuinely and sacramentally married, then, while in some cases there may be good reasons for them to live apart and even to obtain a legal separation, in God’s eyes they are not free to remarry (CCC 1649).
This is not a commandment of men, but one that comes directly from Jesus Christ. As Paul said, "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10-11).
Fortunately, God will ensure that the sacramentally married have the grace necessary to live out their marriage vows and either stay married or live continently. The sacrament of matrimony itself gives this grace. Whenever we face a trial, God ensures that we will have the grace we need. As Paul elsewhere says, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).
As the following quotations from the early Church Fathers illustrate, they also recognized the seriousness of Christ’s teaching regarding the indissolubility of marriage.
Hermas
"What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery" (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).
Justin Martyr
"In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’ And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.’ According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts" (First Apology 15 [A.D. 151]).
Clement of Alexandria
"That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality.’ And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says; for ‘if anyone divorce his wife, he debauches her’; that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband" (Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
"Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her" (Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 [A.D. 248]).
Council of Elvira
"Likewise, women who have left their husbands for no prior cause and have joined themselves with others, may not even at death receive Communion" (Canon 8 [A.D. 300]).
...
"Likewise, a woman of the faith [i.e., a baptized person] who has left an adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not receive Communion—unless he that she has left has since departed from this world" (Canon 9).
"If she whom a catechumen [an unbaptized person studying the faith] has left shall have married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the fountain of baptism. This shall also be observed in the instance where it is the woman who is the catechumen. But if a woman of the faithful is taken in marriage by a man who left an innocent wife, and if she knew that he had a wife whom he had left without cause, it is determined that Communion is not to be given to her even at death" (Canon 10).
Basil the Great
"A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of the second he will be guiltless" (Second Canonical Letter to Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).
Ambrose of Milan
"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. ‘If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce’; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another" (Abraham 1:7:59 [A.D. 387]).
"You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’" (Commentary on Luke 8:5 [A.D. 389]).
Jerome
"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another" (Letters 55:3 [A.D. 396]).
"Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives" (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).
Pope Innocent I
"[T]he practice is observed by all of regarding as an adulteress a woman who marries a second time while her husband yet lives, and permission to do penance is not granted her until one of them is dead" (Letters 2:13:15 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
"Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery" (Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).
"A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication" (ibid., 2:4:4).
"Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live, nor is it allowed for one spouse to be separated from the other except for cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 [A.D. 419]).
"In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously" (ibid., 1:17:19).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 7:25:13 AM
|
|
|
Cross_+_Flame
Posts: 4
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Oklahoma!
Status: offline
|
LINK: Divorce & Remarriage: Statements by Christian Denominations
Just FYI. The Methodist viewpoint is my own, though it might have some new words in it from the 2004 Discipline.
_____________________________
Cross+Flame
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 10:29:12 AM
|
|
|
TimothyTwo226
Posts: 30
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Central Mass.
Status: offline
|
So what happens if say, a couple left the CC after 10 years of marriage, then became born-again Believers, then after another 7 years, divorced.
Would the leaving of the Catholic religion void the Catholic "rules/regulations?"
In Him...Kevin
_____________________________
No power of hell, no scheme of man can ever pluck me from His hand...
No guilt in life, no fear in death, this is the power of Christ in me....Rita Springer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 1:10:03 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TimothyTwo226
So what happens if say, a couple left the CC after 10 years of marriage, then became born-again Believers, then after another 7 years, divorced.
Would the leaving of the Catholic religion void the Catholic "rules/regulations?"
A couple of opinion/corrections to this post.....
People don't "leave the Catholic Religion" - they fall out of communion with this Faith by not practicing it and accepting it (I know, its details, but....in the pursuit of accuracy)
The Roman Catholic Church teaches a Sacramental marriage that is freely entered into by both parties with eyes wide open. So, if it is shown that the marriage was coerced ("shotgun wedding"), if it can be shown that the marriage was entered into by deception of one of the parties ("I said I loved this guy, but what I really loved was his money"), or if other impediments can be demonstrated by one or both of the parties, the parties may petition the Church that the marriage was null - it was impeded and is non-Sacramental.
In fact, the Roman Catholic Faith recognizes the Sacramental aspects of marriages in other Faith practices. Thus, a divorcee from another Faith would have to show impediments in that union in order to be married in the Roman Catholic Faith.
With that backgorund in mind - to answer you question, the couple will have experienced 17 years of marriage total, according to you question (10 years in full communion with the Church, 7 years outside of the Church). Depending on children, etc. it is my opinon that it would be very, very difficult to make the case that this marriage was impeded from the beginning, and that there should be an annullment of it.
