Skip to main content

 

Jesus did not say we’re free to go and not under bondage when a spouse commits adultery. In fact, in Matthew 5:31-32,Jesus said "It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’

 

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. And Matthew 19:8-9 says Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

 

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."Then in Mark 10:6-11, Jesus said "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’

 

So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

 

Many Bible scholars believe the term "marital unfaithfulness" used here does NOT refer to adultery, but to an act that occurs during the period of betrothal BEFORE the marriage, and discovered on the wedding night. That’s because the original text uses two different words when referring to adultery and marital unfaithfulness (or fornication), even though some of the modern translations now use them interchangeably..

 

Paul obviously considered the admonition for a woman who is separated or divorced from her husband to remain unmarried (unless she is reconciled to her husband) very important, because he restated and further clarified it in the last two verses of the chapter, 39 and 40, saying A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.

 

But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. So how in the world someone can believe that either Jesus or Paul taught that the marriage covenant is broken when a spouse commits adultery or that the offended spouse has the option to get a divorce and remarry, is beyond my ability to understand!

 

In fact, Paul was so set on the exact opposite opinion that he AGAIN stated it and FURTHER clarified it in Romans 7:2-3, where he said For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.

 

But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. That makes Paul’s opinion pretty clear, which was that death is the ONLY thing that breaks the covenant of marriage, and there seems to be no other reasonable conclusion.

 

And when Paul referred to not being bound in verse 15, the Greek word he used was "DOULOO", which refers to being a slave. But the Greek word he used in verse 39 was "Deo", which refers to a mutual commitment or agreement, as by a contract, and that’s the same word he used in verse 27 and in Romans 7::2-3.

 

So the ONLY "escape" clause we can possibly find in what Jesus or Paul said about marriage, adultery, divorce and remarriage MUST be in the Lord’s grace and mercy, and the fact that in their time if someone was CAUGHT in the act of adultery, they were stoned to death, which obviously made the surviving spouse free to remarry. But that’s a different matter all together, and something each individual must personally seek the Lord’s guidance to understand.

 

http://www.faithandmarriagemin...e-marriage-covenant/

 

http://www.faithandmarriagemin...grounds-for-divorce/

 

 

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

If I recall correctly, the Catholic Church annulled the marriage between Senator Ted Kennedy and his wife of 25 or so years.  They had several children, some of whom are prominent in politics now, who are presumably b*astards.

 

It's all about money.  The Catholic Church has a tradition of well over 500 years of selling absolutions.  Heck, it was the biggest reason for the Protestant Reformation of 500 years ago.

Redemption among the Catholics is a matter of money.  Among the Prots, it's a matter of abandoning the normal human faculties of the mind.  In either case, one must pay to pray.

I have a better idea.  Follow reasonable evidence where it leads you.  If you do this, you won't believe in the gods.  You're already almost there.  You don't believe in Thor, Jupiter, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, etc.  They are mythological gods.

Guess what?  So is Jesus/Jehovah. 

 

The only sound position is skepticism.  When someone can show a skeptic a god sufficient to convince a normal human mind, even a skeptic must admit to at least that god.

 

So far, it has not happened.

 

DF

If you will refer to the link, the children of an annulled marriage are not *******s. The annulment is of the spiritual marriage, not the legal one.

 

Canon law declares that all the children born of an annulled marriage are legitimate. The unfortunate designation "illegitimate" is hardly used anymore, but it is technically reserved for those born out of wedlock, which is certainly not the case in an annulled marriage.



As for making money off annulments (also from the article)

 

How Much Does an Annulment Cost?

If you are really poor, it costs nothing. If you have limited means, you pay as much of the fee as you can. If you have means, you pay the full tribunal fee which ranges from $500 to $1,000 depending on the locality.

There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to annulment fees. Some people say that you can buy an annulment in the Church. If that were true, which it is not, why do we have such an elaborate scheme to thwart any form of corruption? You would have to bribe six different judges in two different dioceses and any one of them could throw the case out in a second. Daring to tamper with the justice system is a crime in the Church as well as the state.



The American tribunal system ended up $14,000,000 in the red last year. It is not now and never was a money-making proposition, but many times I have heard people spreading the rumor that they did not get their annulment because they were not willing to pay the huge fees involved. More likely than not, their case was rejected because they did not have any credible evidence to support it. Tribunal fees are minimal compared to civil divorce fees.




Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

The Catholic Church indeed teaches what you describe, but they conveniently circumvent that doctrine by handing out "annulments" right and left for all kinds of bogus reasons.

If this is ''''handing out "annulments" right and left'''', I would hate to see it tightened up.

 

http://www.americancatholic.or...sep1998/feature1.asp

____

The facts remain.  A man and woman, having obtained a marriage license under applicable laws of government, can say their marriage vows before a civil official or a clerical person---even a Catholic priest-- and then cohabit like horny minks for a decade or more, produce half a dozen or more offspring, file joint income tax returns as husband and wife, own property under the rubric of "et ux" (i.e. "and wife"), and submit to or participate in each and every other custom and observance that society associates with marriage, and then (mirabile dictu!) have that marriage declared not to be and not ever to have been a marriage at all because the Catholic Church says it isn't!

 

Go figure. 

quote:   Originally Posted by Red Baron:

Well said, Vic.

Hi Baron,

 

While I agree that what was written in Vic's initial post is good information -- I do question your comment when you say, "Well said, Vic."   That post had nothing to do with Vic.  Vic neither said nor wrote a single word -- not even a "hello."   While I will admit that I copy/paste from other sources; but, never without adding an introduction or some form of explanation.

 

A forum such as this is meant to exchange ideas and thoughts between posting members.  When Vic's post, or anyone's post, is 100% the writing of another person -- with not one single word from the forum member; we are not having a dialogue, nor seeing the thoughts of the posting member -- we are seeing the thoughts of an unseen person.

 

If I am responding to a forum member, I want to dialogue with him/her -- not some unknown person.  I am interested in what a fellow forum member has to say.  If I want to know what other writers have to say on a subject or an issue -- I can Google that as well as Vic.  But, when I come here, I want to know the forum member's thoughts.

 

So, the best that can be said of Vic's post is, "Well said, Mr./Ms. Unknown Writer."

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Well said, Vic. And crumb, exactly right. I have first hand knowledge of how annulment works in the church. It is a series of testimonies to prove or disprove that the features required to enter into the covenant of marriage were not present. Sometimes it is vague and subjective, but the bottom line is, if one partner feels that she/he did not understand the covenant, it is ground for annulment. It's not a money thing, it's a simple question of "was this Covenant valid and understood fully by both parties".

Hi VP,

 

You write regarding Roman Catholic annulments, "It's not a money thing, it's a simple question of 'was this Covenant valid and understood fully by both parties.'"

 

Contendah  reminded us that Ted Kennedy had has marriage of 25 years annulled by the Vatican.   Do you really believe that Kennedy was married for 25 years, had a number of children -- and did not fully understand that he was married? 

 

What possible reason could the Vatican have for granting such an annulment -- except MONEY?  Just asking!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

I have no personal insight into the marriage of the Kennedy's. Nor anyone else, for that matter. 

The Church grants anulments if one party can prove that the elements of a Covenant were not present. It's not a simple matter of "understanding marriage". Elements that can contribute to anullment are deceit, misleading in character, emotional immaturity, spiritual immaturity, and so on. 

I would never presume to know the intimate details of anyone else's marriage.

And the Fee for an anullment is a flat rate filing fee, as far as I  understand.

The interest the Vatican has in granting anulments is to preserve the sanctity of the Covenant. And allow people to re-marry should they so desire. I think you are aware of that.

Children are of no relevance when it comes to whether or not a marriage is/was valid- nor is length of time married. It's personal, sealed and really, none of my business. 

Hi VP,

 

You tell me, "I have no personal insight into the marriage of the Kennedy's. Nor anyone else, for that matter.  The Church grants annulments if one party can prove that the elements of a Covenant were not present.  It's not a simple matter of "understanding marriage."  Elements that can contribute to annulment are deceit, misleading in character, emotional immaturity, spiritual immaturity, and so on.. . .  Children are of no relevance when it comes to whether or not a marriage is/was valid - nor is length of time married.  It's personal, sealed, and really, none of my business."

 

So, are you telling me that Ted Kennedy, Roman Catholic and married to a Roman Catholic -- could, after 25 years, decide that his wife was not emotionally or spiritually as mature as he -- and the Vatican would declare his marriage null and void?

