[RFEngineer]

“You misunderstand the point of anullment.”

No I don’t. It’s to get a divorce without actually calling it that.

How is one to know the validity of the sacrament one receives when it’s validity depends on future actions?

If one can receive a sacrament, yet not really receive it, none of them have meaning for the present, it’s only through the lens of the past can one discern whether a sacrament actually was received if one follows that logic.

Sacraments are not supposed to have a “fingers crossed” clause as originally intended.

[lawdave]

I don't understand your objection. The Church looks to see if the person entering into the marriage at the time of the marriage had the requisite intent to recieve the sacrement. In Fat Teddy's case, it was determined that when he made his vows he did not intend to keep them. There is no dependence on future actions. If he had the correct intent and then later decided to be unfaithful, it would not permit anullment. Similarly, if someone was married with no intent at the time to ever have children, then there would not be a sacremental marriage. A fundemental element of the marriage was missing. On the other hand. if the person later learned that they could not have children but had the intent when they were married, the marriage is still sacremental.

The fact that there is no "fingers crossed" aspect is why you have to go through a long process to get an anullment. It is not a "no fault" process like divorce these days.

[papertyger]

No I don’t. It’s to get a divorce without actually calling it

How much more evidence of Protestant duplicity do you need? When someone will not accept a perfectly legitimate explaination for no other purpose than to find fault, you know you're dealing with the children of the accuser, and the works of their father they will do.

They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

Luk 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Luk 7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.

And if there's one thing Protestants have plenty of, it's "children."