Did Jesus really say this?

[ericc]

Yes in an annulment; but scriptural speaking, the word used tends to be divorce in that passage. A matter of semantics I believe. But you are absolutely right, an annulment is the proper term when related to the context of this particular scriptural passage.

You can have a civil divorce without being able getting an annulment and vice versa. Now if an annulment is obtained, which means, the marriage sacrament was ineffective/defective and hence both parties will be returned to original states, does it mean the sin of fornication/adultery was committed during that time period of illicit marriage? Or a mistaken belief is excusable and hence the sins will not be deemed mortal at least to one clueless party?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If pornei means fornication–does that mean that marrying a fornicator is unlawful and invalid to begin with? And if it is unlawful and invalid to begin with then divorce and “remarriage” would be OK since there wasn’t a valid marriage to begin with?

Fornication involves two single people. A marriage with a FORNICATOR is invalid because it is obvious that the FORNICATOR does not intend to fulfill their marital vows in the first place.

Pornei means a lot of things but it does not mean adultery–hence adultery is not a valid reason for divorce.

 

[Gorgias]

Heh, nothing to do with Catholic, you can lay off the sectarian stuff.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, here. Yet, I don’t see this as ‘sectarian’ (i.e., denominational) so much as a difference between Catholic and non-Catholic theology.

All the other bibles use an English word in line with the definition of porneia, and that includes the Douay-Rhiems Catholic bible as I already said. Unless the NAB use a different source text from all other translations, it’s incorrect.

Cool! So, then, when we look at Luther’s change in Luke 1:28, from all other translations at the time, we can conclude that his changes – and the successor translations from Reformation theologians that adopted his changes – are incorrect? Awesome! Thanks!

 

[Gorgias]

In an original marriage (where one person marries another for the first time), the marriage would be valid. If one commits adultery in their original marriage, leaves their partner who they sinned against; and then remarries–The ‘remarriage’ would be invalid and therefore adulterous. Anyone who marries an adulterer becomes an adulterer. There is no validity in such a marriage.

Agreed.

It (the marriage) becomes unlawful then divorce can be attained through an annulment.

Not quite. Yet, that’s an ancillary discussion. I’ll defer, for the moment…

The valid prior bond is what I’ve been explaining in these posts. The former marriage is invalid if there is a latter marriage. Only the original marriage “counts”. All other marriages become adulterous.

This, likewise, is true. That point where your assertions go off the rails, though, I think, is where you assert that this is exclusively what Jesus was talking about in the verses we’ve been discussing.

What I am clearly saying is that if an adulterer leaves their original spouse and remarries then the ‘new marriage’ is inherently invalid; and therefore a divorce through annulment of the two adulterers marriage is possible.

We agree on this. However, you seem to be saying that this, alone, is what Jesus was talking about in Mt 5:32. The Church’s interpretation of this verse differs from yours.

In reconciliation with the Church and the individuals, the Church will perform an annulment.

Again, I agree. Yet, that is not the extent of the interpretation of Mt 5:32 – Jesus is not saying “only in marriages that proceed from adultery, divorce is possible” … which is what you seem to be asserting!

 

[inocente]

Cool! So, then, when we look at Luther’s change in Luke 1:28, from all other translations at the time, we can conclude that his changes – and the successor translations from Reformation theologians that adopted his changes – are incorrect? Awesome! Thanks!

As I understand it, the Latin Vulgate translates to the German voll gnade (full of grace) but he used the original Greek which translates to holselige (favored one). And if we look at the NAB, on vatican.va, we find that it too uses “favored one”, just like Luther.

Oh dear, do we conclude that the Vatican has been infiltrated by naughty Reformation theologians? No, it’s just that the NAB also uses the original Greek. And regarding Matt 5:32, unless the NAB uses a different source, the Greek doesn’t translate to unlawful.

 

[horselvr]

I think I need to re-ask my original question.

Matthew 5:32.

Jack and Jill get married. It is the first marriage for both and it is a licit marriage.

However, Jack decides to cheat on Jill.

