Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Last Tradhican on February 08, 2019, 09:03:01 AM

Title: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 08, 2019, 09:03:01 AM
I'm really surprised at the amount of married trads that have annulments. All of them without exception when they tell me that they have an annulment, never give one word of explanation. In the 1950's there were like 35 annulments a year worldwide, after Vatican II the numbers reached as high as 70,000 JUST IN THE USA! I do not believe that any of those annulments 70,000 annulments are valid, but even traditionalist play that game with God.

Couples remarried with annulments, BE WARNED - If you die without time to repent of your adultery, you will go to Hell. Open your eyes, separate from your false marriage and dedicate your life to the service of God rather than your partner.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 08, 2019, 09:08:59 AM
Among adults there are few saved because of the sins of the flesh....With exception of those who die in childhood, most men will be damned. (St. Remigius of Rheims)



Death bed conversions, repentance, - there are hardly any:   Out of 100,000 sinners who continue in sin until death, scarcely ONE will be saved. (St. Jerome)
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: ggreg on February 08, 2019, 01:08:43 PM
If the Church annuls and re-marries you then presumeably it is not adultery.

Otherwise the power to bind and loose is a joke.  The Church itself would be co-operating in your sin.

What is the point in having a Church, if you have to second guess its decisions and authorisations?

That isn't a divine institution, it is a joke and Luther was essentially correct in that case.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stubborn on February 08, 2019, 01:14:22 PM
If the Church annuls and re-marries you then presumeably it is not adultery.

Otherwise the power to bind and loose is a joke.  The Church itself would be co-operating in your sin.

What is the point in having a Church, if you have to second guess its decisions and authorisations?

That isn't a divine institution, it is a joke and Luther was essentially correct in that case.
Agreed.

Just can't confuse the Conciliar church who, in it's history, demonstratively has no desire at all to preserve the matrimonial bond, with the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: forlorn on February 08, 2019, 01:14:37 PM
If the Church annuls and re-marries you then presumeably it is not adultery.

Otherwise the power to bind and loose is a joke.  The Church itself would be co-operating in your sin.

What is the point in having a Church, if you have to second guess its decisions and authorisations?

That isn't a divine institution, it is a joke and Luther was essentially correct in that case.
Which is why I find the R&R position so confusing now. I've heard people here claim to be sedeplenists(that is - Francis is the Pope) and yet call him a heretic, call the New Mass sinful and say the Church is participating in sin like in the above scenario. How can you possibly believe the Church is actively leading souls to hell and still believe it's the true Church? The only reconciliation of that contradiction I've ever seen is the even more bizarre position that Francis is essentially the Pope of two Churches, the false Conciliar Church and the true Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Capt McQuigg on February 08, 2019, 01:15:46 PM
I think Last Tradhican is implying that the post-Vatican II Church is an imposter church. 

My question for Last Tradhican is what is/was the circumstance of those Traditionalists that he was referring to?  How common is annulment/remarriage in the SSPX?  I'm betting that it is extremely rare - almost unheard of.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stubborn on February 08, 2019, 01:17:09 PM
Which is why I find the R&R position so confusing now. I've heard people here claim to be sedeplenists(that is - Francis is the Pope) and yet call him a heretic, call the New Mass sinful and say the Church is participating in sin like in the above scenario. How can you possibly believe the Church is actively leading souls to hell and still believe it's the true Church? The only reconciliation of that contradiction I've ever seen is the even more bizarre position that Francis is essentially the Pope of two Churches, the false Conciliar Church and the true Catholic Church.
Confusing?

Simply, "R&R" folks remain the popes' good subject, but God's first, whereas the sedes, don't.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 08, 2019, 01:17:51 PM
I think Last Tradhican is implying that the post-Vatican II Church is an imposter church.

My question for Last Tradhican is what is/was the circumstance of those Traditionalists that he was referring to?  How common is annulment/remarriage in the SSPX?  I'm betting that it is extremely rare - almost unheard of.
In my neck of the woods, I know at least 2 men offhand who received annulments. Both are remarried (or wanted to be). But that is hardly an exhaustive list. I didn't know everyone at my old chapel.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Ladislaus on February 08, 2019, 01:38:38 PM
If the Church annuls and re-marries you then presumeably it is not adultery.

Otherwise the power to bind and loose is a joke.  The Church itself would be co-operating in your sin.

What is the point in having a Church, if you have to second guess its decisions and authorisations?

That isn't a divine institution, it is a joke and Luther was essentially correct in that case.

Not even the Church can "loosen" a marriage.  Now, subjectively, a person can act in conscience, without sin, based on the Church's decision.  But most of these people know in their heart of hearts that their marriage were not really null, and so they'll likely be judged on that before God.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 08, 2019, 01:45:32 PM
Not even the Church can "loosen" a marriage.  Now, subjectively, a person can act in conscience, without sin, based on the Church's decision.  But most of these people know in their heart of hearts that their marriage were not really null, and so they'll likely be judged on that before God.

I always wondered that.

Most of them are only concerned about getting an annulment and getting re-married to their sweetheart (who they almost ALWAYS have as they seek an annulment -- just like out in the World with divorces!)
Few get divorced until they have the next one lined up. Same with annulments among Trads, it would seem. That is a bad sign.
Next bad sign: they don't seem very concerned that they were essentially "shacking up" for years or decades. They forget that an annulment means a marriage never took place. They don't even give lip service to this reality, much less take it to heart. I could be wrong, but they don't seem very broken up about it. They don't even mention or realize that all their children have been declared bastards.

In every practical way, these Catholics -- even Trads -- treat annulments like the Catholic version of divorce.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 08, 2019, 01:47:36 PM
I think Last Tradhican is implying that the post-Vatican II Church is an imposter church. (the annulments should be a strong indicator that the VatII church is a counterfeit church to anyone with eyes to see or those in doubt)

My question for Last Tradhican is what is/was the circumstance of those Traditionalists that he was referring to?  (notice that in the OP, I said they never tell you the details. That is not a good sign. I know one trad that was married by an independent priest and got an annulment from the Novus Ordo because they were married by an independent priest. I know another that had two annulments. I know of couples that were married by the SSPX and then got an annulment for that reason.  Listen, if I got an annulment, it would be because I believed in it with certainty of faith and I would explain it in detail if I told you I had an annulment. The fact that these people tell me that they had an annulment and do not say the details, tells me that they are not certain about their belief.)

