Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You just implied that other people not using the exception detracted from it. Or do you think the exception is important? If so, why being up Luke, etc?
 
Yes, it’s significant that the other gospels, and Paul do not Teach that there is an exception to Christians divorcing.

Matthew is relating that porneia can be divorced. In context, porneia would be illicit marriages. For example: incest, homosexual, one spouse was already married, etc.

Porneia is not Christian marriage! It is an unlawful (Christian law) marriage that may have been contracted civilly, or by the Church without knowledge.
 
That’s your interpretation 😊 it’s certainly not everyone’s. The word often relates to adultery fur instance.

So either you think the exception is redundant and that part of the Bible is also redundant. Or you think it’s important and brought up other sections for no reason.
 
The word mean sexual immorality, or unlawful sexual relations.

This is what can and should be divorced.

A Christian marriage is not porneia. Porneia can be divorced.

Sexual sins in a marriage with another person is called adultery. Jesus did not use the word adultery. We actually don’t know the language Jesus used. He spoke Aramaic.
 
That sounds an awful lot like adultery or abuse. After all we can adultery many things too, including sexual immortality.

Did Jesus never use synonyms?

You just said Jesus spoke Aramaic. Seems likely he said this in Aramaic and it was then translated before being written.
 
The porneia being described is between two people. Those two people can divorce.

It’s not talking about an extra marital affair (adultery). Matthew (and Jesus) are talking about a relationship which is NOT a Christian marriage, but are civilly married.

Here is the NAB footnotes to this passage:

The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Mt 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mk 10:11–12; Lk 16:18; cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.
 
That’s your interpretation. It certainly doesn’t seem to be the only one. Plus if it needs to be an impropriety between two people then abuse seems even more likely as a way of reading it 😊

Unless you’re saying that incestuous couples can marry? After all, for them to divorce they need to be able to marry in the first place.
 
Last edited:
im going to let you think about this the same way a catholic priest challenged me to do.
 
I think it even more likely that it refers to adultery and abuse. Otherwise we accept that God sees incest as a valid marriage, if even only for a time. Which could also be forever if they don’t divorce.
 
Jesus didn’t intend for Truth to be subjective. He left a Church which He guaranteed to teach objective Truth which is Jesus the object of faith.
 
Last edited:
Do you think every marriage is bound by God, or just those who have a relationship with Him?
 
I think you may well be stretching there. If he was dictating how we should treat only non Christian marriages then it’s still more likely that this also refers to abuse and adultery.
 
It’s even in the same passage where he talks about marriages being something in the eyes of God. It goes from Jesus explaining that God joins people together into the exception for when to split then apart.
 
Alex337 said:
It’s even in the same passage where he talks about marriages being something in the eyes of God. It goes from Jesus explaining that God joins people together into the exception for when to split then apart.
Click to expand...
And the exception is in a “case of porneia” which is a couple who are married outside the chastity of Christian marriage laws.
 
rcwitness said:
40.png
Alex337:
It’s even in the same passage where he talks about marriages being something in the eyes of God. It goes from Jesus explaining that God joins people together into the exception for when to split then apart.
Click to expand...
And the exception is in a “case of porneia” which is a couple who are married outside the chastity of Christian marriage laws.
Click to expand...
So they can be joined in the eyes of God? Because that’s the kind of marriage Christ was defining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top