Yes, but it was the Lord Who set it up as a stone-able offense in the first place precisely because it was that binding. What I’m saying is that we argue “divorce” in the case of adultery in a different context than they would have back in the day, rightly or wrongly.We believe that Jesus “raised” Christian marriage back to the level God established it as. So making it a Sacrament.
He raised it above the righteousness of the Pharisees, who sat on Moses’ seat.
Stoning someone is far from condoning their divorce and remarriage. It’s ending their life, and so the other spouse is then free to marry.Yes, but it was the Lord Who set it up as a stone-able offense in the first place precisely because it was that binding. What I’m saying is that we argue “divorce” in the case of adultery in a different context than they would have back in the day, rightly or wrongly.
That was my point. In our culture we now have to discuss divorce (rightly or wrongly) for adultery instead of stoning, even though stoning was God-ordained under the Mosaic covenant. It changed the conversation under the new covenant. However, there were reasons why adultery was a stone-able offense. Jesus was still talking to practicing Old Covenant Jews, so we have to keep that context in mind when trying to figure the meaning and how it can apply to those of us under the new covenant.Stoning someone is far from condoning their divorce and remarriage. It’s ending their life, and so the other spouse is then free to marry.
Ok, I see. What does your church practice?That was my point. In our culture we now have to discuss divorce (rightly or wrongly) for adultery instead of stoning, even though stoning was God-ordained under the Mosaic covenant. It changed the conversation under the new covenant. However, there were reasons why adultery was a stone-able offense. Jesus was still talking to practicing Old Covenant Jews, so we have to keep that context in mind when trying to figure the meaning and how it can apply to those of us under the new covenant.
Any of the denominations I’ve attended over the years unfortunately have a very liberal idea of divorce… It’s taught against on one hand, and winked at on the other. It truly grieves my heart. God’s ways are always the best. Amen.Ok, I see. What does your church practice?
Thanks for that honest answer. I’ll try to return the respect.Any of the denominations I’ve attended over the years unfortunately have a very liberal idea of divorce… It’s taught against on one hand, and winked at on the other. It truly grieves my heart. God’s ways are always the best. Amen.
Do I claim to know the 100% meaning of porneia? By no means. I do, however, know that we (as a culture) have turned our backs on God’s view of marriage in many ways.
Is it official teaching that porneia, whatever it is specifically, occurred before the marriage and that’s what can lead to annulment? In other words, adultery after marriage is not a situation that results in annulment or a legit reason for divorce?Thanks for that honest answer. I’ll try to return the respect.
I sometimes feel… “uneasy” about annulment because of what you even questioned. Are they really just a divorce?
But I do think I probably don’t know enough about the decisions made and why they are made in so many cases. On principle, it makes sense. But what assures the Church that God has truly NOT united these couple into Holy Matrimony?
Like a lot of things, it comes down to Her authority, and ability to Confirm matters infallibly. And I know the individual cases are conditional on the information provided the Tribunal. So, it’s not so cut and dry. And the Church may not try to make it out to be. Only, She stands by the profession that Sacramental marriage is in fact indissoluable. There is no changing what God has joined, so long as they are living.
A good member to ask, is probably 1ke. But I believe adultery is officially no grounds for annulments.Is it official teaching that porneia, whatever it is specifically, occurred before the marriage and that’s what can lead to annulment? In other words, adultery after marriage is not a situation that results in annulment or a legit reason for divorce?
You are welcome. My wife is one of the many thousands of divorced and remarried Catholics whose marriage is not recognizing by the Catholic Church due to the fact that I would need to acquire a decree of nullity from the Catholic Church for a previous marriage and divorce. We both know the implications of our situation for my wife according to the teachings of Catholicism. I’ve been going to Mass with her for nearly nine years and to be honest with you I have reached a point where I no longer want to go to Mass with her. I keep going out of a desire to worship God with the wife I love and she insists she will never leave her Church.Sounds appropriate
This attempt should have already been made, and is reliant on the other spouse to accomplish. It is an open ended reconciliation until death. Just as we have in Christ.