How common is annulment/remarriage in the SSPX?  (In my 20+ years of only going to SSPX chapels I've run into many. I would guess that in my chapel of 200+, there are 10 or more annulment couples. )

I'm betting that it is extremely rare - almost unheard of. (I'm afraid that you'd lose your bet. That is why I said in the OP that I was surprised.)
My responses in red.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 08, 2019, 01:54:46 PM
Not even the Church can "loosen" a marriage.  Now, subjectively, a person can act in conscience, without sin, based on the Church's decision.  But most of these people know in their heart of hearts that their marriage were not really null, and so they'll likely be judged on that before God.
That is why I started this thread with the stark warning, for they will all go to hell, and for what? They sold their birthright for a bowl of pottage.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 08, 2019, 01:55:08 PM
The biggest problem with widespread annulments: it means that Traditional Catholic men & women can have multiple living sex partners, just like in the World. You could run into someone at the store who you had the most intimate of experiences with, who isn't your current spouse.

The only way a man/woman should "experience" more than 1 spouse is when a spouse dies. But if you think about it, that's quite different. You're not going to run into a deceased spouse at the store, children won't blame you for moving on from their mother/father (since you didn't kill your spouse), and there isn't any possibility of jealousy, since your past spouse(s) are deceased. Your current spouse won't be jealous of a deceased person, and vice-versa. No drama. You can still look your kids in the eye and say you love them, especially because they are part "your previous spouse" who is now deceased, and probably very similar to them.

When you move on from a living spouse -- be it annulment, divorce, whatever -- you are rejecting that person, and by extension your children who are 50% that person.

It amazes me how shallow people can be. My wife's parents are divorced. How can my father-in-law claim to really love his daughter, when she is SO MUCH like the woman he spurned? At best, he could claim that he loves her, but he doesn't like her. They're both Catholic, musically inclined, homebody, risk-averse, stable, sober, responsible, down-to-earth, family-oriented, frugal, rule-following accountants.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 08, 2019, 01:56:26 PM

Most of them are only concerned about getting an annulment and getting re-married to their sweetheart (who they almost ALWAYS have as they seek an annulment -- just like out in the World with divorces!)
Few get divorced until they have the next one lined up. Same with annulments among Trads, it would seem. That is a bad sign.
Next bad sign: they don't seem very concerned that they were essentially "shacking up" for years or decades. They forget that an annulment means a marriage never took place. They don't even give lip service to this reality, much less take it to heart. I could be wrong, but they don't seem very broken up about it. They don't even mention or realize that all their children have been declared bastards.

In every practical way, these Catholics -- even Trads -- treat annulments like the Catholic version of divorce.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
They really have lost their minds.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 08, 2019, 04:16:34 PM
Most of them are only concerned about getting an annulment and getting re-married to their sweetheart (who they almost ALWAYS have as they seek an annulment -- just like out in the World with divorces!)
That shouldn't necessarily mean anything. If someone has already left an invalid marriage, especially someone who is older, that person might not be inclined to go through the annulment process unless there is a proximate reason - a "sweetheart".  The annulment involves some time and often some cost, even when US dioceses subsidize most of that cost.

That said, I do know one trad with an annulment through the modern Church. The woman entered the marriage fraudulently - a traditional reason for an invalid marriage (not just "emotional immaturity"). He started the annulment process as part of his civil divorce. He did not have a new partner lined up but expected to marry, as he was in his mid-20s at the time. This annulment is accepted by the traditional priest where he goes with his new family.

The high quantity of annulments is mostly a US thing. In 2012, the US accounted for about half of annulment petitions worldwide. The next most numerous petitions were from Poland, accounting for 6% worldwide.

FYI, until recently, modern US marriage tribunals routinely gave annulments for defect of form for marriages done within the SSPX. The last few years of SSPX-Rome negotiations got this changed.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: forlorn on February 08, 2019, 04:54:21 PM
Confusing?

Simply, "R&R" folks remain the popes' good subject, but God's first, whereas the sedes, don't.
In what world is it being a "good subject" to the Pope to call him a heretic and the Sacraments he uses invalid?
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: ggreg on February 08, 2019, 05:11:45 PM
In the UK at least, and probably other places, you cannot even begin to apply for an annulment until you have a civil divorce fully completed.  So even a rushed job would be 2.5 to 3 years.  18 months for the divorce and another 18 ish for the annulment.

But I agree with Matthew above, the USUAL driver is a new girlfriend waiting in the wings.  I am struggling to think of any Trad or practicing Catholic  with an annulment that had it all done and dusted before they met dated and married their future wife.  I am thinking of Conchita Gonzalez (Garabandal) and her husband Patrick Keena.  Would have to to check dates and relative ages.

This is kinda understandable though given the time pressure.  Leave it too long and why bother at all?

If my wife died now I wouldn't even think of getting married again.  Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  I'd keep the nanny and just focus on my job and educating the children.  There is a 20 year window, after which, what is the point?
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: 2Vermont on February 08, 2019, 05:32:41 PM
In what world is it being a "good subject" to the Pope to call him a heretic and the Sacraments he uses invalid?
In Stubborn's world.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Ladislaus on February 08, 2019, 06:55:53 PM
I always wondered that.

Most of them are only concerned about getting an annulment and getting re-married to their sweetheart (who they almost ALWAYS have as they seek an annulment -- just like out in the World with divorces!)
Few get divorced until they have the next one lined up. Same with annulments among Trads, it would seem. That is a bad sign.
Next bad sign: they don't seem very concerned that they were essentially "shacking up" for years or decades. They forget that an annulment means a marriage never took place. They don't even give lip service to this reality, much less take it to heart. I could be wrong, but they don't seem very broken up about it. They don't even mention or realize that all their children have been declared bastards.

In every practical way, these Catholics -- even Trads -- treat annulments like the Catholic version of divorce.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You're exactly right about this behavior pattern.  Some of them even keep referring to their "ex-wife" or "ex-husband".  There was one guy who had got an annulment in an Eastern Rite church.  He was married to this woman for 20 years.  They had several children.  Both were outwardly dedicated Catholics.  Wife worked in a Novus Ordo parish office, and he went to Mass often.  So, in the Eastern Rite, before the actual marriage vows, both of the prospective marriage partners declare that they had never been vowed to another before.  When asked by the priest, this guy, in attempting again to marry, hesitated, and the priest had to coach him to say that, no, he had never been vowed to another ... even though he clearly had taken marriage vows before.  Now both are getting remarried.

In the external forum, I treat him as if he were legitimately married ... since I defer to the judgment of the Church, and it's now between him and God.  But I know darn well ... and so does he ... that he's now living in sin.  So it'll be between him and God on his judgment day.  He'd probably protest, "but, but, but ... the Church said I was never married" ... and God's response will likely be "and you know that wasn't the truth."  Only God knows.  Maybe such as these are free from mortal sin though the principle of probabilism.  God knows.  I can't judge in the external forum because I don't know all the facts of the case.  There COULD in fact be something to it.  Perhaps one of them had been previously married, and now that initial spouse had died and so they're free to remarry.  Not sure.

