Divorce and Remarriage

[1beleevr]

Why, Sir of course!

I guess it’s a matter of semantics, in that whether I use “Sir”, or “sir”, would not be distinguishable in the spoken language! I said “Sir”, merely out of respect for the leader of the catholic church. If I were to meet him, I would probably say something like,“Honored to make your acquaintance, sir!” But, that said, even though off topic, we have established that the cc is strictest on divorce and remarriage, which really doesn’t make a difference, because, people will continue to divorce and remarry till the end of time. I just have difficulty finding Biblical support for granting annulments( what some refer to as a veiled divorce), seeings as how people go ahead and get married in the cc, and then find out something and want an annulment!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Church is the Bride of Christ, we all comprise the Body of Christ. Jesus tells us that when we feed the poor, visit the prisoner, visit the sick man, we visit Him. Christ exists in us all. That is why we should seek to not bring scandal or shame or sin to the Holy Spirit given us in baptism.

I agree. But I do not feel that the Priest, Bishops, etc are the CC. I believe that Jesus Is the CC. That was my point. Jesus left us the Holy Spirit the Advocate. That is the CC. The Priest, Bishops are the visible leaders of Christ here in this world, but they are not him. Jesus is the CHurch and the Church is Jesus. LIke Jesus tells us The Church is the Pilar of all truth. Who is the Pilar of all truth? Jesus. Same thing. The priest and Bishops are not the CC. Saul Saul why are you persecuting me? Who was Saul persecuting Jesus or the CC? There you go the Church. Who are you Saul asked, Its Me Jesus the one you are persecuting!!

 

[Jimmy_B]

The Church is the Bride of Christ, we all comprise the Body of Christ. Jesus tells us that when we feed the poor, visit the prisoner, visit the sick man, we visit Him. Christ exists in us all. That is why we should seek to not bring scandal or shame or sin to the Holy Spirit given us in baptism.

And, exactly, how do we do that? Maybe, I read it wrong but I don’t understand your last post… Would you please explain what you meant here? If we all belong to the “Church”, which is “the Bride of Christ” and “we all comprise the Body of Christ”, then why do some parts of that “body” condone homosexual marriage and some do not? Why do some “parts” accept all seven Sacraments and some reject all seven Sacraments? Why do some “parts” believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and others don’t even practice, or mention the “last supper” at all? Why do some of the “parts” go to Church and some believe that “it isn’t necessary”?
Just a few examples…

Thank you…

Your thoughts?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

All baptized Christians enter into the mystical Body of Christ. That is believed by all Christians, Catholics included. If a Protestant is baptized in a Methodist church, let’s say, they are a part of Christ’s Body though imperfectly in that they’re in an impaired state of communion with the sacraments and other Catholics.

The Body of Christ is full of sinners. That’s the whole point. Paul tells us that we are not to take the Body of Christ, ourselves, to a prostitute and expose the Holy Spirit to grief, etc. I think you misunderstand what is meant here by the Body of Christ. It’s made up of sinners. I’m not saying that all Christian institutions, necessarily, are the ecclesial body of Christ. I’m saying all baptized Christians make up the Body, some are imperfectly related to it, but part nevertheless. The idea that only those within the Catholic Church are part of said Body and all other Christians are possibly NOT is an Orthodox, not a Catholic idea. It smacks of Cyprian when the Catholic Church leans more on Augustine for these modes of thinking.

When Jesus tells us to visit the inmate, the inferm, the widow, the poor, we are visiting Him. We are all part of His Body.

Does that mean ecclesiastically that gay Episcopalian bishops ordaining women are ecclesiastically the Body of Christ? No. They are baptized Christians straining and harming the Body to which they belong imperfectly through acts of heterodoxy and sinfulness.

Hope that helps. That’s my take on it all.

