Does sex, becoming one flesh, make you married?

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

An invalid Christian Marriage doesn’t need to be an attempt at a Christian Marriage.

You’re talking about a ‘lack of form’ marriage, then. That’s only one case.

Hello! I’m saying sex with a prostitute is a valid marriage with the prostitute. Its NOT a Christian Marriage

And I’m sure you can back up that assertion, from any of the documents of the Church that would have mentioned that sex with prostitutes = marriage?

, but an anti-Christian marriage. It is broken through confession/forgiveness

Again, you’ve got a magisterial document that says that a valid (yet “anti-Christian”) marriage can be dissolved through confession? I’ll wait…

I don’t care what or how many impediments to a Christian marriage sleeping with a prostitute contains. We both agree it’s not a Christian marriage.

And I will stick to Scripture explicitly calling sex with prostitute “joining into one flesh”

That phrase means marriage, however invalid to Christian marriage it may be, yet still marriage.

 

[rcwitness]

You know what, my friend?

People argue with me over these silly things, yet at Mass this Sunday, on account of the Gospel reading, do you want to know what the Pastor said?

He said, “Jesus was agreeing with the Pharisees (Shammai) who believed that adultery was valid reason for divorce.”

Im not lying to you! And I will probably speak to him in private about it. We are in times where our pastors are rejecting what the Church Teaches.

 

[rcwitness]

Crickets…

 

[Gorgias]

He said, “Jesus was agreeing with the Pharisees (Shammai) who believed that adultery was valid reason for divorce.”

Yikes. YIKES!

With any luck, he was just confused – thinking about the narrative that discussed the ‘porneia’ exception, and thinking that this means “adultery” (in the way that 20th century non-Catholic Christian communities came to think about it)…

 

[TheLittleLady]

Or was perhaps misheard “Jesus was disagreeing with the Pharisees…”

 

[rcwitness]

Well that would be cool! Honest!

I was in the cry room with my kids, so that is part of why I want to talk to him about it.

But I think I heard him clear.

 

[Gorgias]

Or was perhaps misheard “Jesus was disagreeing with the Pharisees…”

Except that both camps – Shammai and Hillel – would have agreed that adultery was sufficient cause for divorce under the Mosaic law.

The way Matthew frames it up (“is Hillel correct in saying that divorce for any reason is OK?”), might point to Pharisaical followers of Shammai, but we read from Mark this past weekend, and Mark frames up the question simply: “may a man divorce his wife?”. This seems to point to a different type of ‘test’ – does Jesus know the Law? Does He follow it?

 

[rcwitness]

What I find fascinating about how so many Christian’s can conclude that the exception clause gives a reason for divorce, is that Mark does record the discussion that Matthew did, yet does not include the exception at all!

If “porneia” did in fact refer to an unchaste spouse, and mean that the other spouse could actually divorce them, then why on Earth wouldn’t Mark include that very significant answer?

To be honest, I don’t think Jesus actually said the exception clause during the discussion, yet Matthew was addressing prohibited marriages, and by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit had authority to insert that.

I’m not saying its fact! Just makes more sense with how Mark leaves that out, and Luke doesn’t mention it. And Paul specifically reinforces that the law of Marriage is binding until death, even though a separation may happen, yet mentions nothing about “porneia” warranting divorce.

 

[Gorgias]

What I find fascinating about how so many Christian’s can conclude that the exception clause gives a reason for divorce, is that Mark does record the discussion that Matthew did, yet does not include the exception at all!

Nah. Not so fascinating.

Mark is speaking to a Gentile audience. They don’t know the Mosaic law, so they aren’t alive to the Shammai/Hillel debate. Moreover, they aren’t aware of the notion of ‘porneia’ in the context of Jewish marital law.

Matthew, however, is speaking to Jewish Christians, so he addresses not only the dimension of the rabbinic debate, but also the implications in terms of legal marriage in the Jewish tradition.

To be honest, I don’t think Jesus actually said the exception clause during the discussion, yet Matthew was addressing prohibited marriages, and by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit had authority to insert that.

No. Just… No.

 

[GLam1761]

I think you have a point there @(name removed by moderator)!! I was married in
a court of law, and whether or not the marriage was consummated
still doesn’t cancel the fact that we made a vow to each other.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

What I find fascinating about how so many Christian’s can conclude that the exception clause gives a reason for divorce, is that Mark does record the discussion that Matthew did, yet does not include the exception at all!