But I think that in the external forum we have to treat them as if they're legitimately married and not living in sin.  So, for instance, if I were a priest I would not refuse them Holy Communion.  But I might admonish them in private to really search their conscience.

This is one of the many disasters wrought upon souls by the Novus Ordo establishment.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: St Paul on February 08, 2019, 08:01:43 PM
They don't even mention or realize that all their children have been declared bastards.

I was taught this is not the case, if the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Nadir on February 08, 2019, 09:08:16 PM
I was taught this is not the case, if the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children.
"If the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children" then in all probability they were really and truly married, and so would not justly be applying for annulment. I know a couple who were already grandparents, where the woman, after over 30 years of marriage, applied for annulment, thus declaring all her 8 children bastards. No shame!
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 08, 2019, 09:11:04 PM
I was taught this is not the case, if the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children.

Isn't that kind of subjective?

Either an objective marriage took place or it didn't.

Receiving an annulment means the Church declares that a marriage never took place -- if a marriage didn't take place, then the couple was living in sin the whole time. Children conceived outside of lawful wedlock are termed spure in Canon Law, a.k.a. "spurious" or "bastard".
Being illegitimate is actually an impediment for the priesthood.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 08, 2019, 09:15:49 PM
"If the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children" then in all probability they were really and truly married, and so would not justly be applying for annulment. I know a couple who were already grandparents, where the woman, after over 30 years of marriage, applied for annulment, thus declaring all her 8 children bastards. No shame!

See this always baffles me. What the literal hell was that woman after? What is she hoping to achieve? Another shot at life and a new romance/family with a young 20 year old romeo? Another go at life, maybe this time a career in this or that? GIVE IT UP, you're in your 50's, just sit back and enjoy the ride. You will never be close to anyone like your husband you've spent the last several decades with. Live out the SHORT remainder of your life with your children and grandchildren already, and get ready for the next life for crying out loud! Death isn't that far away (I say this as a man in his early 40's).

It reminds me of the 40th martyr who was lying on the ice and "snapped" and denied Our Lord, and when he received his reward (a bath of enticing, hot water), the shock killed him. He must have gone straight to hell. What a horrible story for this man. (The other 39 earned a glorious martyrdom -- plus one of the nearby soldiers was inspired by this display, and confessed Christ, took his place naked on the frozen pond, and became the 40th martyr)

I mean, there are some times when it's just too late. Live out your destiny already. Sometimes trying to backtrack is actually more trouble than just going forward to the end!
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: ihsv on February 08, 2019, 09:39:23 PM
It's even easier for Trads.  Many of us have been married at independent/SSPX/etc., chapels.  Getting an annulment from the Conciliar Church is child's play.  The diocesan marriage tribunal simply looks at the circumstances, notes that according to the code of canon law no marriage ever took place due to a lack of jurisdiction, and rubber stamps it.  I know of a couple with 6+ kids who, after a few years, got tired of each other, left the chapel and got an annulment in record time.  He moved off somewhere else while she found another guy, got married at the indult, and lived "happily ever after."  

They knew exactly what they were doing when they got married to begin with.  The trad priest even explained the concept of supplied jurisdiction in great detail.  Their subsequent pursuit of an annulment wasn't because they had an epiphany and realized they were never married because the trad priest lacked jurisdiction.  Otherwise, why not simply go to the indult parish and get the marriage blessed/taken care of?  They wanted to "move on", and this was the path of least resistance.  

Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 08, 2019, 10:39:31 PM
It's even easier for Trads.  Many of us have been married at independent/SSPX/etc., chapels.  Getting an annulment from the Conciliar Church is child's play.  The diocesan marriage tribunal simply looks at the circumstances, notes that according to the code of canon law no marriage ever took place due to a lack of jurisdiction, and rubber stamps it.  I know of a couple with 6+ kids who, after a few years, got tired of each other, left the chapel and got an annulment in record time.  He moved off somewhere else while she found another guy, got married at the indult, and lived "happily ever after."  

They knew exactly what they were doing when they got married to begin with.  The trad priest even explained the concept of supplied jurisdiction in great detail.  Their subsequent pursuit of an annulment wasn't because they had an epiphany and realized they were never married because the trad priest lacked jurisdiction.  Otherwise, why not simply go to the indult parish and get the marriage blessed/taken care of?  They wanted to "move on", and this was the path of least resistance.  


As Ladislaus said above:
"most of these people know in their heart of hearts that their marriage were not really null, and so they'll likely be judged on that before God."
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 08, 2019, 10:43:02 PM
The diocesan marriage tribunal simply looks at the circumstances, notes that according to the code of canon law no marriage ever took place due to a lack of jurisdiction, and rubber stamps it.


They're wrong though. Even if the priest didn't have jurisdiction that doesn't mean you just divorce the couple and pretend the whole thing doesn't happen. In normal times, such marriages would be convalidated by proper authorities. There is the small matter of THE NATURAL LAW by which marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, for life, for the begetting and raising of children, etc.

See? Here, the Novus priests, too, are thinking "divorce" while they claim to be talking about annulments and Catholic marriage validity. It's all a sham. As I said above, the couple thinks of and treats "annulments" like divorce. They take all the cultural structures, terms, etc. around the institution of divorce and put a Catholic costume on it, called "annulment". Novus priests and marriage tribunal canon lawyers do the same thing. They know this couple "wants to move on" -- in modern world terms, they "want a divorce" so they're thinking in those terms. They're thinking with a non-Catholic mindset.

When Catholic missionaries converted a village of pagans, they didn't say, "Ok, everyone, you're now single! Pick whatever partner you want for your new Catholic marriage, which is for life this time so pick wisely!"
Rather, they convalidated the NATURAL LAW marriages which had already taken place. There are still emotional, psychological, and familial bonds which are very real. God designed the sexual union so that various bonds would form between the man and the woman. Also, there is the whole dimension of children, who are usually quite attached to their parents and vice-versa.

The nature of the sacrament of matrimony is that the man and the woman confer the sacrament upon each other. The priest is only a witness for the Church. Some small technicality like a lack of jurisdiction wouldn't change all the monumental family and relationship-building that already took place.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: forlorn on February 09, 2019, 06:05:40 AM
"If the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children" then in all probability they were really and truly married, and so would not justly be applying for annulment. I know a couple who were already grandparents, where the woman, after over 30 years of marriage, applied for annulment, thus declaring all her 8 children bastards. No shame!
Children of annulled marriages aren't considered bastards. 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: forlorn on February 09, 2019, 06:08:18 AM
In what world is it being a "good subject" to the Pope to call him a heretic and the Sacraments he uses invalid?
Stubborn made sure to downvote this and yet has completely failed to address it. Hypocrite. 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stubborn on February 09, 2019, 06:15:41 AM
Stubborn made sure to downvote this and yet has completely failed to address it. Hypocrite.
I did not down vote you, fyi.