Blessings, Jimmy

And, exactly, how do we do that? Maybe, I read it wrong but I don’t understand your last post… Would you please explain what you meant here? If we all belong to the “Church”, which is “the Bride of Christ” and “we all comprise the Body of Christ”, then why do some parts of that “body” condone homosexual marriage and some do not? Why do some “parts” accept all seven Sacraments and some reject all seven Sacraments? Why do some “parts” believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and others don’t even practice, or mention the “last supper” at all? Why do some of the “parts” go to Church and some believe that “it isn’t necessary”?
Just a few examples…

Thank you…

Your thoughts?

 

[1beleevr]

And, exactly, how do we do that? Maybe, I read it wrong but I don’t understand your last post… Would you please explain what you meant here? If we all belong to the “Church”, which is “the Bride of Christ” and “we all comprise the Body of Christ”, then why do some parts of that “body” condone homosexual marriage and some do not? Why do some “parts” accept all seven Sacraments and some reject all seven Sacraments? Why do some “parts” believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and others don’t even practice, or mention the “last supper” at all? Why do some of the “parts” go to Church and some believe that “it isn’t necessary”?
Just a few examples…

Thank you…

Your thoughts?

And some parts seemingly condone priest sexual abuse; by not dismissing guilty priests, but merely reassigning them!

 

[1beleevr]

All baptized Christians enter into the mystical Body of Christ. That is believed by all Christians, Catholics included. If a Protestant is baptized in a Methodist church, let’s say, they are a part of Christ’s Body though imperfectly in that they’re in an impaired state of communion with the sacraments and other Catholics.

The Body of Christ is full of sinners. That’s the whole point. Paul tells us that we are not to take the Body of Christ, ourselves, to a prostitute and expose the Holy Spirit to grief, etc. I think you misunderstand what is meant here by the Body of Christ. It’s made up of sinners. I’m not saying that all Christian institutions, necessarily, are the ecclesial body of Christ. I’m saying all baptized Christians make up the Body, some are imperfectly related to it, but part nevertheless. The idea that only those within the Catholic Church are part of said Body and all other Christians are possibly NOT is an Orthodox, not a Catholic idea. It smacks of Cyprian when the Catholic Church leans more on Augustine for these modes of thinking.

When Jesus tells us to visit the inmate, the inferm, the widow, the poor, we are visiting Him. We are all part of His Body.

Does that mean ecclesiastically that gay Episcopalian bishops ordaining women are ecclesiastically the Body of Christ? No. They are baptized Christians straining and harming the Body to which they belong imperfectly through acts of heterodoxy and sinfulness.

Hope that helps. That’s my take on it all.

Blessings, Jimmy

I like how this post sums up what many believe but a few will not accept! Why bother accepting Christ as your personal Saviour, and get baptized, if you feel like someone else, who calls themelves Christians will not recognize you as a member of the Body of Christ? I mean, he, i may be doing all that Matthew 25:31-40 says, and Matthew 28:19-20, but I am still vulnerable to sin! And regardless what anyone says, because I am in Christ, and He in me, I am part of the Body!

 

[Jimmy_B]

And some parts seemingly condone priest sexual abuse; by not dismissing guilty priests, but merely reassigning them!

1beleevr,

So, you threw down the sex-abuse card… It seems to me that you have done this before…have you? My experience here tells me that this type of comment usually means that you don’t have a real argument to support your position on the specific issue being discussed (generally speaking), or you have an anti-Catholic agenda. Am I right?

You’re wrong in your comments, because the Catholic Church, the religion…it’s beliefs and Official doctrine does not, in any way support sexual or criminal misconduct and neither do it‘s members, me included!

Your comment here wrongly assumes that all Catholics tolerate this behavior and as a Catholic, I am offended.

We have rules against that type of behavior. However, when there are over 2500 dioceses and one billion members and we take our workers and members from the human race, there will always be those who will sin, break the rules and violate the law. Statically, however, far less of that type of behavior occurs in Catholicism than that which occurs in other denominations and documented professions. If you’d like, I’ll post those statistic’s here.