By the way - I take no offense whatsoever at your implication in the first sentence that one must leave the Roman Catholic Faith in order to become "born again". I am certain that this was simply a misfortunate selection of sentence structure, and that what is implied is not what was intended.
Hope this helps.
P. S. - Fritz, the new site looks really cool, loads really fast, and looks like it will be a lot of fun. I am chuckling at my "new user" status (talk about being "born again").
< Message edited by GoodME -- 4/12/2005 2:48:06 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 3:40:56 PM
|
|
|
TimothyTwo226
Posts: 30
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Central Mass.
Status: offline
|
With all due respect....If I wasn't "dying" spritually in the particular Catholic church I was attending, then I wouldn't have had to leave....
I never would be the Believer I am now without leaving...
In Him...Kevin
_____________________________
No power of hell, no scheme of man can ever pluck me from His hand...
No guilt in life, no fear in death, this is the power of Christ in me....Rita Springer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 3:59:58 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TimothyTwo226
With all due respect....If I wasn't "dying" spritually in the particular Catholic church I was attending, then I wouldn't have had to leave....
I never would be the Believer I am now without leaving...
I often find this kind of thing - well - I don't know what I think.
I can't imagine finding the fullness of Faith that Scripture instructs outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
To each his own, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 5:28:11 PM
|
|
|
TimothyTwo226
Posts: 30
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Central Mass.
Status: offline
|
quote:
By the way - I take no offense whatsoever at your implication in the first sentence that one must leave the Roman Catholic Faith in order to become "born again". I am certain that this was simply a misfortunate selection of sentence structure, and that what is implied is not what was intended.
That's OK, for I did not say or imply that one had to leave. I left because there was a higher calling on my life.
In Him...Kevin
_____________________________
No power of hell, no scheme of man can ever pluck me from His hand...
No guilt in life, no fear in death, this is the power of Christ in me....Rita Springer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 5:45:17 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TimothyTwo226
That's OK, for I did not say or imply that one had to leave. I left because there was a higher calling on my life.
Yes, this is the reason I stayed.
But I rejoice that you found Faith somewhere, as opposed to having no Faith at all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 7:19:46 PM
|
|
|
ayani
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
When Jesus came, he elevated matrimony to the same status it had originally possessed between Adam and Eve—the status of a sacrament
Obviously this is a key element - the holding of marraige as a Sacrament. Catholics see it this way, and Protestants don't.
Maybe someone can tell us why Catholics view marriage as a religious Sacrament?
Benedict:
That introduction was helpful.
quote:
In the midst of the Greco-Roman culture, which allowed for easy divorce and remarriage, the early Church Fathers proclaimed Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage—just as the Catholic Church does today in our modern, secular, easy-divorce culture (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1614–1615). Other denominations have modified their teachings to accommodate the pro-divorce ethos that dominates modern culture, but the Catholic Church preserves the teaching of Jesus and the early Christians.
As a rule its not productive to find fault with one line out of a long post. However, I think the statment I have put in bold is unfair, if not outright false. Christian churches that allow for divorce and remarraige in have not done it just to accomocate a licentious culture. Some (such as mine) have done it because they believe that God would want some marriages dissolved, such as where domestic violence, child abuse, or adultery were involved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 8:04:48 PM
|
|
|
sadiebelle
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Northern California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ayani
As a rule its not productive to find fault with one line out of a long post. However, I think the statment I have put in bold is unfair, if not outright false. Christian churches that allow for divorce and remarraige in have not done it just to accomocate a licentious culture. Some (such as mine) have done it because they believe that God would want some marriages dissolved, such as where domestic violence, child abuse, or adultery were involved.
Good point ayani. I believe Catholic Churches have nullified marriages on these same grounds, right?
_____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prone to wander Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love
Here's my heart O take and seal it, seal it for Thy courts above ~ Come Thou Fount
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/12/2005 9:57:31 PM
|
|
|
S.Benedict
Posts: 29
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Yes, Catholic churches have nullified marriges on for those same reasons.
_____________________________
I am already saved, but I’m also being saved, and I have the hope that I will be saved. Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling, with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/13/2005 6:22:15 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Maybe someone can tell us why Catholics view marriage as a religious Sacrament?
I don't suppose it takes rocket science to believe that a partner to live your life with, to be your family and to have and raise kids with is a Grace from God - Matrimony being the outward sign of the inward Grace bestowed.
If you want more, I'll expound.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/13/2005 6:27:41 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Good point ayani. I believe Catholic Churches have nullified marriages on these same grounds, right?