Since you are confused, I will try to explain:

As I said, it is very simple, it is important to keep this fact in perspective when you consider this subject. In this world, calling him a heretic is not a false accusation because he repeatedly proves it to be true.  

In this world, we Catholics are all of our superiors' good subjects but God's first, it doesn't matter who our superior is.

In this case, Catholics remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.

It is a very simple and fundamental Catholic principle exemplified by the last words of St. Thomas More when he said; "I die the King's good servant, but God's first". Nothing complicated about this.

The consequences of the sedes rejecting the pope as pope is obvious in that they reject being the pope's good subjects, but God's first. In rejecting the pope as pope, the sedes are rejecting the simple and fundamental Catholic principle exemplified by those last words of St. Thomas More.

Not sure how this could be confusing, seems like it should be self evident.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: forlorn on February 09, 2019, 06:51:43 AM
I did not down vote you, fyi.

Since you are confused, I will try to explain:

As I said, it is very simple, it is important to keep this fact in perspective when you consider this subject. In this world, calling him a heretic is not a false accusation because he repeatedly proves it to be true.  

In this world, we Catholics are all of our superiors' good subjects but God's first, it doesn't matter who our superior is.

In this case, Catholics remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.

It is a very simple and fundamental Catholic principle exemplified by the last words of St. Thomas More when he said; "I die the King's good servant, but God's first". Nothing complicated about this.

The consequences of the sedes rejecting the pope as pope is obvious in that they reject being the pope's good subjects, but God's first. In rejecting the pope as pope, the sedes are rejecting the simple and fundamental Catholic principle exemplified by those last words of St. Thomas More.

Not sure how this could be confusing, seems like it should be self evident.
"I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."


I suppose Our Lord meant Pope Francis oughta run that stuff by his good servant Stubborn first. Since the Church's power to loose and bind doesn't apply to these annulments apparently, and somehow also the Church which the gates of Hell shall not prevail against can lead people there. 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: St Paul on February 09, 2019, 07:23:04 AM
"If the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children" then in all probability they were really and truly married, and so would not justly be applying for annulment. I know a couple who were already grandparents, where the woman, after over 30 years of marriage, applied for annulment, thus declaring all her 8 children bastards. No shame!
I suspect that is why there is a council that reviews annulments, to examine all the details.  
Let those without sin cast the first stone.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 09, 2019, 07:35:51 AM

"I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."


Since the Church's power to loose and bind doesn't apply to these annulments apparently, and somehow also the Church which the gates of Hell shall not prevail against can lead people there.
What is this, private interpretation of Scripture? Because the Catholic interpretation of "binding and loosing" is the power the priests have to forgive sins. 
They are not talking about dissolving marriage bonds which exist! In fact, the Church doesn't bind the couple together either. The couple confer the sacrament on each other. The priest is only a witness for the Church.
The role the Church plays in annulments is to DETERMINE whether or not a marriage took place. If it did, there is nothing the Pope can do about it. If it didn't, the Church can only say that no marriage took place. 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: St Paul on February 09, 2019, 09:11:35 AM
Quote
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 09, 2019, 10:40:10 AM
  There was one guy who had got an annulment in an Eastern Rite church.  He was married to this woman for 20 years.  They had several children.  ……..

But I think that in the external forum we have to treat them as if they're legitimately married and not living in sin.  So, for instance, if I were a priest I would not refuse them Holy Communion.  But I might admonish them in private to really search their conscience.
Because practically all annulments today are counterfeit, if in private they tell you that they have an annulment, you need to ask them what the circumstances were and advise them. You need to do that to help save their soul. What they do with that is their problem, you have done your job. What has happened to me every time is that they say they have an annulment in a crowd, and don't elaborate further, so I do not ask. It's just that it always catches me by surprise. I think from now on I will ask anyways. 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 09, 2019, 10:42:40 AM
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.

- J.R.R. Tolkien

What does that mean to you regarding the OP? I don't see the connection.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: ihsv on February 09, 2019, 11:34:00 AM
Here's an interesting debate that took place in the late 80's/early 90's between Fr. Wathen and some Novus Ordo "theologians".

This is only the first part, but some might find the debate helpful/useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxYPby_M32U

The other parts of the debate are also posted on YouTube
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 09, 2019, 12:51:11 PM
They're wrong though. Even if the priest didn't have jurisdiction that doesn't mean you just divorce the couple and pretend the whole thing doesn't happen. In normal times, such marriages would be convalidated by proper authorities. 
If the people want to stay together, sure, an invalid marriage can be validated. 

But if their marriage is invalid and they're not going to stay together, it wouldn't be wise to validate the marriage.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 09, 2019, 12:58:17 PM
If the people want to stay together, sure, an invalid marriage can be validated.

But if their marriage is invalid and they're not going to stay together, it wouldn't be wise to validate the marriage.
But don't you get it?
The Church should always be thinking "marriage is permanent" by default. The natural law says that marriage is for life. The Church has a distinct preference. It's not "flip a coin" or "whatever the couple wants". The Church should strongly urge the couple to have their message convalidated and continue living together as husband and wife.
That's my point: the modern Church has adopted the disposable marriage, cheap divorce, modern mentality.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 09, 2019, 01:29:10 PM
But don't you get it?
The Church should always be thinking "marriage is permanent" by default. The natural law says that marriage is for life. The Church has a distinct preference. It's not "flip a coin" or "whatever the couple wants". The Church should strongly urge the couple to have their message convalidated and continue living together as husband and wife.
That's my point: the modern Church has adopted the disposable marriage, cheap divorce, modern mentality.
If they're separated and have no intention of reuiniting, validating a marriage that doesn't exist would be imprudent.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 09, 2019, 01:30:06 PM
Because practically all annulments today are counterfeit, if in private they tell you that they have an annulment, you need to ask them what the circumstances were and advise them. You need to do that to help save their soul. What they do with that is their problem, you have done your job. 
I've been the recipient of unsolicited "advice" of this sort before. 

Years ago, one of my uncles married a divorced woman. Someone in my church, with no real theological training, just had to tell me that my uncle was living in sin in an invalid marriage and I should do something about it.

Of course this person didn't know the circumstances, and may have committed rash judgment. Unless information about marriage history comes about naturally, perhaps let the priests and/or knowledgable family members deal with it. 