Did Jesus say in the verse above that it is ok for Jill to divorce Jack because of this infidelity.

My denom friend said yes Jesus said she is allowed to divorce him because of this.

Yes or no.

 

[ericc]

I think I need to re-ask my original question.

Matthew 5:32.

Jack and Jill get married. It is the first marriage for both and it is a licit marriage.

However, Jack decides to cheat on Jill.

Did Jesus say in the verse above that it is ok for Jill to divorce Jack because of this infidelity.

My denom friend said yes Jesus said she is allowed to divorce him because of this.

Yes or no.

No.

1. The marriage covenant vows to God that:

“from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”

So both vowed to God to stick together till death. God did not release any from their vows. Mat 19:6 What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Marriage.

1. Ancient Jews viewed marriage as a “business” transaction. The consent of the woman is not required and often times the parents decide who to give the daughter away to for a certain amount of dowry. The punishment for adultery was death. So if the wife is punished for adultery in Mat 5:32 , she will be dead and the husband will be free to marry and hence will not be committing adultery or cause the new wife to commit adultery. So Mat 5:32 prohibits divorce in all cases other than adultery since adultery draws the death sentence. Ironically, that ties in with the “until death do us part”.
2. Since modern laws do not require the death sentence for adultery, we are stuck with the cheating spouse. Forgiveness is key and we are reminded that if we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven either. However, this does not prevent a civil divorce. But the marriage sacrament remains valid till death do us part and hence the faithful spouse can not remarry even if there a civil divorce granted. And the faithful spouse can still receive the sacraments because he/she has not sinned and presumably remain in a state of grace.

But Protestants do not have some of these sacraments or hold these sacraments as something optional to believe or obey and hence can choose what they wish to do. Some Protestants can choose to interpret the Scriptures any way they like since they do not have to conform to what the CC teaches and it is strictly between them and Jesus. However, Mat 19:6 “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” remains there awaiting a proper response/explanation from them.

 

[horselvr]

Thank you ericc and to everyone that has joined in on this thread.

It amazes me that scripture, as seen here, is and can be interpreted as one wishes to condone a divorce.

I think this is a good example.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

This is how I understand it. The marriage would have to be invalid from the start for divorce to be permitted. This “Quick Question” from catholic.com explains it better then I can.

Read canon law.
When adultery is committed, the Catholic Church permits divorce.
Adultery does not permit remarriage, in itself, but a divorce is permitted.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think I need to re-ask my original question.

Matthew 5:32.

Jack and Jill get married. It is the first marriage for both and it is a licit marriage.

However, Jack decides to cheat on Jill.

Did Jesus say in the verse above that it is ok for Jill to divorce Jack because of this infidelity.

My denom friend said yes Jesus said she is allowed to divorce him because of this.

Yes or no.

Yes. Divorce is permitted provided the spouses do not resume normal sexual relationships after the adultery is discovered. The Catholic church encourages reconciliation, but not even they deny the innocent spouse the right to separate over adultery. That separation is not, however, an automatic right to remarry for either of the divorced spouses. They are still bound by their vow, until it is judged by a marriage tribunal as having been invalid/illegal since the beginning.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

No.

1. The marriage covenant vows to God that:

“from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”

Until death do us part.
And what is mortal sin, except the death of the soul?
And what is adultery except mortal sin?

So both vowed to God to stick together till death. God did not release any from their vows. Mat 19:6 What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Marriage.

Yes, he did.
For our salvation and sanctification comes through being made one flesh with Christ; the wedding feast of the lamb. But not all who say, “LORD LORD” will enter into his kingdom, but only those who do the father’s will.

Paul also says, the unbelieving spouse (not child) is sanctified by the believing spouse.
And Paul also relates that to our salvation, saying “And so the two become one flesh” and “I speak of a great mystery”, meaning Christ and his body the church.

