My dear child,
I want you be saved. Please don`t sin, don`t put your soul in risk. Listen to my advices and counsels. If you get married, don`t separe, don`t get a divorce. Marriage is not about passion and carnal feelings.The marriage is forever until you die. If you don`t listen to me and get a divorce and remarry, you must understand that your "new marriage" is adultery!
Now read this important text on:
Divorce, Annulments and Remarriage
Divorce and remarriage is
never in the will of God. A valid marriage can never be dissolved by
any human power or for any cause whatever except death.
It is important to
remember Malachi 2:16: "I hate divorce, says the LORD God of
Israel." According to the Bible, marriage is a lifetime
commitment. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what
God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6).
Matthew
19:9: "And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away,
committeth adultery."
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible commentary explains: "Except it be:
In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put
away [i.e., separation (not divorce)]: but even then the husband
cannot marry another as long as the wife is living."
This means that a
person who has "divorced" a lawful marriage and "remarried"
commits adultery or fornication since this person's first marriage is still
valid before God, so long as the spouse is alive; and it means that a
person who has "married" a so-called divorced person commits
adultery or fornication since their marriage is invalid since the divorced
person's first marriage is still valid before God, so long as the
spouse is alive.
Pope
Leo XIII, Dum Multa (# 2), Dec. 24, 1902: "It follows
then that the marriage of
Christians when fully accomplished… cannot be dissolved for any
reason other than the death of either spouse, according to
the holy words: 'What God has joined, let no man put asunder.'"
Pope
Leo XIII, Dum Multa (# 2), Dec. 24, 1902: “It follows
then that the marriage of Christians when fully
accomplished… cannot be dissolved for
any reason other than the death of either
spouse, according to the holy words: ‘What God has
joined, let no man put asunder.’”
According
to Catholic dogma, the essential properties of marriage are unity
and indissolubility. A marriage validly contracted and consummated
is binding until death separates the spouses. “There is
no such thing as the annulment
of a consummated sacramental marriage.
The expression is sometimes used inaccurately for the declaration
of nullity of a union reputed to be a marriage but
which upon examination is proved not to have been such.”
It’s important for us to understand that there is no
such thing as “an annulment” of a consummated marriage,
but only a declaration of nullity that a certain union never was a
marriage to begin with if there is clear-cut evidence
proving that a particular union was not validly
contracted.
With
this in mind, it’s easy to see why “annulments”
(that is, declarations that certain unions were not actually
marriages to begin with) were traditionally
given very rarely. Such cases are extremely difficult to prove,
and if there’s a doubt about whether a particular union was a
validly contracted marriage, the Church presumes the validity of the
marriage.
Canon
1014, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Marriage enjoys the favor of
law; therefore in doubt the validity of marriage
is to be upheld until the contrary is proven, with
due regard for the prescription of Canon 1127.”
A
good example of “an annulment” that could be given on
solid grounds would be if a woman were to “marry”
(through no fault of her own) a man whom she later discovered to be a
validly ordained priest. Since priests cannot enter into matrimony
(canon 1972),4 the union between this priest and the
woman was not a valid marriage. She would be given a decree of
nullity that she was never married. She would be free to marry
another person.
Another
obvious example for an “annulment” would be if the person
you “married” turned out to have been married before, but
he hid this information from you.
In
all of these cases, the reason must be grave and the evidence that
there never was a valid marriage must be clear. That’s
why only 338 annulments were
granted in 1968 in the U.S., when the
pre-Vatican II teaching on marriage was still held by most.
However,
with the explosion of the post-Vatican II, the teaching of
the indissolubility of marriage has been thrown out the window along
with the other dogmas. From 1984 to 1994, the
Vatican II in the U.S. granted just under 59,000
annually, even though the number of Catholic
marriages has fallen one third since 1965!
In
2002 alone, the Vatican II granted 50,000 annulments
in the United States!
An
astounding 97%
of all annulments
requested are granted in the United States!
This means
that
almost
everyone
who
wants
an
“annulment”
of
his or her marriage
gets
one!
Fr.