The one good thing this busybody did was not talk directly to my uncle, who was just starting to come to the trad church, or he might have never darkened that door again.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 09, 2019, 01:49:52 PM
If they're separated and have no intention of reuiniting, validating a marriage that doesn't exist would be imprudent.

You're not getting it.

They were probably married for years, probably have kid(s), and they should be convinced to reunite. Just because there was a flaw in their original marriage vows doesn't mean they haven't been making use of the marriage debt, forming strong emotional/psychological bonds with each other, having children and forming 2-way bonds there, etc.

Hearing that a couple "separated and have no intention of reuniting" doesn't cause us to bat an eye nowadays -- heck, that eventually happens to ALMOST EVERYONE's first marriage, right? That's the one you make mistakes on when you're young. Usually your first marriage just lasts about 5-15 years. Then, when you're more mature, you get divorced and end up finding  someone better for you, right?

That's the modern, pagan, godless world talking.

A couple separated with no intention of reuniting should be a rare tragedy -- and the Church should be thinking in those terms. They should react to divorce like a man from 1850, when divorce was scandalous and rare. A Catholic Church official should be a relic, a fossil, a dinosaur, a blast from the ancient past in this regard.

Now do you get it?
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Nadir on February 09, 2019, 03:07:33 PM
Children of annulled marriages aren't considered bastards.
Children born to the unmarried are known to be bastards.
N.B. An annulled "marriage" is NOT a marriage.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Ladislaus on February 09, 2019, 04:30:08 PM
The one good thing this busybody did was not talk directly to my uncle, who was just starting to come to the trad church, or he might have never darkened that door again.

Yeah, the old Bergoglio approach ... let grave sin slide, and accept it, in the interests of not turning people away.  That never works out well.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 09, 2019, 04:50:26 PM
Yeah, the old Bergoglio approach ... let grave sin slide, and accept it, in the interests of not turning people away.  That never works out well.
Interesting: do you endorse rash judgment about grave sin?
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: forlorn on February 09, 2019, 06:43:10 PM
Children born to the unmarried are known to be bastards.
N.B. An annulled "marriage" is NOT a marriage.
They weren't considered bastards even in medieval times, when they were far more strict about that sort of thing and the issue of whether or not a child was a bastard was even more important. 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: ggreg on February 09, 2019, 07:24:05 PM
In a world of bastards there is no shame in being a bastard.

And today's world is choc-a-bloc with them.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 09, 2019, 08:05:24 PM
I've been the recipient of unsolicited "advice" of this sort before.

Years ago, one of my uncles married a divorced woman. Someone in my church, with no real theological training, just had to tell me that my uncle was living in sin in an invalid marriage and I should do something about it.

Of course this person didn't know the circumstances, and may have committed rash judgment. Unless information about marriage history comes about naturally, perhaps let the priests and/or knowledgable family members deal with it.

The one good thing this busybody did was not talk directly to my uncle, who was just starting to come to the trad church, or he might have never darkened that door again.
How would a stranger know that your uncle was married to a divorcee? 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: MaterDominici on February 09, 2019, 08:36:14 PM
They weren't considered bastards even in medieval times, when they were far more strict about that sort of thing and the issue of whether or not a child was a bastard was even more important.
Perhaps you can support this with a source. I could imagine that given how rare and unusual annulments were, that any children involved might not have been considered bastards, but it's purely speculation on my part until a source can be provided.
.
On a related note, when a couple living in sin (not married in the Church, for example) has their relationship validated in the proper manner, does that alter the status of any children they bore previously?
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 09, 2019, 08:54:59 PM
How would a stranger know that your uncle was married to a divorcee?
I don't remember. Possibly something he said in the social area, like referring to a stepchild.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 09, 2019, 09:24:46 PM
I don't remember. Possibly something he said in the social area, like referring to a stepchild.
This thread is about annulments, which has nothing to do with marrying a divorcee. The Catholic Church has never granted divorces.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 09, 2019, 09:46:01 PM
This thread is about annulments, which has nothing to do with marrying a divorcee. The Catholic Church has never granted divorces.
You brought up advising people. There can be circumstances people don't know. Is it the layperson's job to function as marriage investigator?

Also recall the Pauline privilege and Petrine privilege.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 09, 2019, 10:15:13 PM
On a related note, when a couple living in sin (not married in the Church, for example) has their relationship validated in the proper manner, does that alter the status of any children they bore previously?
In the 1983 Code Canon 1139, illegitimate children are legitimized by a later marriage of their parents (valid or putative). A putative marriage is one attempted within the Church, but invalid.

In the 1917 Code Canon 1116, they are legitimized by a later marriage (again, valid or putative) if the parents were capable of contracting marriage at some point between the conception and birth of the child.

Both codes say the the children conceived or born in valid or putative marriages are legitimate. The 1917 Code Canon 1113 has an exception for marriages with a person in solemn religious profession or holy orders.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Caraffa on February 09, 2019, 10:26:40 PM
Perhaps you can support this with a source. I could imagine that given how rare and unusual annulments were, that any children involved might not have been considered bastards, but it's purely speculation on my part until a source can be provided.
.
On a related note, when a couple living in sin (not married in the Church, for example) has their relationship validated in the proper manner, does that alter the status of any children they bore previously?

The 1917 Code of Canon Law,

Canon 1114: "Those children are legitimate who are conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage unless the parents, because of a solemn religious profession or the taking up of sacred orders, had been, at the time of conception, prohibited from using the marriage contracted earlier."

Canon 1116: "By the subsequent marriage of the parents, whether true or putative, whether newly contracted or con-validated, even if it is not consummated, children are legitimated, provided the parents were capable of contracting marriage between themselves at the time of conception, or impregnation, or birth."
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: forlorn on February 10, 2019, 09:04:54 AM
Perhaps you can support this with a source. I could imagine that given how rare and unusual annulments were, that any children involved might not have been considered bastards, but it's purely speculation on my part until a source can be provided.
.
On a related note, when a couple living in sin (not married in the Church, for example) has their relationship validated in the proper manner, does that alter the status of any children they bore previously?
Most annulled marriages are still considered to be putative marriages, i.e a marriages where at least one party entered it into good faith believing it to be valid. That children borne of putative marriages are valid has been part of Canon Law for a long time. I can't find any direct sources on showing this concept/law to have been present in Medieval times, but others have already sourced it in Canon Law dating back long before Vatican 2. As for a secondary source regarding the Law in Medieval times, Harold Berman's "Law and Revolution, the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition" describes it to have been the case back then too:

Quote
p228: "Where the parties married in good faith, without knowledge of an impediment, the canonists held that the children of the marriage were legitimate and that the marriage itself was valid up to the day it was declared null."