1. Ancient Jews viewed marriage as a “business” transaction. The consent of the woman is not required and often times the parents decide who to give the daughter away to for a certain amount of dowry. The punishment for adultery was death. So if the wife is punished for adultery in Mat 5:32 , she will be dead and the husband will be free to marry and hence will not be committing adultery or cause the new wife to commit adultery. So Mat 5:32 prohibits divorce in all cases other than adultery since adultery draws the death sentence. Ironically, that ties in with the “until death do us part”.

Idolatry also drew the death sentence, as did many other sins.

And what greater sentence of death is there, than excommunication, and stubborn persistence in that state of life ?

As Paul says, “If an unbeliever wishes to depart, let them depart!” the other spouse is not bound in that case.

And Jesus himself said to the pharisees, whom he condemned as a sect: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, you shall in no way enter heaven”: Jesus also said to them on subject of divorce, that: “Moses gave YOU divorce for your hardness of heart.” (Mortal sin).

1. Since modern laws do not require the death sentence for adultery, we are stuck with the cheating spouse. Forgiveness is key and we are reminded that if we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven either. However, this does not prevent a civil divorce. But the marriage sacrament remains valid till death do us part and hence the faithful spouse can not remarry even if there a civil divorce granted. And the faithful spouse can still receive the sacraments because he/she has not sinned and presumably remain in a state of grace.

If a woman is murdered, or put to death, in order that a man may remarry; the Catholic church specifically says in Canon Law that they forbid that man to ever remarry.
It’s hard to imagine in my mind that these laws would depend, therefore, on civil death sentences; eg. That Catholic teaching would depend on civil authority who has no spiritual authority.

But Protestants do not have some of these sacraments or hold these sacraments as something optional to believe or obey and hence can choose what they wish to do. Some Protestants can choose to interpret the Scriptures any way they like since they do not have to conform to what the CC teaches and it is strictly between them and Jesus. However, Mat 19:6 “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” remains there awaiting a proper response/explanation from them.

But, then in Protestant churches – who disobey the Laws of the CC, can not have sacramental marriages which are valid for simple ‘lack of form.’ in the first place.
So, they are probably right in thinking they can remarry – for they didn’t marry in the catholic church, or one of the Eastern rites. Hence, they don’t enter into the sacrament in the first place – according to standard tribunal judgments, thay ARE free to remarry for (I presume) they reason that God did not join the couple in the sacrament; for he will not join in a permanent vow, a couple who rashly broke his laws in doing so.

 

[ericc]

Read canon law.

Which Canon Law allows divorce? Please identify. As far as I know, every Christian marriage is indissoluble except by the death of one of the spouses. An annulment, properly called a Decree of Nullity may be obtained if there is a defect in the initial marriage and the effect of the annulment is as if there was no marriage, not a dissolution of the marriage. A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot.

From EWTN ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

It should be noted that if a valid marriage is made on the wedding day later infidelity or a contraceptive will would not invalidate it. It is only when the will of either party in making the marriage contradicts the Plan of God from the beginning of marriage that it is invalid. The Church accepts every marriage as valid until proven otherwise, however (canon 1060).

When adultery is committed, the Catholic Church permits divorce.

Not true if based upon EWTN’s link above.

Adultery does not permit remarriage, in itself, but a divorce is permitted.

Not true if based upon EWTN’s link above.

 

[Vico]

Which Canon Law allows divorce? Please identify. As far as I know, every Christian marriage is indissoluble except by the death of one of the spouses. An annulment, properly called a Decree of Nullity may be obtained if there is a defect in the initial marriage and the effect of the annulment is as if there was no marriage, not a dissolution of the marriage. A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot.

From EWTN ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

It should be noted that if a valid marriage is made on the wedding day later infidelity or a contraceptive will would not invalidate it. It is only when the will of either party in making the marriage contradicts the Plan of God from the beginning of marriage that it is invalid. The Church accepts every marriage as valid until proven otherwise, however (canon 1060).

Not true if based upon EWTN’s link above.

Not true if based upon EWTN’s link above.

CIC (Latin Canon Law)Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Dissolution of Non-Consummated Marriage

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

***Pauline Priviledge

***Can. 1143
§1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.
§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without affront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.