Sadiiiiiiieeeeeee! How are you? I posted a little about the new avatar somwhere else; hope you got it.
The Cathlic Church teaches that marriage must be entered into freely. So, there may be "impediments" present - coercion, dishonesty, etc. If these impediments are present, the marriage may not be Sacramental. Thus, there is a process whereby these impediments might be established and the marriage rendered "null" (an "annullment").
So - you get one marriage. But, any given "marriage" might not be the one.
It should follow from this that if you've been married for 10 years and have a couple of kids - very difficult to establish "impediment".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/13/2005 7:45:38 PM
|
|
|
ayani
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
quote:
Maybe someone can tell us why Catholics view marriage as a religious Sacrament?
I don't suppose it takes rocket science to believe that a partner to live your life with, to be your family and to have and raise kids with is a Grace from God - Matrimony being the outward sign of the inward Grace bestowed.
If you want more, I'll expound.
GoodME:
Marraige is a grace from God, and a wonderful thing (my wife might feel differently about that sometimes....)but being a grace from God doesn't necessarily make it a Sacrament. I am using Sacrament in its strict sense, of which one definition would be 'a visible sign of invisible grace' (similar to your language).
My house is a gift from God, but its not a Sacrament. I've wondered: why is marriage?
(By the way, Presbyterians got quite a chuckle last year when Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader and Presbyterian, argued against homosexual marriage by saying proclaiming 'I believe Marriage is a sacrament...." ( Presbyterians do not believe it to be one).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/14/2005 8:52:15 AM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Marraige is a grace from God, and a wonderful thing (my wife might feel differently about that sometimes....)but being a grace from God doesn't necessarily make it a Sacrament. I am using Sacrament in its strict sense, of which one definition would be 'a visible sign of invisible grace' (similar to your language).
My house is a gift from God, but its not a Sacrament. I've wondered: why is marriage?
Because your house didn't choose you, your wife did.
Thus, the "Gracious" part was that God would will two beings of free will to choose each other.
This among other things (you can't make more little Ayani's with your house)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 4/14/2005 2:42:33 PM
|
|
|
1Cor13
Posts: 3
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Definition of a sacrament: "An outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls."
"In every sacrament three things are necessary: the outward sign; the inward grace; Divine institution."
the above is quoted from a Catholic encyclopedia.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 12/23/2007 5:09:50 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 295
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Well folks, the issues of marriage, remarriage, divorce, and annullments can be very controversial indeed. I would like to give some statistics, that I have found from a Catholic website, and which confirm what I have read elsewhere, as well as from personally associating with Roman Catholics.
Decrees of Nullity: (Annullments) In 1952, the Roman Catholic Church granted 392 decrees of nullity (annullments) worldwide. In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church granted 73,000 decrees of nullity in the United States alone!
So many Roman Catholics, as well as nonRC, just look at Catholic annullments as Catholic divorces. Are you aware of cases where annullments were granted after 15 and 20 years of marriage with several children? One only need to look at the Kennedy family to find a public example of this. One of Robert Kennedy's sons got an annullment, only for his wife to contest it. She took it all the way to the Vatican, and the Vatican reversed the decree of nullity in favor of the wife.
The criteria of granting annullments must be seriously questioned, in light of the statistics. Afterall, how difficult can it be to cast doubt as to a person's mental/emotional state at the time of marriage? And finding witnesses who never wanted the marriage to take place, or who had questions as to whether it should have, can't be to hard to come by. As you stated from canon law above, "While their ex-spouses are alive, the only time that a baptized couple can remarry after divorce is when a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the first place." I contend that is very shaky grounds on which to grant annullments, especially when one views the exponential increase of Roman Catholic "annullments" within the last 50 years. In other words, there's lots of wiggle room under the guise of "a sacramental marriage never existed in the first place."
If I look at when I married, and I was very young, I really didn't fully understand what I was getting into. Yes, I knew that I loved my husband and wanted to spend the rest of my life with him. But, truth be known, I had no idea what pitfalls, temptations and challenges would lay ahead. Marriage is for life because of the open committment we make before God, our fellow man, and our spouse. Whether we fully understood all that encompassed, (and how can any young couple fully understand?) is irrelevent. Marriages, which have produced many children, and lasted many years are being declared "null" by the Roman Catholic Church, simply because the intention or state of mind of one or the other spouses at the time of the marriage is being questioned.