Moreover there have been non-Catholic Christian denominations, like David Koresh’s, Branch Dravidians‘, Applegate‘s, Heaven’s Gate and Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple. All non-Catholic “Christian” leaders, who by official Church action caused the death of many of their members and followers, Where do you think the expression, “Don’t drink the Kool aid “comes from? It comes from errant interpretations of the Bible by non-Catholic Christian leaders. … Officially sanction…mass suicide… And, a case where people broke the rules and the law.

Now, one could argue that the previously mentioned crazy “Christian” leaders betrayed non-Catholic Christians and they would be right. However, their members and the rest of the world didn’t know that there existed a problem or the extant of the problem until it was too late.

So, to reiterate, on one hand , there have been non-Catholic Christian denominations that have actually created Church doctrine which has allowed Criminal or deviant behavior, the previous examples and homosexual marriage are just is a few examples of that and on the other hand, the Catholic Church, where members committed acts not santioned or approved by the Church… they committed horrific acts rejected by the Church and by it’s law-abiding members.

I haven‘t even addressed all of the scandal, criminal convictions in recent news involving Evangelical Christianity, especially in the Televangelist community.
So, on one hand you have members who betray their Church by breaking rules and on the other hand, those denominations who have actually changed the rules to allow bad and criminal behavior.

As long as large organizations take their members from the human race, there will be these problems but we should all expect that our leaders… and that laws and official policies will correct these problems after they occur and preferably before they occur, by preventing them in the first place.

I hope this helps.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Did Jimmy just bring up David Koresh and the Branch Dividians? Oh no he dih-ent!

1beleevr,

So, you threw down the sex-abuse card… It seems to me that you have done this before…have you? My experience here tells me that this type of comment usually means that you don’t have a real argument to support your position on the specific issue being discussed (generally speaking), or you have an anti-Catholic agenda. Am I right?

You’re wrong in your comments, because the Catholic Church, the religion…it’s beliefs and Official doctrine does not, in any way support sexual or criminal misconduct and neither do it‘s members, me included!

Your comment here wrongly assumes that all Catholic tolerate this behavior and as a Catholic I am offended.

We have rules against that type of behavior. However, when there are over 2500 dioceses and one billion members and we take our workers and members from the human race, there will always be those who will sin, break the rules and violate the law. Statically, however, far less of that type of behavior occurs in Catholicism than that which occurs in other denominations and documented professions. If you’d like, I’ll post those statistic’s here.

Moreover there have been non-Catholic Christian denominations, like David Koresh’s, Branch Dravidians‘, Applegate‘s, Heaven’s Gate and Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple. All non-Catholic “Christian” leaders, who by official Church action caused the death of many of their members and followers, where do you think the expression, “Don’t drink the Kool aid “comes from. It comes from errant interpretations of the Bible by non-Catholic Christian leaders. … Officially sanction…mass suicide… And, a case where people broke the rules and the law.

Now, one could argue that the previously mentioned crazy “Christian” leaders betrayed non-Catholic Christians and they would be right. However, their members and the rest of the world didn’t know that there existed a problem or the extant of the problem until it was too late.

So, to reiterate, on one hand , there have been non-Catholic Christian denominations that have actually created Church doctrine which has allowed Criminal or deviant behavior, the previous examples and homosexual marriage are just is a few examples of that and on the other hand, the Catholic Church, where members committed acts not santioned or approved by the Church… they committed horrific acts rejected by the Church na d it’s law abiding members.

I haven‘t even addressed all of the scandal, criminal convictions in recent news involving Evangelical Christianity, especially in the Televangelist community.
So, on one hand you have members who betray their Church by breaking rules and on the other hand, those denominations who have actually changed the rules to allow bad and criminal behavior.

As long as large organizations take their members from the human race, there will be these problems but we should all expect that our leaders… and that laws and officially policies will correct these problems after they occur and preferably before they occur, by preventing them in the first place.

I hope this helps.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Did Jimmy just bring up David Koresh and the Branch Dividians? Oh no he dih-ent!