Pauline Priviledge

Can. 1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one. The same is valid for a non-baptized woman who has several non-baptized husbands at the same time.

Petrine Priviledge

Can. 1149 A non-baptized person who, after having received baptism in the Catholic Church, cannot restore cohabitation with a non-baptized spouse by reason of captivity or persecution can contract another marriage even if the other party has received baptism in the meantime, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1141.

Separation

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Which Canon Law allows divorce? Please identify.

It’s a basic right, shown clearly in the Vatican archives.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P45.HTM

[adultery]… nevertheless, if they did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living.

Also; please note carefully:
A divorce does not dissolve the sacrament, it merely severs conjugal living.

The civil/state, when I was divorced by my wife – (not for adultery, and I think she had no right to do it without talking to the Church, first) – calls it ‘dissoultion of marriage’, but the catholic Church can and will refuse to acknowledge that until a marriage tribunal determines that the marriage was null on at the time we married.

As far as I know, every Christian marriage is indissoluble except by the death of one of the spouses. An annulment, properly called a Decree of Nullity may be obtained if there is a defect in the initial marriage and the effect of the annulment is as if there was no marriage, not a dissolution of the marriage. A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot.

No. Every Catholic marriage, and Eastern rite marriage is considered indissoluble; but the Catholic Church clearly doesn’t recognize marriages between Christians and Catholics who refuse to get married in the Catholic church; so – again No:, Christian marriages are not in general recognized by the Catholic church as sacramentally valid, just because Christians were involved.

There is a presumption or attitude toward marriage in General which the Catholic holds onto as a formality --presuming-- validity, but which the church jettisons the moment the marriage ceremony is documented to have happened outside of the church in a marriage tribunal.

The due process of law protects innocent spouses, who are not in a real marriage, from being liable to the laws of the church before divorce by presuming a marriage to be valid until proven otherwise. It’s more of an issue of due process of law, than of reality of the person’s state or situation.

It should be noted that if a valid marriage is made on the wedding day later infidelity or a contraceptive will would not invalidate it. It is only when the will of either party in making the marriage contradicts the Plan of God from the beginning of marriage that it is invalid. The Church accepts every marriage as valid until proven otherwise, however (canon 1060).

Correct.

But, several marriages are known to be proven invalid the moment you show that it was done outside the Catholic church; eg: lack of form.

From a theological perspective, it’s not clear to me why mortal sin does not invalidate the marriage vows; as one of the spouses is clearly ‘dead’.
As I had a Canon lawyer point out that the Pope’s teaching in an encyclical does not prove binding upon the church, but only that which is taught in ecumenical councils and ratified by the pope; I am not sure what to think about the marriage vows and mortal sin.

Apostasy, is quite literally – unbelief; and if one’s spouse refuses to believe what the church teaches, it’s difficult to see how someone who is dead according to the church – is also alive according to the church.

 

[ericc]

Certain relevant Canon Laws extracted from the Canon Law 1983.

Canon 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility; in Christian marriage they acquire a distinctive firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Canon 1057
§1 A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. This consent cannot be supplied by any human power.
§2 Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage.

Canon 1060 Marriage enjoys the favor of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Canon 1134 From a valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which of its own nature is permanent and exclusive. Moreover, in Christian marriage the spouses are by a special sacrament strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state.

Canon 1141 A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.

Canon 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by Christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Right Ericc, you just quoted the canon yourself; #1152.

 

[Gorgias]

Right Ericc, you just quoted the canon yourself; #1152.

You’re misinterpreting the canons. The citation you yourself provided demonstrates your error: “separation with the bond remaining”.

This isn’t saying that divorce is permitted; rather, simply that the spouses may separate (and no longer live conjugal life), while remaining married to one another.

 

[ericc]

It’s a basic right, shown clearly in the Vatican archives.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P45.HTM

[adultery]… nevertheless, if they did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living.

Also; please note carefully:
A divorce does not dissolve the sacrament, it merely severs conjugal living.

