Posted on 09/15/2011 11:20:05 AM PDT by Sopater
Annulment is not dissolution of the marriage, it is a finding that a valid marriage never existed in the first place. Alzheimers or any other disease developed after marriage is not grounds for an annulment.
Only by those who ignore God. Jesus said, "He that has my COMMANDMENTS AND KEEPS THEM, he it is who loves Me." One of those commandments is related to not divorcing.
"Now to the married I command, YET NOT I BUT THE LORD: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife." 1 Cor 7:10-11
If the conditions were not there, there was no Sacramental marriage. If this is found to be the case, there may be an investigation by the Church, and a finding of nullity. It means there was no valid sacrament from the git-go. This is what is commonly called an annulment.
If the conditions were there, then there is a Sacramental marriage, which is a bond which anything but death. Not "metaphorical" death or "mental" death or "functional" death or something "analogous" to death, but actual physical death, the total and irreversible cessation of life.
I would advise you to refrain from uninformed comments about the Sacrament of Matrimony. If you need further clarification, you might want to ask Houghton M., Eepsy, or some other knowledgeable Catholic.
Right before I got married, my Mom gave me the best advice. She said, “You know the part where the pastor says let no man put this asunder” I said yes I do and she said...that includes you.
” Annulment is not dissolution of the marriage, it is a finding that a valid marriage never existed in the first place. “
Yes, I know that and have a bad habit of thinking and speaking in civil terms still, and quite in error. My huge BAD today. Rather embarrassing. Thank you for driving the point home. Maybe now, after today, I will keep it straight.
” I would advise you to refrain from uninformed comments about the Sacrament of Matrimony. If you need further clarification, you might want to ask Houghton M., Eepsy, or some other knowledgeable Catholic. “
I am eternally grateful for the scolding. After all, my eternity may depend on it, among many other things. I have certainly learned a lesson, and that I have evidently made a rather grave error. I am very, very sorry.
The man’s faith is about as deep as a snake’s belly in a wagon rut. Go away and sin no more Pat. We hardly knew ye.
King Henry VIII started this protestant thing when he wanted his first divorce.
I forgot to include you in my response, #106. This really isn’t my day is it? Thanks.
I can’t even imagine what prompted Robertson to say something like this.
Pat Robertson - The Jimmy Carter of the Religous Right.
magnificent
This has nothing to do with a disagreement over the definition of marriage. It has everything to do with the issues of grace, repentance and judgement (who passes it and determines punishment). His/her idea of the role of believers passing judgement and stoning an adulterer is Islamic, not Christian. Once again, you may extract a verse here or there that, out of context, appears to state the Christians should round up sinners and stone them at the city wall, but you have to work pretty hard to ignore the entire message of Christ to do it.
I’m not saying Robertson gave good advice. I’m saying that to stone the old guy is a whole lot worse.
In some ancient legal systems, a man who knew his wife was guilty of adultery was required to divorce her--otherwise it was thought that he and his wife were conspiring to blackmail the man or men she had sex with.
That is the OT punishment for adultery. If you don’t understand what Christ did on the cross, then I’m sorry for you.
A dictionary does not say what a word means. It indicates what a word may mean (in different contexts, if you will). The bible translators chose "fornication" with great accuracy.
I speak English, so I looked "fornication" up in an English dictionary. "Fornication" means "sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to each other." As a mathematician, this is not altogether tight enough for me as a definition, so I will clarify.
The following is excerpted from The Bible, Marriage and Divorce
Christ and DivorceWhen questioned by the major religious leaders of His day concerning the popular plan for divorce, the Lord Jesus Christ reaffirmed the Bible plan for marriage by citing Gen. 2:24 (Mt. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:11, 12; Lk. 16:18). The Pharisees attempted to force Christ to choose between the two popular plans for divorce, the Hillel position which was very liberal (divorce for anything) and Shammai position which was very conservative (divorce for infidelity). Christ did not concede to either position, but rather He cited the teaching given to Adam and Eve and declared "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (literally this verse means "stop severing what God has permanently put together") in Mt. 19:16. Furthermore, the Lord said "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Mt. 19:9).
This verse has already been interpreted by Matthew in his first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 1:18-25). The Jews had the custom of betrothal for approximately one year before the wedding. This meant that the Jewish man and woman entered into a betrothal covenant (Mal. 2:14) which could only be broken by divorce for unfaithfulness. The classic example of this is Joseph and Mary; Joseph thought Mary had committed fornication and had become pregnant and consequently he was going to divorce her ("put her away privily") during the betrothal period and before Joseph and Mary had become married through physical consummation. Although Joseph and Mary knew by divine revelation that Jesus was the virgin born Son of God, the Lord Jesus lived with the stigma of being a child of fornication (Jn. 8:41).
Christ's answer to the Pharisees was two-fold: marriage was for life and divorce was only for the betrothal period (cf. Lk. 16:18). The Bible allows for divorce only before physical consummation and not after physical consummation (i.e., not after marriage).
It can include ... adulterous relationships.
Can you supply an example of this usage from the NT?
Christ said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17
What has changed? If you read the Hebrews 9 you will discover what ordinances are no longer followed, or need be. These were things "which [were] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Hebrew 9:9-10
Adultery is still a violation of God's law. Murder is still a violation of God's law, etc.
I would encourage you to read Hebrews for a start. Forget what you may have read elsewhere. Let the Holy Spirit through God's word instruct you.
Every time he opens his mouth, it is another spine chilling trip into the inane
It is? Why? Did anyone here believe Pat Robertson was orthodox?
Haven’t watched the 700 Club in a long time but I thought something was wrong with Robertson when he endorsed pro-abortion Giuliani for the presidency back in 2007. I don’t think Jerry Falwell or D. James Kennedy would’ve done that if they were still alive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.