This is a personal decision. If John, or any church authority, wishes to instruct the person involved, that is them assuming the guidance of Christ.
I would have to consult Catholic Law, since it pertains to the Law. But, being Catholic, I wouldn’t be in that situation, since there is a process of annulment, if the first marriage was deemed invalid.
Thanks for sharing.
My sympathies for your situation. May you both enjoy Jesus’ love and grace!You are welcome. My wife is one of the many thousands of divorced and remarried Catholics whose marriage is not recognizing by the Catholic Church due to the fact that I would need to acquire a decree of nullity from the Catholic Church for a previous marriage and divorce. We both know the implications of our situation for my wife according to the teachings of Catholicism. I’ve been going to Mass with her for nearly nine years and to be honest with you I have reached a point where I no longer want to go to Mass with her. I keep going out of a desire to worship God with the wife I love and she insists she will never leave her Church.
In His Grace
Thank you. We were married in a Lutheran Church 8 1/2 years ago and received Holy Communion as part of our wedding ceremony. In my opinion this is as it should be, God is always willing to forgive where there is true contrition and repentance, including the serious sin of divorce and remarriage.My sympathies for your situation. May you both enjoy Jesus’ love and grace!
A defect of intent or consent or an impediment are the things that would render an attempt at marriage invalid. So, yes, these are all things that occur before or at the time of the exchange of consent.Is it official teaching that porneia, whatever it is specifically, occurred before the marriage and that’s what can lead to annulment? In other words, adultery after marriage is not a situation that results in annulment or a legit reason for divorce?
Yeah, don’t know where he is getting his information. If he’s gonna make statements about bishops and cardinals, he should state his resource.Just today I saw an article from First Things pop up on one of my feeds, and the title really struck me having just come from this conversation; Divorce and Remarriage. It confused me from a non-Catholic perspective because it seemed to imply a new type acceptance of divorce and remarriage in the RCC… Am I either missing something, or the author is misrepresenting the situation?
Thanks for looking it over, that’s what I thought.Yeah, don’t know where he is getting his information. If he’s gonna make statements about bishops and cardinals, he should state his resource.
I think he’s talking about catholics who divorce and remarry civally. There’s no change in doctrine.
If that is truly the case, then what do we do with the fact that adultery wasn’t “taken care of” via divorce, but rather by killing the offending spouse? In other words, Matthew (or the Lord) would not have had to specify a right to stone an adulterer, or the options, as that was already the Law at the time He was speaking.This is the best article I have ever read on the porneia question. If you take Matthew to be creating an exception for adultery, that is not in harmony with Luke 16:18. Those early Christians who only had access to one or the other gospel, would have conflicting teachings if Matthew’s gospel allows for remarriage in the case of adultery. Thankfully, Matthew’s gospel does not allow for divorce in the case of adultery.
shamelesspopery.com/divorce-and-remarriage-in-the-case-of-adultery-what-does-the-bible-really-say/
Hey Kliska,If that is truly the case, then what do we do with the fact that adultery wasn’t “taken care of” via divorce, but rather by killing the offending spouse? In other words, Matthew (or the Lord) would not have had to specify a right to stone an adulterer, or the options, as that was already the Law at the time He was speaking.
But again, the context and who He is speaking to are Jews still under the old covenant, and that is underscored by the talk of Moses and what he allowed. Divorce for adultery would not have been discussed because divorce was not the “answer” to adultery then, stoning was, which then freed the spouse to remarry. In essence, no, adultery wasn’t referred to as a divorce-able offense because it was a kill-able offense under the law, no one would have questioned adultery as a divorce-able offense because you could literally legally stone your spouse if they committed adultery.Hey Kliska,
Maybe I am not understanding your concern… But you seem to be bringing up the mosaic punishment for sins and trying to apply its force (though not its action) on the New Covenant.
Jesus was ushering in the New Law of forgiveness. He condemned stoning, with the instance of the Pharisees seeking His approval to stone the adulteress. He implied that all are deserving of “stoning”.
He raises the Law to the depth of the heart! Even those who look at another woman with lust, commit adultery!