Living separately is not divorce. I think you have misinterpreted that. The term divorce has a civil meaning and effect which does not in itself void the the marriage covenant. From the Church stance, it is either annulment or death (not considering the Pauline /Petrine privilege exceptions)

The civil/state, when I was divorced by my wife – (not for adultery, and I think she had no right to do it without talking to the Church, first) – calls it ‘dissoultion of marriage’, but the catholic Church can and will refuse to acknowledge that until a marriage tribunal determines that the marriage was null on at the time we married.

No. Every Catholic marriage, and Eastern rite marriage is considered indissoluble; but the Catholic Church clearly doesn’t recognize marriages between Christians and Catholics who refuse to get married in the Catholic church; so – again No:, Christian marriages are not in general recognized by the Catholic church as sacramentally valid, just because Christians were involved.

There is a presumption or attitude toward marriage in General which the Catholic holds onto as a formality --presuming-- validity, but which the church jettisons the moment the marriage ceremony is documented to have happened outside of the church in a marriage tribunal.

The due process of law protects innocent spouses, who are not in a real marriage, from being liable to the laws of the church before divorce by presuming a marriage to be valid until proven otherwise. It’s more of an issue of due process of law, than of reality of the person’s state or situation.

Correct.

But, several marriages are known to be proven invalid the moment you show that it was done outside the Catholic church; eg: lack of form.

From a theological perspective, it’s not clear to me why mortal sin does not invalidate the marriage vows; as one of the spouses is clearly ‘dead’.
As I had a Canon lawyer point out that the Pope’s teaching in an encyclical does not prove binding upon the church, but only that which is taught in ecumenical councils and ratified by the pope; I am not sure what to think about the marriage vows and mortal sin.

Apostasy, is quite literally – unbelief; and if one’s spouse refuses to believe what the church teaches, it’s difficult to see how someone who is dead according to the church – is also alive according to the church.

The OP stated that it is a licit marriage so there is no recourse to annulment. An annulment opportunity arise only if there is an impediment at the beginning of the marriage which renders the marriage invalid from the beginning. But not in the OP’s case.

Mortal sinning does not sever the covenant. Otherwise any violation of the 10 commandments may be grounds for dissolution. I lied and poof there goes the marriage covenant. And the sacrament of reconciliation can make the dead alive again. God’s covenant with Israel has been broken countless times yet he still honors it. The question is how would you justify that God agrees to the dissolution of the covenant with Him unilaterally?

A civil divorce has no impact on the validity of the marriage sacrament from the Church POV. The covenant with God still stands. Even if any party renounces his/her faith it does not mean that the covenant with God can be terminated unilaterally. (In civil law, subsequent changes in one of the parties mind set does not terminate any contractual obligations entered previously. As in the marriage sacrament, death will terminate all performances required by the contractual obligations. But the damaged party can still reach into your estate to make good. I digress) I don’t think the OP is thinking of civil divorce when he posed his question. The civil divorce option is available to the married population of all beliefs/non-belief. A non-sacramental e.g. civil marriage is by definition engaging in fornication if sexual acts were performed. A mixed marriage (1 Catholic and 1 baptized non-Catholic) however can be valid if required permission is obtained and the Catholic party must make certain promises. Details in the Code of Canon Law. Canons 1124 - 1129.

Further complexities if the marriage is between a Catholic and non-baptized. canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/17/cath-marry-non-christian/

 

[horselvr]

"I don’t think the OP is thinking of civil divorce when he posed his question. "

ericc you’re correct, I am not thinking of a civil divorce.

I am only wondering about THAT scripture passage that I quoted and am only wondering if God says it is ok to divorce a cheating spouse. Seems it should be a yes or no answer but from most all the posts-----.
Your time (all of you) is very much appreciated. Very interesting responses and educational.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Living separately is not divorce. … The term divorce has a civil meaning and effect which does not in itself void the the marriage covenant. …

Some states have legal separation in the U.S., some do not.
So, in some places civil divorce is the only legal means to effect a legal separation.

And: I never said divorce voids the marriage covenant. Re-read what I said.