I did, but I also said that “the previously mentioned crazy “Christian” leaders betrayed non-Catholic Christians”…And, notice that the word “Christian” here, is in quotation marks, although not so… before we knew that there was a problem

 

[Vico]

The Catholic Church seems to have the strictest view towards multiple-marriages. Am I wrong? I believe that there are many, who are former Catholics because of this. Does this mean that the Church is wrong? I don’t think so. For example, birth control was forbidden in every denomination, up until about 40 years ago and now, today the Catholic Church stands alone on that issue and I believe that got that right as well.

Your thoughts?

It started much earlied than 40 years ago, actually it began slowly at the latter part of the 1800s when bicycles were invented and the youth culture began. Then US soldiers were given condoms in the latter part of World War I for disease control. (This was more common in Europe.) Skirts were raised above the knee (1927 highest), under the influence of the youth culture (flappers means chicks, young birds). In 1930 the Anglican Church sanctioned the use of birth control by married couples. Then the movie stars had great influence on people that were inclined to copy them, and some were notably libertines.

 

[1beleevr]

1beleevr,

So, you threw down the sex-abuse card… It seems to me that you have done this before…have you? My experience here tells me that this type of comment usually means that you don’t have a real argument to support your position on the specific issue being discussed (generally speaking), or you have an anti-Catholic agenda. Am I right?

You’re wrong in your comments, because the Catholic Church, the religion…it’s beliefs and Official doctrine does not, in any way support sexual or criminal misconduct and neither do it‘s members, me included!

Your comment here wrongly assumes that all Catholics tolerate this behavior and as a Catholic, I am offended.

We have rules against that type of behavior. However, when there are over 2500 dioceses and one billion members and we take our workers and members from the human race, there will always be those who will sin, break the rules and violate the law. Statically, however, far less of that type of behavior occurs in Catholicism than that which occurs in other denominations and documented professions. If you’d like, I’ll post those statistic’s here.

Moreover there have been non-Catholic Christian denominations, like David Koresh’s, Branch Dravidians‘, Applegate‘s, Heaven’s Gate and Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple. All non-Catholic “Christian” leaders, who by official Church action caused the death of many of their members and followers, Where do you think the expression, “Don’t drink the Kool aid “comes from? It comes from errant interpretations of the Bible by non-Catholic Christian leaders. … Officially sanction…mass suicide… And, a case where people broke the rules and the law.

Now, one could argue that the previously mentioned crazy “Christian” leaders betrayed non-Catholic Christians and they would be right. However, their members and the rest of the world didn’t know that there existed a problem or the extant of the problem until it was too late.

So, to reiterate, on one hand , there have been non-Catholic Christian denominations that have actually created Church doctrine which has allowed Criminal or deviant behavior, the previous examples and homosexual marriage are just is a few examples of that and on the other hand, the Catholic Church, where members committed acts not santioned or approved by the Church… they committed horrific acts rejected by the Church and by it’s law-abiding members.

I haven‘t even addressed all of the scandal, criminal convictions in recent news involving Evangelical Christianity, especially in the Televangelist community.
So, on one hand you have members who betray their Church by breaking rules and on the other hand, those denominations who have actually changed the rules to allow bad and criminal behavior.

As long as large organizations take their members from the human race, there will be these problems but we should all expect that our leaders… and that laws and official policies will correct these problems after they occur and preferably before they occur, by preventing them in the first place.

I hope this helps.

And from your pedestal, you are quick to blast other Christians who for whatever reason are non-catholic! Everyone is aware of the sex scandal, which has cost the cc millions of dollars and way too much unwanted publicity! I am not a catholic hater, just a non catholic. It comes back to the glass houses and rocks thing! I do not mean to imply that individuals in the cc condone this behavior, but it happened; and as far as I know, many of the priests who were named as defendants, were reassigned, rather than dismissed. The pope was embarrassed, and the church as a whole was ridiculed by the rest of the Christian world, as well as the populace in general! So, when making accusations against other religions, make sure your closet is clear of skeletons! Not saying that gay marriage is right, but God is still on the throne, and these people will pay for their sinful ways, as will the guilty priests!