Leonard Kennedy: “From 1984 to 1994 it was 97% for
First Instance trials. All cases however have to have a second
trial. The percentage of decisions overturned in
the United States is 4/10 of 1%.”
This
means that almost 100 percent of requested annulments are granted in
the first trial, with the chances of such an annulment being
overturned in a second trial being less than 1/2 of
1%! This is a total rejection of the indissolubility of
marriage in fact and in deed. This annulment fiasco was the
subject of Sheila Rauch Kennedy’s famous book, Shattered
Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic
Church from Annulling Her Marriage. This allowance
of divorce and remarriage under the pretext of phony marriage
annulments has destroyed countless families and mocked the Catholic
Church before the world.
Things
are so bad that, “There is advertising
in church bulletins, Catholic newspapers,
and even the secular press,
that annulments are available, sometimes with a suggested
guarantee that they will be granted. ‘Some
invitations practically promise an annulment to all who
apply. The promotional efforts . . . may evoke responses from . .
. spouses who dream of greener marital pastures but would not
seriously consider separation and divorce were annulment not
presented as a convenient and acceptable alternative.’”
Basically
anyone who wants a declaration that they aren’t married can get
one. They issue them for all kinds of ridiculous reasons, such as
alcoholism, personality incompatibility, etc., etc., etc., none of
which are valid grounds. 11.68% of annulments today are
granted because of "defective consent," which
involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient
knowledge or maturity to know what
was involved in marriage! In other words, if after a few years of marriage a
person discovers that he doesn’t like his spouse anymore, he
wasn’t properly “mature” or didn’t know what
he was getting into when he decided to exchange the perpetual vows
with this person. This is obviously absurd, completely bogus and
outrageous.
The
people that think they are free to marry based on such false and
dishonest grounds are deceiving themselves; they are placing
themselves on the road to damnation. And the Vatican II sect
confirms them on their false path. When people take the marriage
vows, it’s until they are parted by death. They wanted to
marry; they’re the ones that chose to contract
it. The obligations
accompanying marriage didn’t
seem to bother
them when
they made use of
their marriage rights. It’s
their own fault if, after some time, they don’t like their
choice or weren’t prepared for it. The capitulation of the
Vatican II on this issue is another proof of its
worship of man, appeasing man at all costs, relieving him
of all his responsibilities
and contracts before God because they’re
inconvenient for him or not to his liking. This
abominable annulment fiasco is one of the most despicable aspects of
the Vatican II sect.
Robert
H. Vasoli, author of the book What God Has Joined Together,
was part of a totally valid marriage for 15 years when he suddenly
found himself as a respondent for the annulment of his own marriage.
He writes that the scandal generated by an annulment which people who
know the spouses can't possibly approve of "is infinitesimal
compared to the scandal generated by the tribunal system. The
system as a whole is scandalous."
Based
on these amazing facts, one can truly say that the Vatican II allows divorce and remarriage, proving once again that it’s not
the Catholic Church, but a counterfeit sect of the final days.
Notice how differently the true popes of the Catholic Church acted
when confronted with these problems.
While
the Vatican II denies the indissolubility
of marriage, the Catholic Church has defended it at all costs
In
the year 995, King Robert of France put away his wife Suzanne and
“married” Bertha of Chartres. Despite the problems which
might have arisen from opposing the powerful king, Pope Gregory
V condemned Robert’s union with Bertha as
bigamous and ordered him to put Bertha
away or face excommunication. Robert then sent an
ambassador to Rome in the hope that the pope would compromise; but to
no avail:
“…Pope
Gregory V could only say with his Lord: ‘What
God has joined together, let no man put
asunder.’ Almost a thousand
years before, Jesus Christ had given to His disciples this, which
seemed to them one of the hardest of his teachings. Still it
re-echoed down the corridors of time, the terror of the mighty, the
shield of the innocent, as the one hundred and thirty-eighth of His
Vicars on earth spoke His mind once more on the sacred, unbreakable
bond of marriage, on behalf of Princess Suzanne. When King
Robert still did not send Bertha away, he was excommunicated,
about the end of the year 988. Three
years later he finally submitted, and sent her away.”