The OP stated that it is a licit marriage so there is no recourse to annulment.

I just re-read the OP. That’s not what they said.
You’re twisting the OP. :tsktsk:

Mortal sinning does not sever the covenant. Otherwise any violation of the 10 commandments may be grounds for dissolution. I lied and poof there goes the marriage covenant

Yep. Lying or deception at very least, on the day of marriage is definitely grounds for annulment.

. And the sacrament of reconciliation can make the dead alive again. God’s covenant with Israel has been broken countless times yet he still honors it.

That’s irrelevant; nothing was said even in the quoted marriage oath that “if the person should become alive again,” for that kind of logic can’t hold up.

Consider the greatest “becoming alive again”, the resurrection of the dead.
And I mean – contrary to your logic – everyone’s marriages to other spouses on earth will apparently be terminated in spite of the people becoming “alive” again:

Mark 12:26-27
And as touching the dead, that they rise; have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke, saying I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? [Note: not Israel].
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living; you therefore greatly error.

And, the statement I am talking about is not out of context for it applies DIRECTLY to marriage: Mark 12:23.

But – when it comes to death, real death, as in mortal sin – God does not need to justify the separation – mortal sin effects the separation; otherwise ‘hell’ ( a Dogma ) is not possible.

A civil divorce has no impact on the validity of the marriage sacrament from the Church POV. The covenant with God still stands. Even if any party renounces his/her faith it does not mean that the covenant with God can be terminated unilaterally.

What you are saying off the top of your head does not mean that the church has taught infallibly, for all times, that if an unbeliever leaves a marriage, that the marriage bond must be maintained. If you wish to make statements like that, you need to back it up with an oecumenical council, ratified by a pope – or else use scripture to prove the point in a logical manner.

The only context, I see, (biblical) where lying and licit marriages are possible is where Paul talks about unbelievers:

1Corinthians 7:12-17
“But to the rest I speak, and not from the Lord: If any brother has a wife that does not believe, and if he is pleased to dwell with her, let her stay ; for the unbelieving husband is made holy by the believing spouse… for who knows if you shall save your spouse. But if the unbeliever depart, let them depart.”

Paul clearly believes his own power to bind and loose is sufficient to give this decree.
There is nothing said in the decree about whether or not the unbeliever once believed on the day of their own marriage.
Rather, Paul refers obliquely to the way in which a person is called: 1Corinthians 7:17.
Which may have nothing to do with the day of marriage between two strictly human people.

So, I think you are confounding a development of doctrine, and a belief within the Catholic Church with what is provably said in the bible. The two are not the same thing, though ex-cathedra statements are a different matter.

Please note: The OP is specifically about what Jesus actually said, and I seriously doubt the OP is about what Jesus said through Peter except definitive statements.

(In civil law, subsequent changes in one of the parties mind set does not terminate any contractual obligations entered previously.

Unless the contractural obligations are deemed unlawful in the first place.
But yes, you are correct. The loans on a house, for example, will still be in both parties names, etc.

… I digress) I don’t think the OP is thinking of civil divorce when he posed his question.

But Jesus was talking about Moses, explicitly, who as the leader of his people [equivalent to a pope] of his day whom granted divorce. For there is a Chair of Moses, which had the authority to bind and loose; I see Moses’ action as similar to what Paul did on his own authority.

Matthew 19:7-8

It is specifically, here, that mortal sin (Hardness of Heart) is spoken of. Jesus does not say, “Moses was wrong” – but rather, he explains the logic of Moses’ decree.

And then Jesus says, in addition that “but it was not so in the beginning”, referencing a critical modifier of the argument. Eg: I assume; That Adam continued to accept Eve, even after mortal sin, on account of the promise.

But, that’s not defined as strictly necessary in all cases either by Jesus or Canon Law.

The civil divorce option is available to the married population of all beliefs/non-belief. A non-sacramental e.g. civil marriage is by definition engaging in fornication if sexual acts were performed.

The church says that marriages are PRESUMED valid until proven otherwise. No mortal sin of fornication can exist where there is not full knowledge.