 

[Jimmy_B]

It started much earlied than 40 years ago, actually it began slowly at the latter part of the 1800s when bicycles were invented and the youth culture began. Then US soldiers were given condoms in the latter part of World War I for disease control. (This was more common in Europe.) Skirts were raised above the knee (1927 highest), under the influence of the youth culture (flappers means chicks, young birds). In 1930 the Anglican Church sanctioned the use of birth control by married couples. Then the movie stars had great influence on people that were inclined to copy them, and some were notably libertines.

Hello Vico,

Good point, 40 years ago was only the sixties. I must be getting old. I thought that I had posted, in an earlier post, 60-70 years… may not have… At any rate, good point and in each decade since, there has been change.

I read a book a few years ago that was basically a history of Christianity in America… very interesting. It is because of that book, other books, life experience and other sources of information that make it difficult for me to understand how there can be so many, who can’t get this concept of division in their own ranks and are instead, preoccupied with the differences between Catholics and non-Catholics.

There actually exists more of a difference between some non-Catholic, Christian denominations, than there is between Catholicism and some of the older Protestant Churches.

I can’t understand why there are some here, who still deny, or try to minimize, or try to diminish the division found in non-Catholic Christianity today and are in denial about the actual number of non-Catholic Christian, or Protestant denominations and sub-sects…and the history of modern Protestantism, It’s well documented.

The historical changes that you have mentioned here, help to understand some of that division, however, the entire history of the division found in non-Catholic Christianity, is quite complicated. Like I’ve said, people have written books on the subject.

Thank you for your post.

 

[Jimmy_B]

And from your pedestal, you are quick to blast other Christians who for whatever reason are non-catholic! Everyone is aware of the sex scandal, which has cost the cc millions of dollars and way too much unwanted publicity! I am not a catholic hater, just a non catholic. It comes back to the glass houses and rocks thing! I do not mean to imply that individuals in the cc condone this behavior, but it happened; and as far as I know, many of the priests who were named as defendants, were reassigned, rather than dismissed. The pope was embarrassed, and the church as a whole was ridiculed by the rest of the Christian world, as well as the populace in general! So, when making accusations against other religions, make sure your closet is clear of skeletons! Not saying that gay marriage is right, but God is still on the throne, and these people will pay for their sinful ways, as will the guilty priests!

Hello again 1beleevr,

This is my last post off topic here but I did want to address your comments (in blue), because apparently you believe that it is on topic… it’s not.

And from your pedestal

Just responding to what you wrote.

*you are quick to blast other Christians who for whatever reason are non-catholic! *

I was merely trying to put things into perspective and was speaking in general terms, yours was a “hit-and-run”, one-liner, slam the Catholic Church post… or, at least it seemed that way to me. I think we can agree that most people, especially observation Christians, of any denomination are law-abiding citizens and are sicken and appalled by any of the cases that we both mentioned… So, what’s your point?.

*Everyone is aware of the sex scandal, which has cost the cc millions of dollars and way too much unwanted publicity! *

True… still… your point is???

I am not a catholic hater, just a non catholic.

That’s good to know.

It comes back to the glass houses and rocks thing!

And, “two wrongs don’t make a right” and don’t make a good argument either.

I do not mean to imply that individuals in the cc condone this behavior, but it happened; and as far as I know, many of the priests who were named as defendants, were reassigned, rather than dismissed.

And those how did that were wrong… I think we can all agree to that, Catholic and non-Catholic. However, that does not reflect official Church doctrine…You understand that… right?

The pope was embarrassed, and the church as a whole was ridiculed by the rest of the Christian world, as well as the populace in general!

And apparently, based on your last post, still are…How did you expect that your inflammatory comment, made in your last post, would advance this discussion?

So, when making accusations against other religions, make sure your closet is clear of skeletons!