In
1141, the sister of Queen Eleanor of France, Peronelle, desired
marriage to one of the richest nobles and most powerful officials at
court, the Seneschal Raoul of Vermandois. The problem was that the
Seneschal Raoul of Vermandois was already married to another Eleanor.
A three-man commission of bishops, certainly influenced by King
Louis VI, pronounced Raoul’s marriage to Eleanor invalid on
the specious grounds of consanguinity. He promptly married
Peronelle. St. Bernard denounced the decision of the bishops in
words that apply strikingly to the post-Vatican II situation, with
one crucial difference:
“St.
Bernard denounced the three bishops as
‘shameless men… who, despite the law of
God, have not scrupled to separate what God has joined
together. Nor is this all. They have gone further and added one
sin to another by uniting what should not be united. The sacred rites
of the Church have been violated and the robes of Christ have been
torn, and to make matters worse this has been done by those
very persons whose business it ought to
be to mend them.’ He did not hesitate to point out
that Louis’ own marriage to Eleanor was within the prohibited
degrees of consanguinity, yet had received no Papal dispensation.
Pope Innocent III responded
in 1142 by excommunicating Raoul of
Vermandois and imposing an
interdict on his lands, and suspending the
three bishops.”13
In
this episode we see a striking analogy to the present situation. St.
Bernard denounces the bishops for granting a phony annulment when
there weren’t grounds to do so, and condemns them for tearing
the union of matrimony when it is their business to see that it
remains. But the difference is that St. Bernard was living when there
was a true pope, unlike those living today. The true pope, Innocent
III, promptly backed up St. Bernard by excommunicating the culprit
and suspending the bishops. Nothing like this is done by the
antipopes of the Vatican II sect, of course, because they are not
Catholic and their sect endorses divorce and re-marriage under the
cover of easy and fraudulent annulments.
In
1193, the powerful King Philip II of France announced that he would
seek an annulment one day after marrying Princess Ingeborg. The
French bishops obediently granted Philip an annulment without even
giving Ingeborg a hearing. But in 1195 Pope Celestine III
overruled the annulment
given by the French bishops and demanded that Philip take
Ingeborg back; he further warned him that no future marriage of his
would be recognized by the Church while Ingeborg lived.
“The
king resisted furiously, and in 1196 bigamously married Agnes of
Meran; but Pope Celestine III and his successor… continued to
insist on Ingeborg’s rights. In January
1200 Pope Innocent placed the whole kingdom of France under an
interdict to enforce them.
Philip made a pretense of yielding, but his heart remained hardened;
only thirteen years later did he finally take Ingeborg back and reign
with her at his side. Once again, the Vicars
of Christ had defended a royal marriage bond regardless
of the political cost.”
Perhaps
the most obvious case that should be mentioned in this regard is the
Anglican Schism. The Anglican Schism (16th century)
resulted from the Catholic Church’s just refusal to grant King
Henry VIII of England an annulment of his valid marriage to Catherine
of Aragon. King Henry VIII wanted it to be considered invalid
because he desired to marry Anne Boleyn (whom some scholars suggest
was actually his illegitimate daughter), so Henry put
away Catherine and invalidly married Anne Boleyn. On July 11, 1533,
Pope Clement VII excommunicated King Henry VIII and commanded all the
faithful to avoid him for putting away Catherine and sacrilegiously
and invalidly “marrying” Anne. The next year (1534),
King Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church in England. He
denied that the pope had supreme jurisdiction over the universal
Church by denying the pope’s authority over the Church in
England. He declared his own marriage to Catherine invalid, and his
marriage to Anne valid.
If
the popes had simply granted Henry VIII the annulment he wanted based
on “defective consent” or psychological incompatibility
or some other bogus reason, as the Vatican II is wont
to do, the entire Anglican Schism would have been
avoided. But no, the truth and the sanctity of
the marriage bond had to be defended at
all costs, even if it meant that a king would take an
entire country into schism. That’s the
difference between the Catholic Church before and after Vatican II.