I think the increase in Catholic annullments is just another indication that the Roman Catholic Church is really no different that what is going on all around us across the board. People don't want to persevere through the difficult times so they look to find a way to get out of a marriage. In various local parishes one can find just as many people who were previously married, as one can find within any Protestant denomination. The only difference is, one is called a divorce and the other a decree of nullity. I have known of many cases where a divorced person, who wants to return to the Catholic Church, is immediately looking into getting an annullment. Why? Because without it the person cannot partake of Holy Communion, nor can they remarry. Or, if the divorced person is already remarried and looking to return to or join the RC, they realize that the only way they can partake of the Eucharist is to have their first marriage declared null, or else refrain from having sexual relations with their current spouse.
No matter what one may say, the culture all around us, both in the world, and in the Church, RC and Protestant, is a reflection of what Christ spoke about in the last days, that there would be "marrying and giving in marriage." Divorce, annullment, decree of nullity, whatever you want to call it, a divorce called by any other name is still a divorce.
And btw, I remember as a child, before Vatican II took full effect, that it was much more difficult for an RC to get a divorce. Of course, divorce was unpopular throughout our culture, not just in the RC. My mother-in-law had to wait several years for the Anglican Church to permit her to remarry. In fact, I remember a Catholic woman who was angry at the Church because she could not get an annullment. Thus, she was considered a divorced woman who could not partake of the Eucharist, and who could not remarry. Now I hear about Roman Catholics getting annullments all the time, so that they can either remarry or have their second or third marriage convalidated. Such is the fruit of Vatican II, and why many traditional Roman Catholics have little respect for the post-Concilliar Church.
So what makes the RC so different than the popular culture around us or any other Protestant church when it comes to marriage and divorce anyhow?
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 12/23/2007 8:36:32 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 165
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
So many Roman Catholics, as well as nonRC, just look at Catholic annullments as Catholic divorces.
See, right off the bat you have this all wrong.
In order to get a decree of nullity, you have to already have a civil divorce. There is no such thing as a "Catholic divorce--" the couple is already divorced before a Tribunal will investigate the validity of their marriage.
Before we could join the Catholic church, we had to get my spouse's first marriage anulled. The marriage had lasted fifteen years and had produced two children. Those facts have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the marriage was valid.
What made the marriage invalid was that my spouse's first spouse had been married and divorced prior to their marriage--and in the eyes of the Church *that* marriage was valid so the marriage that was anulled could never have been valid to begin with (unless the prior marriage had been anulled.)
(And before anyone brings it up--our anullment cost us exactly $0.00.)
The instance you gave of a Kennedy divorce/anullment does not prove what you think it proves--The Tribunal erred, but the Church reversed the Tribunal's error and made the correct decision. IOW, the right thing was ultimately done.
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 12/23/2007 8:39:36 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 165
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why? Because without it the person cannot partake of Holy Communion, nor can they remarry.
Also, false. Divorce does not keep one from being able to receive the Eucharist.
Remarriage does, but not simply because one remarried, but because in the eyes of the Church it is adultery and you cannot receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin.
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 12/23/2007 8:42:00 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 165
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
And btw, I remember as a child, before Vatican II took full effect, that it was much more difficult for an RC to get a divorce.
Catholics today get divorces in exactly the same way they did before Vatican II--through civil courts. It was neither easier nor more difficult.
The thing that made divorces easier was not Vatican II but the institution of "no fault" divorces. Which made divorces easier for everyone else to get, too.
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 12/24/2007 12:55:21 AM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 295
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
quote:
So many Roman Catholics, as well as nonRC, just look at Catholic annullments as Catholic divorces.
See, right off the bat you have this all wrong.
In order to get a decree of nullity, you have to already have a civil divorce. There is no such thing as a "Catholic divorce--" the couple is already divorced before a Tribunal will investigate the validity of their marriage.
Ok, my wording wasn't the best. Yes, I know that one already has to have a civil divorce in order to get an annullment in the RC. What I mean is a Catholic annullment is just a Catholic divorce after the fact. Sure, the RCC doesn't call it a divorce, but the fact is, the result is still the same. The reason for petitioning for a decree of nullity is so that a person who is returning to, or entering the RCC for the first time can have their current marriage declared valid, so that they aren't considered as living in sexual immorality, and also to be able to particpate in the sacraments. Or, a person wants to be able to remarry within the RCC. Therefore, the whole idea to petitioning for a decree of nullity is so that the first marriage can be declared invalid. I'm saying that there are very few scriptural justifications to even justify a couple "putting their marriage assunder." Of course, if a wife is being physically abused, or a spouse refuses to stop committing adultery, these are understandably good exceptions
Before we could join the Catholic church, we had to get my spouse's first marriage anulled. The marriage had lasted fifteen years and had produced two children. Those facts have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the marriage was valid.