You brought it up. This discussion isn’t about illegal behavior, it is how marriage and divorce and how this topic is handled differently in different denominations.

Not saying that gay marriage is right, but God is still on the throne, and these people will pay for their sinful ways, as will the guilty priests!

Your right, He is a just God, as well as a merciful God, we all should avoid sin and the occasion of sin. …

Take care and God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

And some parts seemingly condone priest sexual abuse; by not dismissing guilty priests, but merely reassigning them!

Ah, but this is a lie. Perhaps you hear too much of this; in the media, comments from Catholics and non-Catholic Christians alike - but it does not make it true.

Your contention that only by dismissing pedophile priests the Church is not condoning their act is a faulty premise. There are too many factors involved here that saying a priest should be dismissed for child abuse is simply too naive. Everybody is giving suggestion as to how to deal with this issue but they are just suggestions. There is no way that any one suggestion is the solution.

We can say that action taken by the Church may not be the best but that again is arguable in the circumstances. No matter, but whatever action taken, one thing for sure, none within and without the Church condone the behavior.

We can beat this subject to death but it remains that
(1) the act is committed on personal basis by the priests concerned
(2) the Church is not a secular enforcing authority on criminal law.

The enemy wants to destroy the Church no doubt and this is one opportunity he captializes on.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Ah, but this is a lie. Perhaps you hear too much of this; in the media, comments from Catholics and non-Catholic Christians alike - but it does not make it true.

Your contention that only by dismissing pedophile priests the Church is not condoning their act is a faulty premise. There are too many factors involved here that saying a priest should be dismissed for child abuse is simply too naive. Everybody is giving suggestion as to how to deal with this issue but they are just suggestions. There is no way that any one suggestion is the solution.

We can say that action taken by the Church may not be the best but that again is arguable in the circumstances. No matter, but whatever action taken, one thing for sure, none within and without the Church condone the behavior.

We can beat this subject to death but it remains that
(1) the act is committed on personal basis by the priests concerned
(2) the Church is not a secular enforcing authority on criminal law.

The enemy wants to destroy the Church no doubt and this is one opportunity he captializes on.

Well said! Thank you!

 

[rinnie]

And some parts seemingly condone priest sexual abuse; by not dismissing guilty priests, but merely reassigning them!

Wow This is below the belt that’s for sure, Even for you lB. I just have to ask what do you think of Judas? And I can’t help wonder if you blame Jesus for his sins also.

I mean after all wasn’t Judas a follower of Jesus. So if you can blame the CC which is Jesus by the way for the mistakes of the sins of humans, I guess you would have to blame Jesus once again for Judas right?

I mean what would be the real difference. DId they both not commit grave sin? And how about Peter he should get it too. That should be blamed on Jesus also. Peters sin should also be layed at the feet of our Dear Lord also. And Thomas, doubting Thomas lets not forget him. I mean lets not stop there. It started with Judas and will never end until Jesus comes back. ( but he did warn us). But lets face it the RCC is Jesus, so lets lay on the sins of the Leaders, and Priests and Bishops on Jesus.

I mean you just accused the CC of condoning this horrible sin did you not?

 

[Jimmy_B]

The Catholic Church seems to have the strictest view towards multiple-marriages. Am I wrong? I believe that there are many, who are former Catholics because of this. Does this mean that the Church is wrong? I don’t think so. For example, birth control was forbidden in every denomination, up until about 40 years ago and now, today the Catholic Church stands alone on that issue and I believe that got that right as well.

Your thoughts?

I don’t know if it was the other poster’s intent, to derail this thread, by throwing out a single, off-topic and inflammatory remark, maybe it was, who knows… It really doesn’t matter.

The first question in this thread is listed above.

I have read many posts here, where others (non-Catholics mostly) have tried to down-play or minimize the Catholic Church’s strict stance against multiple-marriages. However, I have seen very few posts where non-Catholic members have discussed how their own particular denomination feels about this issue and what they are doing, or have done to correct the problem.