I don't have the book on hand to look at his primary sources for this, but the fact that we know it to be true in 1917 Canon Law means I'm inclined to believe him that it was the same back then too.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 10, 2019, 11:24:14 AM
You brought up advising people. There can be circumstances people don't know. Is it the layperson's job to function as marriage investigator?

Also recall the Pauline privilege and Petrine privilege.
People who do not know a subject, are not in a position to advise anyone, that should be obvious. 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Capt McQuigg on February 11, 2019, 01:20:33 PM
Interesting: do you endorse rash judgment about grave sin?
It's not rash judgement.  Your Uncle married a divorced woman.  Why, or how, is it known that she was a divorced woman?  What is the level of Catholic knowledge or commitment in a man who does such a thing knowingly? 
Rash judgement would be saying that your Uncle is on the way to Hell.  That would be rash. 
Advising him to seek out a Traditional Catholic Priest for advice on his current marriage would be a prudent thing to do.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Capt McQuigg on February 11, 2019, 01:23:28 PM
In a world of bastards there is no shame in being a bastard.

And today's world is choc-a-bloc with them.
How true! 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 12, 2019, 11:41:58 AM
It's not rash judgement.  Your Uncle married a divorced woman.  Why, or how, is it known that she was a divorced woman?  What is the level of Catholic knowledge or commitment in a man who does such a thing knowingly?  
Rash judgement would be saying that your Uncle is on the way to Hell.  That would be rash.
Advising him to seek out a Traditional Catholic Priest for advice on his current marriage would be a prudent thing to do.
1. While my uncle did marry a divorced woman, that doesn't mean he wasn't validly married. Could be any number of reasons, including: Pauline/Petrine privilege, annulment of her previous marriage, or the previous spouse is now deceased. Terminology can be muddied in the modern world. Yes, sometimes people continue to identify as divorced even though they are not, or a widow, by Catholic thinking.

2. Many circumstances can affect a marriage. Especially if prior attempted marriages are involved, things can be complicated. Then there are issues of justice for any children. I do know what was going on with my uncle. The busybody who approached me about my uncle knew who I am and what my background is. The person frankly should have trusted that my uncle's situation was already checked out. Should I have had to explain my uncle's marriage to everyone who asks? There can be circumstances of a marriage case that are "private" or inappropriate to discuss, perhaps because they could reveal or imply sins of another, and so would be an injustice.

3. I'm saddened to see the people arguing about this. My post referred to a busybody who didn't have all the facts. Arguing against me has been a resistance Mass coordinator who went to SSPX seminary but (if I recall correctly) never studied moral or pastoral theology there. The one who accused me of being "Bergoglian" also went to SSPX seminary but (if I recall correctly) also never studied moral or pastoral theology there. I don't know you, but still that's three people doing pretty much what I was identifying with the busybody. None of you know the circumstances but still seek to provide "advice". This probably falls short of"rash judgment" due to lack of firm judgment (perhaps it's "rash suspicion"?). Nevertheless, this sort of behaviour is something I associate with the old ladies of a parish.

4. More broadly, this thread is an example of a trend that gives me pause about the resistance segment of tradition. I agreed the way annulments are handled in the US isn't right. But here I get "downvotes" for expressing some traditional pastoral theology, and some leading lights of this forum appear to argue against that theology, based on an ideal of what society should be but currently isn't, or because it sounds liberal. This is an example of why I suspect even when/if Rome did return to tradition, it may not be accepted by many traditionalists, who sometimes have peculiar notions of "tradition".
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 12, 2019, 01:03:34 PM
1. While my uncle did marry a divorced woman, …...

4. More broadly, this thread is an example of a trend that gives me pause about the resistance segment of tradition. I
You were the one that brought up the conversation, which like I said, has nothing to do with the OP, Annulments. Your posting derailed this important thread. Now you are derailing again by disparaging the so-called Resistance people.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 12, 2019, 01:56:12 PM
You were the one that brought up the conversation, which like I said, has nothing to do with the OP, Annulments. Your posting derailed this important thread. Now you are derailing again by disparaging the so-called Resistance people.
OK, to be on topic: you mentioned advising people who have had annulments. And while I'll agree it's not directly relevant to annulments, my uncle's case does relate to advising on marriage status.

Do you recognize the potential problems with confronting people on their possible invalid marriage or "living in sin", when they may very well be doing nothing wrong? When they may have already had priests look into the situation? 

You also said:

People who do not know a subject, are not in a position to advise anyone, that should be obvious.
Most laypersons do not have the background in moral theology to advise on marriage cases.

Also, the people who would be advised often don't have enough background to explain their situation accurately. They may either omit relevant facts, or use terms that can be misinterpreted.

Prudence should dictate care and caution in this realm, and men should have enough self-control not to jump at suspicions.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2019, 02:10:46 PM
Prudence should dictate care and caution in this realm, and men should have enough self-control not to jump at suspicions.

Marrying a divorcee automatically brings prudent suspicions along with it.  People should avoid coming to definitive conclusions based on such a suspicion, but the suspicion is unavoidable.  And no, not everyone has run their situation by a priest, especially if they know it's irregular.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 12, 2019, 02:20:13 PM
Marrying a divorcee automatically brings prudent suspicions along with it.
And there are far too many "divorcees". Divorce needs to become much less socially acceptable than it currently is. Right now, it's treated about like having blond hair. "No big deal."
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2019, 02:29:37 PM
And there are far too many "divorcees". Divorce needs to become much less socially acceptable than it currently is. Right now, it's treated about like having blond hair. "No big deal."

Yes, even when it's justified based on ecclesiastical criteria, it still should be viewed as a bad thing.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 12, 2019, 02:30:44 PM
Quote
1. While my uncle did marry a divorced woman, that doesn't mean he wasn't validly married. Could be any number of reasons, including: Pauline/Petrine privilege, annulment of her previous marriage, or the previous spouse is now deceased. Terminology can be muddied in the modern world. Yes, sometimes people continue to identify as divorced even though they are not, or a widow, by Catholic thinking.
Look, words have meaning.  If your uncle is validly married according to the Church, yet says that she was "formerly divorced" then he is using faulty terminology and those who interpret the use of the word "divorced" as meaning "formerly sacramentally married" would not be wrong.

In the case of the pauline/petrine privilege, the woman is not "divorced" in the eyes of the Church since her first "marriage" was just a natural union and not a true, sacramental marriage.

In the case of an annulment, there was never a marriage, so divorce isn't supposed to be part of the explanation.

If your uncle used correct terminolgy, then the "talking behind his back" wouldn't be bad but just truthful fact-sharing.

