Cardinal Dolan insists papal text will be on marriage, not divorce

[TMC]

A pope is the caretaker of doctrine, not it’s master. He doesn’t get to decide what it should or should not be.

Morality does not change with time and place; what was immoral in the first century is equally immoral today. Our understanding of what behavior is immoral can change, but if it does in this case it means the church has been in error for 20 centuries.

Ender

I am not talking about changing morality. I am talking about improving understanding. Understanding of morality changes and deepens. There are many examples of this, as has been discussed ad nauseum on many threads here.

 

[Ender]

I am not talking about changing morality. I am talking about improving understanding. Understanding of morality changes and deepens.

The question is whether “understanding” extends to repudiation, since that is what would be involved in this case. Given that Pope Francis has already said doctrine will not be altered it isn’t clear how it can be reversed, which would seem to be a rather major change.

Ender

 

[ARSpade]

I am not talking about changing morality. I am talking about improving understanding. Understanding of morality changes and deepens. There are many examples of this, as has been discussed ad nauseum on many threads here.

Yes you are.

If your understanding of a morality changes then the morality does. Don’t use weasel words, at least own it.

Going from “divorce is immoral and bad” to “eh, divorce is fine” is obviously a change in morality, regardless of how you justify chaging it. At least the then future Anglicans under H8 just went with it when they drove a schism over this.

 

[ARSpade]

I am saying that Jesus was speaking in the first century and that we should understand that when looking at what he said.

Just thought of another, should have been obvious, problem with this theory. Jesus says, “But it was not this way from the beginning.” regarding divorce. So from the very beginning of time itself to 1st century Israel, God had one very clear idea of marriage and then, somehow in the past, what 100, 200? years this idea changed?

 

[TMC]

The question is whether “understanding” extends to repudiation, since that is what would be involved in this case. Given that Pope Francis has already said doctrine will not be altered it isn’t clear how it can be reversed, which would seem to be a rather major change.

Ender

Its not a repudiation, anymore than other changes in understanding were a repudiation of those doctrines.

 

[TMC]

Just thought of another, should have been obvious, problem with this theory. Jesus says, “But it was not this way from the beginning.” regarding divorce. So from the very beginning of time itself to 1st century Israel, God had one very clear idea of marriage and then, somehow in the past, what 100, 200? years this idea changed?

You are the one saying that the idea of marriage is being changed. I am saying that our understanding of the role of divorce is increasing. The Church has allowed second marriages under certain circumstances for over a millennia, and probably since the beginning. To increase those circumstances is not a radical change.

 

[ARSpade]

You are the one saying that the idea of marriage is being changed. I am saying that our understanding of the role of divorce is increasing. .

I’m saying that your separation of the two is illogical and still ignores Christ’s words on it. The weasel words are just so people don’t have to say, “I disagree with what Jesus said.” Which would be closer to the truth and probably save a lot of time.

 

[exnihilo]

Read the chapter 19 of Matthews Gospel in its entirety.

It begins with :

What were they trying to “test” Jesus on ?

The Jewish law on divorce as given by Moses.

However, Jewish marriage and divorce has to be understood in the historical context of that time.

But I’m not the one saying anything different than what the Church teaches, but Pope Francis has told us how to respond to divorced Catholics;

I was taught there were two schools of thought in Judaism. Both allowed for divorce, one for a number of causes and one for only one or a few. Jesus taught no divorce with a ‘but I say to you’ teaching. The Apostles were surprised and thought this too hard a teaching. Marriage is a sacrament because we need grace to live a Christian marriage.

One reason I’m Catholic is the clear teaching in marriage. It seemed clear to me that Jesus was teaching no remarriage. The only Church that upheld that teaching was the Catholic Church.

yes, there are theologians who deny that Christ is also God.

Which is what the statement “this judgement of Christ’s is only true at that time and false in others” means.

Of course, it makes me wonder what other statements of His apparently have expiration dates. Maybe the peacemakers aren’t blessed anymore? Or the meek get nothing?

Funny these teachings never get questioned.

So why not everything else? Why not always turn the cheek? Why not always sell your possessions and give all the money to the poor? Why not always follow all of Jesus’ individual teachings without nuance or context? Why just this one?

Interesting that when I ask these questions its a “rhetorical trap,” but when you do the same its “following Jesus.”

Every teaching has nuance and context. The question is what is being taught. We have the Church to interpret Holy Scripture and pass on the Apostolic teachings. This teaching is that Christian marriage is permanent. The teaching is not that we are obliged to sell all our possessions or cut of body parts that offend us.