That's right. Again, I reiterate what I said in my first post that the whole means whereby canon law considers a marriage invalid in the first place is questionable. And what would have actually happened if your spouse's first marriage was declared valid? Then your current marriage would be considered invalid and you and your husband would be considered to be living in sin. I have never heard of a case yet, (and I know of many), where a decree of nullity was denied. Why? Because, the person/s who would be denied the annullment would not be able to partake of the sacraments, unless they refrained from sexual intimacy. Do you know of anyone in your parish, or anywhere who is in a second marriage, is looking to return or enter the RCC, and has been denied an annullment because the Tribunal said that their former marriage was valid? And that was my point in the first post. At one time, prior to Vatican II, there were cases of this occuring. But now one can be fairly certain that if they petition for a decree of nullity, they will get it, regardless of the circumstances of their previous marriage. And the statistics bear that out. How could all of those 73,000 annullments in one year in the U.S. alone be justified? I'm not buying it one bit.
So I stand by what I said. An annullment is just a divorce after the fact, so that a person can either remarry within the RCC, or have their current second/third marriage (what ever is the case) recognized by the RCC as valid, in order to receive the sacraments.
The instance you gave of a Kennedy divorce/anullment does not prove what you think it proves--The Tribunal erred, but the Church reversed the Tribunal's error and made the correct decision. IOW, the right thing was ultimately done.
Exactly my point. The Tribunal makes errors all the time. The only difference in this case is that Kennedy's wife doggedly sought justice and wouldn't relent till she got it. There are cases where one party is wronged because the RCC granted one party an annullment unjustly, declaring a marriage that had actually been valid, invalid, just so the former spouse could remarry in the RCC, or have their current marriage recognized as valid. And, immediately after Kennedy was granted the annullment, he did remarry. So now that his former marriage is considered valid by the RCC, does that mean he should separate from his current wife? Who's at fault here anyway?
I still stand by what I originally said. One can find just as many people in the RCC who are on their second or third marriage, as in the culture around us or any Protestant church. The difference is, the folks in the RCC got a decree of nullity. As I said, a divorce called by any other name, is still a divorce.
And another thing, there is no such idea as an annullment in the scriptures. Jesus did say that a man could "divorce his wife on the grounds of unchastity" but, other than that, one would be hardpressed to find justification for divorce. And having a former marriage declared null, the concept isn't anywhere in scripture. Can anyone show me where it is?
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 12/24/2007 1:05:34 AM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 295
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
And btw, I remember as a child, before Vatican II took full effect, that it was much more difficult for an RC to get a divorce.
Catholics today get divorces in exactly the same way they did before Vatican II--through civil courts. It was neither easier nor more difficult.
Your point is well taken. But it sure is a lot easier to get a decree of nullity today than it used to be. BTW, do you know of anyone who was denied an annullment by the Tribunal because their previous marriage was actually considered valid? I'd love to hear about it if you do.
The thing that made divorces easier was not Vatican II but the institution of "no fault" divorces. Which made divorces easier for everyone else to get, too.
Ok, you are right. Divorces are easier to get for everyone all around.
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do Protestants and Catholics View Marriage and Divo... - 12/24/2007 7:04:16 PM
|
|
|
milesjesu
Posts: 61
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline
|
As a point of clarification, I would like to address a couple of comments:
quote:
What I mean is a Catholic annullment is just a Catholic divorce after the fact.
No. An annullment states that a sacremental (vice a civil) marriage NEVER existed. This is distinctly different than a divorce that says a marriage is terminated by divorce. This means that a person who lived together for 10 years and had two children who had their "marriage" annulled never had a sacramental marriage. The implication is that they were fornicating not living in a sacramental marriage.
quote:
Of course, if a wife is being physically abused, or a spouse refuses to stop committing adultery, these are understandably good exceptions
Actually, these are not grounds by themselves to declare a sacramental marriage invalid. It might justify a "civil divorce" but the spouse would not be permitted to remarry (Mt 19). Only if these things were the result of an "impediment" that existed from the start, could their be a determination that their civil marriage was not a SACRAMENTAL marriage. If the two people fully were aware of the requirements of a sacramental marriage, entered into it freely, and then "bad" things happen, then they could get a civil divorce (at the courthouse), but never disolve their sacramental marriage.
Is this a hard teaching? Yes it is. Very hard indeed. Does every Catholic practice this teaching correctly? No. Does every Catholic sin? Yes. Does every Catholic follow flawlessly every tenet of the Faith? No. Does it change the "truth" in the teaching of the Church? No.
Just a thought...
Peace,
MilesJesu
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