Example:  If when i was 6 years old, my younger brother died in a car wreck because I didn't buckle his seat belt like my mom told me to, of course this is an accident.  But if I walked around telling people "When I was young, I killed my brother" they would rightly interpret that I actually, physically killed him...because those are the words I am using to convey the idea.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 16, 2019, 07:28:18 PM
Look, words have meaning. 
Yes, words have meaning. They have meaning for people outside the traditional movement, who may in some cases use these words in a different sense.
If you insist on interpreting words according to a sense a person didn't intend, that's on you.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 16, 2019, 08:32:02 PM
Yes, words have meaning. They have meaning for people outside the traditional movement, who may in some cases use these words in a different sense.
Then words have no meaning.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Ladislaus on February 17, 2019, 10:50:58 AM
Yes, words have meaning. They have meaning for people outside the traditional movement, who may in some cases use these words in a different sense.
If you insist on interpreting words according to a sense a person didn't intend, that's on you.

Presumably YOU are a Traditional Catholic posting on a Traditional Catholic forum, so the expectation is for you to use the proper terms, even if worldlings do not.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: ggreg on February 18, 2019, 07:22:16 AM
You brought up advising people. There can be circumstances people don't know. Is it the layperson's job to function as marriage investigator?

Also recall the Pauline privilege and Petrine privilege.
I would have thought it was yes.  At least to the point of speaking up when they know a person has a dodgy marriage.
It is right there in the marriage service.
"If any person present knows of any lawful impediment to this marriage, he or she should declare it now"

So it is right there as an invitation or even a command.  And it would not be included if it was not a layperson's responsibility to speak up when they knew.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: ggreg on February 18, 2019, 07:43:43 AM
Because practically all annulments today are counterfeit.
I don't agree.
I think many marriages if not MOST marriages today are counterfeit, because people enter them thinking "if this does not work out I will get divorced, or with expectations of 2 children, home-ownership, a career for the wife, and a world cruise and early retirement.  Since the VAST majority of people enter marriage intending to use contraceptives, then the vast majority of marriages must be invalid, since a lack of openness to life invalidates a marriage and using contraceptives from day one demonstrates a clear intent.
I cannot speak for other cultures, but I certainly see a LOT of this in the UK.  Once a culture starts referring to people as "my partner", rather than my husband or my wife, then the formality of marriage is dead.  It's like acquiring a driving licence in Somalia.  Why bother?  Nobody else has one and even if you can drive you have to bribe the examiner assuming an examiner exists in the first place.
But this is not to say that the solution is to issue more annulments, but rather to refuse to marry people who cannot demonstrate and in fact articulate that understanding.  If the Church ever recovers and leads the world out of this mess I imagine it will need to have a marriage course where people are scrutinised before they are allowed to marry each other in Church.  Then one could reasonably apply tougher judicial standards to annulments.   But it would have to be a very different world than the one we live in for this to work.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 18, 2019, 07:47:41 AM
I don't agree.
I think many marriages if not MOST marriages today are counterfeit, because people enter them thinking "if this does not work out I will get divorced, or with expectations of 2 children, home-ownership, a career for the wife, and a world cruise and early retirement.  Since the VAST majority of people enter marriage intending to use contraceptives, then the vast majority of marriages must be invalid, since a lack of openness to life invalidates a marriage and using contraceptives from day one demonstrates a clear intent.
I cannot speak for other cultures, but I certainly see a LOT of this in the UK.  Once a culture starts referring to people as "my partner", rather than my husband or my wife, then the formality of marriage is dead.  It's like acquiring a driving licence in Somalia.  Why bother?  Nobody else has one and even if you can drive you have to bribe the examiner assuming an examiner exists in the first place.
But this is not to say that the solution is to issue more annulments, but rather to refuse to marry people who cannot demonstrate and in fact articulate that understanding.  If the Church ever recovers and leads the world out of this mess I imagine it will need to have a marriage course where people are scrutinised before they are allowed to marry each other in Church.  Then one could reasonably apply tougher judicial standards to annulments.   But it would have to be a very different world than the one we live in for this to work.

1. Then this is the fault of the Conciliar Church, which fails to properly prepare couples for marriage or even vet them before marriage -- this alone is enough reason to be a Trad (leave the Conciliar Church, even if it means staying home on Sundays)

After all, what affects your chance of salvation more than your vocation or marriage? It's kind of important.

2. Even if they are OK in God's eyes, it doesn't change the fact that man SOMETIMES forgives and nature NEVER forgives. You will still have all the issues of divorce that any worldling experiences: ex-spouses, child custody, child support, dealing with lawyers and courts, demeaning the other spouse when you're with your child, comparing past partners to your current one, jealousy, loneliness, etc.

Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Ladislaus on February 18, 2019, 08:03:59 AM
Yes, this is what marrriage preparation was supposed to be for ... so that there's no excuse like this in play after the couple has been united.  If they won't agree to the terms of the Church, then they are not to be married in the Church.  Then there's the scenario of someone telling the priest that they agree to the Church's conditions for valid marriage but not really "meaning" it.  Well, tough beans.  Never has the Church made any judgments based on the internal forum, otherwise all anybody would have to claim was that in their own minds they never really MEANT the marriage vows.  Just like with intention in the Sacraments, the intention is always presumed by the Church if you do the external act.  So, whether or not these marriages are valid in the eyes of God, they are presumed to be valid in the eyes of the Church.  De internis Ecclesia non judicat.

Now, of course, in the Conciliar sect, I hear of those "Pre-Cana" classes (from people who have gone through them) focusing on things like how to balance your checkbook and how to budget.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 18, 2019, 08:16:14 AM
I would have thought it was yes.  At least to the point of speaking up when they know a person has a dodgy marriage.
It is right there in the marriage service.
"If any person present knows of any lawful impediment to this marriage, he or she should declare it now"

So it is right there as an invitation or even a command.  And it would not be included if it was not a layperson's responsibility to speak up when they knew.
That is before the marriage.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: St Paul on February 18, 2019, 08:21:56 AM
1. Then this is the fault of the Conciliar Church, which fails to properly prepare couples for marriage or even vet them before marriage -- this alone is enough reason to be a Trad (leave the Conciliar Church, even if it means staying home on Sundays)

It happens in trad churches, too.
Satan is an equal opportunity employer.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 18, 2019, 08:27:25 AM
It happens in trad churches, too.
Satan is an equal opportunity employer.
Yes, but as I've said a thousand times, there's a difference between a PROBLEM (which could be random, due to human nature, etc.) and a FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM with a group, which is caused by the very nature/charter of the group.

For example, it's fundamental that the Conciliar Church is open to the Modern World: thinking like it, respecting it, updating its doctrines and practices to better suit it, etc. This is not true about the old SSPX or current-day SSPX Resistance. You might find worldly people attending their chapels, yes, but they would be doing so IN OPPOSITION to everything the group stands for. See the difference?