 

How does Ted Kennedy, or anyone, and the Vatican determine that his wife was not as emotionally or spiritually mature as Ted?

 

And, the real question:  Would Ted Kennedy have gotten an annulment from the Vatican if he had not been a Kennedy and the brother of the president?

 

To answer these questions, you do not have to have known the Kennedys as personal friends -- there is enough public information regarding this for anyone to answer the question.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

I could mediate for you Vic. And yes, Bill that is exactly what I'm telling you. Now- I'm still waiting for you to address your accusations that "nobody on this forum spews more hate than I do". That's pretty serious allegation, and I woul appreciate you citing some references to that allegation. Until you can do that, I'd prefer not to dialogue with you, as you have made some pretty hefty charges against me, and I'd like that cleared up.
Originally Posted by vplee123:
I could mediate for you Vic. And yes, Bill that is exactly what I'm telling you. Now- I'm still waiting for you to address your accusations that "nobody on this forum spews more hate than I do". That's pretty serious allegation, and I woul appreciate you citing some references to that allegation. Until you can do that, I'd prefer not to dialogue with you, as you have made some pretty hefty charges against me, and I'd like that cleared up.


_____________

Don't expect anything.  For the last few weeks, Bill has been reduced to gibberish.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by Red Baron:

Well said, Vic.

Hi Baron,

 

While I agree that what was written in Vic's initial post is good information -- I do question your comment when you say, "Well said, Vic."   That post had nothing to do with Vic.  Vic neither said nor wrote a single word -- not even a "hello."   While I will admit that I copy/paste from other sources; but, never without adding an introduction or some form of explanation.

 

A forum such as this is meant to exchange ideas and thoughts between posting members.  When Vic's post, or anyone's post, is 100% the writing of another person -- with not one single word from the forum member; we are not having a dialogue, nor seeing the thoughts of the posting member -- we are seeing the thoughts of an unseen person.

 

If I am responding to a forum member, I want to dialogue with him/her -- not some unknown person.  I am interested in what a fellow forum member has to say.  If I want to know what other writers have to say on a subject or an issue -- I can Google that as well as Vic.  But, when I come here, I want to know the forum member's thoughts.

 

So, the best that can be said of Vic's post is, "Well said, Mr./Ms. Unknown Writer."

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bill

When a forum member posts something in the manner than Vic did I take it that he/she agrees with the thought and adopts it as his/her own position. Perhaps I should have said I agree with what you post Vic. At any rate the OP is spot on IMO.

Hi Baron,

 

You tell me, "When a forum member posts something in the manner than Vic did I take it that he/she agrees with the thought and adopts it as his/her own position.  Perhaps I should have said I agree with what you post, Vic.  At any rate the OP is spot on IMO."

 

I am not disagreeing with the content of the post; only with the fact that it has none of Vic in it.

 

Normally, your suggestion that a post represents the thoughts of the posting member would be true.  But, Vic has stated on the forum that he will post such articles, in his words, "to start an argument."   So, when Vic posts such an article -- with him, we have no way of knowing if he believes it -- or if he is just wanting to start an argument.

 

That is why I keep after him to offer "some" level of comment, i.e., his own thoughts, when he copy/pastes an article.   He does not have to write a lot -- but, most often, there is not one single word from Vic.  Under that condition -- we have to assume that he is just tossing something against the wall to see if he can start an argument.

 

I believe it is good when we offer input or writings from others to support what we are writing -- and to give credit and source for that copy/paste.  But, when Vic has NO writing to support -- why is he offering only what another has written?  Surely he has some thought on the issue.  Why not offer that thought?   Unless, as he stated before -- his purpose is only to start an argument.

 

Personally, I enjoy the forum when we have lively and sincere discussions and even debates, i.e., exchanges of ideas.  To me, that is the main purpose of being on the forum, to learn from others as we exchange thoughts and ideas.  But, I do not enjoy arguments, in any form.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill


Originally Posted by Bill Gray

That is why I keep after him to offer "some" level of comment, i.e., his own thoughts, when he copy/pastes an article.   He does not have to write a lot -- but, most often, there is not one single word from Vic.  Under that condition -- we have to assume that he is just tossing something against the wall to see if he can start an argument.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm amazed you have lived as long as you have and still dense

as a brick. I don't start arguments with you. I post a thread,  it could be

about anything and you will go into one of your spoiled juvenile tantrums.