Surely, allowing homosexual marriages, for example and birth control and multi-marriages, can’t possibly strengthen the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, can it?

These three things alone, at the minimum, send a mixed message regarding the importance of the Holy Sacrament Marriage and on a more serious note, may encourage Christian followers to commit grave sin. I believe that this is one of those important, defining issues that might shed some light on, which Church, is truly Christ’s Church.

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

“My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19,20)

Your thoughts?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Which poster?

I don’t know if it was the other poster’s intent, to derail this thread, by throwing out a single, off-topic and inflammatory remark, maybe it was, who knows… It really doesn’t matter.

The first question in this thread is listed above.

I have read many posts here, where others (non-Catholics mostly) have tried to down-play or minimize the Catholic Church’s strict stance against multiple-marriages. However, I have seen very few posts where non-Catholic members have discussed how their own particular denomination feels about this issue and what they are doing, or have done to correct the problem.

Surely, allowing homosexual marriages, for example and birth control and multi-marriages, can’t possibly strengthen the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, can it?

These three things alone, at the minimum, send a mixed message regarding the importance of the Holy Sacrament Marriage and on a more serious note, may encourage Christian followers to commit grave sin. I believe that this is one of those important, defining issues that might shed some light on, which Church, is truly Christ’s Church.

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

“My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19,20)

Your thoughts?

 

[PLeeD]

Now go back to Matt 19. And really read it… Now Jesus says from the beginning I say to you whoever divorces his wife commits adultery. But Jesus does say one other thing here. (Unless the marriage is unlawful).

Douay-Rheims Bible
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.

Why doesn’t the RCC follow Jesus’ own words?

 

[Vico]

Douay-Rheims Bible
*
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.
Why doesn’t the RCC follow Jesus’ own words?

The RCC does follow Jesus’s own words. The spouses can divorce, but not remarry.

NAB Matt 19:9 “I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

7 [9] Moses’ concession to human sinfulness (the hardness of your hearts, Matthew 19:8) is repudiated by Jesus, and the original will of the Creator is reaffirmed against that concession. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): see the note on Matthew 5:31-32. There is some evidence suggesting that Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce was paralleled in the Qumran community (see 11QTemple 57:17-19; CD 4:12b-5:14). Matthew removes Mark’s setting of this verse as spoken to the disciples alone “in the house” (Mark 10:10) and also his extension of the divorce prohibition to the case of a woman’s divorcing her husband (Mark 10:12), probably because in Palestine, unlike the places where Roman and Greek law prevailed, the woman was not allowed to initiate the divorce.

Haydock commentary:

Ver. 9. And I say to you. It is worthy of remark, that in the parallel texts, St. Mark x. 2. and St. Luke xvi. 18. and St. Paul to Corinthians vii. 10. omit the exception of fornication; and also that St. Matthew himself omits it in the second part of the verse; and says absolutely, that he who shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery. It perhaps crept in here from chap. v. 32, where it is found in a phrase very similar to this, but which expresses a case widely different. Divorce is in no case admitted but in that of adultery. This is what Christ teaches in chap. v. 32, and to this the exception is referred, marked in the two texts. But in this very case the separated parties cannot contract a second marriage without again committing adultery, as we must infer, from a comparison of this text with the parallel texts of St. Mark and St. Luke. (Bible de Vence) — If we did not understand it in this manner, the case of the adulteress would be preferable to the case of her who should be put away without any crime of her own; as in this supposition, the former would be allowed to marry again, which the latter would not be allowed. (Tirinus) — St. Augustine is very explicit on this subject. See lib. 11. de adult conjug. chap. xxi. xxii. xxiv. — St. Jerome, in his high commendation of the noble matron, Fabiola, says of her: “that though she was the innocent party, for the unlawful act of marrying again, she did public penance.” (In Epitaph. Fabiolæ.) — This universally received doctrine of the Catholic Church was confirmed in the general council of Trent. (Session xxiv. canon 6.)