You can't blame a group for failing to control members who are rebellious and refuse to obey. What can the organization do when their authority is denied? The only answer is to judge an organization by its officials, its leader, and its charter -- the fundamentals of an organization -- what defines an organization. 

An organization is certainly not defined or summarized by the behavior of its rebellious or disobedient members!

When a Conciliar "catholic" is worldly, he's being a good Conciliar "catholic".
When a trad is worldly, he's being a bad trad (going against the teachings of his priests, the organization that runs his chapel, the beliefs of his fellow-parishioners, etc.)
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 18, 2019, 08:52:37 AM
I would have thought it was yes.  At least to the point of speaking up when they know a person has a dodgy marriage.
It is right there in the marriage service.
"If any person present knows of any lawful impediment to this marriage, he or she should declare it now"

So it is right there as an invitation or even a command.  And it would not be included if it was not a layperson's responsibility to speak up when they knew.
That is before the marriage.
Think before writing. That was an excellent point made by ggreg. No one can argue against it. The same lawful impediment before the marriage invalidates the marriage forever. The same lawful impediment is what will be used in the future to validly annul the marriage.  
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Matthew on February 18, 2019, 08:57:36 AM
Yes, and I think what we're trying to say is that the Church shouldn't WANT a bunch of couples to be "divorcing", even for a good reason. Better to prevent the attempted non-marriage in the first place.

As I keep mentioning, there are permanent, real-world consequences for "attempted marriage" such as children, broken homes, jealousy, child support, experience with multiple partners, etc. These real problems occur even if everything is hunky-dory with the Church, in the eyes of God, etc.

Even if the couple are just stupid, ignorant (and therefore blameless) for not knowing the nature of marriage, the Church certainly should know better, and try to head off these bad consequences.

The Church should be instructing couples properly, and preventing these non-marriages before they get started.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 18, 2019, 08:59:42 AM
Think before writing. That was an excellent point made by ggreg. No one can argue against it. The same lawful impediment before the marriage invalidates the marriage forever. The same lawful impediment is what will be used in the future to validly annul the marriage.  
Scenario again: she was divorced civilly. He and she married in the Church (N.O.). Her previous situation was known, examined, and handled by the priest before the marriage. (I also understand what happened, possibly better than my uncle did at the time.) It's not new information.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: ggreg on February 18, 2019, 02:37:15 PM
1. Then this is the fault of the Conciliar Church, which fails to properly prepare couples for marriage or even vet them before marriage -- this alone is enough reason to be a Trad (leave the Conciliar Church, even if it means staying home on Sundays)

After all, what affects your chance of salvation more than your vocation or marriage? It's kind of important.

2. Even if they are OK in God's eyes, it doesn't change the fact that man SOMETIMES forgives and nature NEVER forgives. You will still have all the issues of divorce that any worldling experiences: ex-spouses, child custody, child support, dealing with lawyers and courts, demeaning the other spouse when you're with your child, comparing past partners to your current one, jealousy, loneliness, etc.
Agreed, the Conciliar Church ENTIRELY fails in that regard.  In the UK, at least, it did more than just fail it positively taught that contraception was something left entirely to your conscience and HV something of an embarrassment to be ignored by sensible people.  I can remember arguing with the RE Teacher, the School Headmaster, the local parish priest and so on when I was at a Catholic school in the 1980s.  They were ALL contracepted to the eyeballs as were the vast majority of my friends families.  Our 9 was exceptional.  There was a 5 and a few 4s but the vast majority of my friends came from 3, 2 or 1 sized families.
Not sure about other countries, but I've not heard of anywhere the bishops have preached heavily against a contraceptive mentality which I imagine is why Catholic Europe's birth rate is lower than the UKs, Sweden and France (who produce the most births in Europe and roughly equal to the USA's birth rate.
Portugal's is lower than Japan's.  That really is low.  I think Catholic Portugal (which apparently still has the Dogma of the Faith kicking around somewhere) has the third lowest birthrate on planet Earth. 197 countries are more "open to life" than the Portuguese.
I can never look at the birth rate statistics without thinking of Luke 14
"A certain man made a great supper, and invited many. And he sent his servant at the hour of supper to say to them that were invited, that they should come, for now all things are ready. 18.And they began all at once to make excuse. The first said to him: I have bought a farm, and I must needs go out and see it: I pray thee, hold me excused. And another said: I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to try them: I pray thee, hold me excused. And another said: I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. And the servant returning, told these things to his lord. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant: Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the feeble, and the blind, and the lame. And the servant said: Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the Lord said to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. But I say unto you, that none of those men that were invited, shall taste of my supper." 
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/
It strikes me that the selfishness of those who won't have children as God sends them and cooperate with God's plan are very similar those who will not attend the wedding feast of their master.  101 excuses none of them good.
If people can afford 6 children in Niger then they can certainly afford them in Portugal.
Will God destroy the non productive races and start over with Africa?  Certainly there are going to be a billion more black faces and a billion less white ones by 2100; even if He does nothing.
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: ggreg on February 18, 2019, 02:51:12 PM
They should react to divorce like a man from 1850, when divorce was scandalous and rare. 
Do any religions act like that today about divorce or adultery?
Which loosely Christian sects are, practically speaking, the most against divorce and adultery?
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 18, 2019, 06:01:30 PM
Scenario again: she was divorced civilly. He and she married in the Church (N.O.). Her previous situation was known, examined, and handled by the priest before the marriage. (I also understand what happened, possibly better than my uncle did at the time.) It's not new information.
The civil divorce is not as important as the previous marriage, THAT IS what is important to know, for the Novus Ordo regularly grants annulments to couples married in the Church for years and even with children. 
Title: Re: Annulments - VII church path to hell by Adultery
Post by: Stanley N on February 20, 2019, 09:55:00 AM
The civil divorce is not as important as the previous marriage, THAT IS what is important to know, for the Novus Ordo regularly grants annulments to couples married in the Church for years and even with children.
I have made it quite clear that the uncle's marriage is valid.

The problem is that despite being told that, there were people who just had to know what was going on so that THEY were satisfied. Which is not unlike what happened in this thread. (To Matthew's credit he stopped being involved on this issue.)

Do I really need to explain the circumstances of my uncle's marriage before someone can just accept it? I don't think I should have to - it would mean explaining it to everyone who asked, potentially for decades.

I told people who asked that it's not your business, and take your concerns to our trad. priest if you must. What do you think the priest told them?

On a different point, sometimes an invalid marriage cannot be validated because the impediment is ongoing. A solution is likely either going to be difficult for any children, or difficult for the couple.