Like a stupid slobbering five year old. Blow your nose and stop reading

what I post. You'll feel better.

 

 

Originally Posted by vplee123:
Bumping this up , bill. I know you have been busy debating with Vic, but I am still waiting for you to either offer evidence that I am the most hateful person on this forum or your retraction and apology. Thank you.

----------------------------

Hey Veep...

He's trying to engage Vic in battle of wits... Problem is Billie came to the arena unarmed...

:-)

Hi VP,

 

You and I both know that you have been less than hospitable toward me, or anyone who will disagree with Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings -- which we all know are not Biblical.  And, yes, you have spewed venom toward such efforts to refute those false teachings.

 

Will I waste my time searching the archives to find such instances?  No.  But, if you would promise to never be nasty to me again when I do refute Roman Catholic doctrines -- then, I would apologize just to allow us to start fresh.  Are you game?

 

I sincerely would like for us to be Friends.  But, I will not say that false teachings are true -- just to gain that.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,l

 

Bill

Friends_Piggy_Bear

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_Piggy_Bear
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi VP,

 

You and I both know that you have been less than hospitable toward me, or anyone who will disagree with Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings -- which we all know are not Biblical.  And, yes, you have spewed venom toward such efforts to refute those false teachings.

 

Will I waste my time searching the archives to find such instances?  No.  But, if you would promise to never be nasty to me again when I do refute Roman Catholic doctrines -- then, I would apologize just to allow us to start fresh.  Are you game?

 

I sincerely would like for us to be Friends.  But, I will not say that false teachings are true -- just to gain that.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,l

 

Bill

-------------------------------

What a sad attempt to explain away a gross misstatement (read outright lie). You have merely compounded your problem... "I'm sorry I lied about your character but I'm sure if I searched hard enough I could prove it!" Why don't you just apologize and get it over with?... That's what a true man of Christ would do...

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi VP,

 

 Will I waste my time searching the archives to find such instances?  No.  But, if you would promise to never be nasty to me again when I do refute Roman Catholic doctrines -- then, I would apologize just to allow us to start fresh.  Are you game?

 

That's one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. You say, if you

promise to never be nasty to me again when I lie to your face and stomp

all over your Christian religion because I hate you and I want whatever

I say to be believed then I will forgive you.  billie-bs, your refute is

worthless and nothing but lies. You don't realize you threaten no one

here but God.

Whining like a baby because you think veep isn't playing fair is as silly

as you believing you can hurt an established creation of Christ.

Reading the Bible is one thing and It's obvious you don't believe it or

you wouldn't lie about it.

 


 

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi VP,

 

 Will I waste my time searching the archives to find such instances?  No.  But, if you would promise to never be nasty to me again when I do refute Roman Catholic doctrines -- then, I would apologize just to allow us to start fresh.  Are you game?

 

That's one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. You say, if you

promise to never be nasty to me again when I lie to your face and stomp

all over your Christian religion because I hate you and I want whatever

I say to be believed then I will forgive you.  billie-bs, your refute is

worthless and nothing but lies. You don't realize you threaten no one

here but God.

Whining like a baby because you think veep isn't playing fair is as silly

as you believing you can hurt an established creation of Christ.

Reading the Bible is one thing and It's obvious you don't believe it or

you wouldn't lie about it.

 


 ==============================

OMG!! Seriously? For real? He is asking someone not to be "nasty" to him while he is being nasty to, and attacking them and their beliefs??  How special he must think he is. LOL-What a sissy, bully wannabe, actually telling someone "don't attack me back".

Bill I am officially done with you- you have slammed my character, called me hate-filled and venomous yet you refuse to show me an example. Your kind of Christian is not what I strive to be, and I really pity you- your heart must be a cold and lonely place. I'm not judging you, I'm just saying I don't WANT to be like you, because you are so desperate to be "right" that you are missing out on everything that goes on in between . Such as friendships being formed, jokes, dialogue and sharing. I hope someday you will see just how cold and cruel you have treate people here. People that love and worship the same God you do- and when that happens, I truly truly hope He opens His floodgates of mercy for you. Remember this; "He told them, the greatest of these is love". That's what matters. Being decent to people. Following Him. Nothing. Else. Matters.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×