Nah. Not so fascinating.

Mark is speaking to a Gentile audience. They don’t know the Mosaic law, so they aren’t alive to the Shammai/Hillel debate. Moreover, they aren’t aware of the notion of ‘porneia’ in the context of Jewish marital law.

Matthew, however, is speaking to Jewish Christians, so he addresses not only the dimension of the rabbinic debate, but also the implications in terms of legal marriage in the Jewish tradition.

To be honest, I don’t think Jesus actually said the exception clause during the discussion, yet Matthew was addressing prohibited marriages, and by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit had authority to insert that.

No. Just… No.

Yes, I’ve heard those points and it’s still fascinating that they conclude Christian marriage can be divorced.

As for my comment about doubts Jesus said the exception during the discussion. Really, I am not strong about that OPINION at all! It just seems like an after the fact thing for the sake of clarification, and to Matthew’s audience. It’s actually just as bold to think Mark (and Luke) left it out intentionally, as it is for Matthew to be inspired to add it.

But I’m not going to argue that issue!

 

[Norseman82]

The Bible refers to sex as “becoming one flesh” or “one body.” (Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:31). It even refers to it as this when specifically talking about a prostitute, that it makes you one flesh, is 1 Corinthians 6:16: “[Or] do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For ‘the two,’ it says, ‘will become one flesh.’”

Bill,

If you read the entire passage, you will see that St. Paul is using it as a warning against fornication (read the KJV, Vulgate and Douay-Rheims, they use the phrase “flee” or “fly” fornication) to impress the seriousness of that sin as opposed to other sins. There is a physical union involved there that is not present with other sins.

 

[Norseman82]

What I find fascinating about how so many Christian’s can conclude that the exception clause gives a reason for divorce, is that Mark does record the discussion that Matthew did, yet does not include the exception at all!

If “porneia” did in fact refer to an unchaste spouse, and mean that the other spouse could actually divorce them, then why on Earth wouldn’t Mark include that very significant answer?

To be honest, I don’t think Jesus actually said the exception clause during the discussion, yet Matthew was addressing prohibited marriages, and by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit had authority to insert that.

I’m not saying its fact! Just makes more sense with how Mark leaves that out, and Luke doesn’t mention it. And Paul specifically reinforces that the law of Marriage is binding until death, even though a separation may happen, yet mentions nothing about “porneia” warranting divorce.

Well, one theory I have read as to why the “porneia exception” is included in Matthew’s Gospel but not the other synoptics is that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience and may have been referring to the bethrothal period in a Jewish marriage, such as when Mary was visited by the angel Gabriel.

 

[rcwitness]

Yet even during a betrothal, if one of them cheats, I believe its adultery.

But that would mean Joseph was just in divorcing Mary.

I think it would be akin to an unconsummated marriage being dissolved.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Jesus was revealing the new law. There were things that were allowed because of the “hardness of hearts”, like divorce, but Jesus gave a radical new teaching.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, he was rejecting Moses’ concession altogether!

Matthew 5
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[tweedlealice]

The concept of annulment & divorce is confusing. God doesn’t want either. An annulment goes through a tribunal.(court) Certain criteria must be met to proceed. The concept is one of the parties, didn’t really seriously make his or hers vows. So the marriage didn’t really happen. It doesn’t make the kids born out of wedlock EEHHHH. It gets tricky. One would think=no marriage; kids out of marriage. It use to cost money. Now, donations will be accepted.
A spouse refusing children=annulment.
Pauline privilege. Interfering w our practicing our Faith. Google annulment(?).
Marriage by God in a church w a good priest as a witness, w family & friends is beautiful. Being chaste as the bride is so Holy. So special!
There are rules. 6 mo of pre-Cana classes. They didn’t exist 51 yrs ago.
An important task should take work. If one of the couples aren’t dedicated to the marriage, they’ll cancel before going through w the marriage.
Just contributing!
God bless

 

[TheLittleLady]

A spouse refusing children=annulment.

If one spouse has a permanent intention against children this can be grounds for nullity.
This is not as simple as you state

Pauline privilege. Interfering w our practicing our Faith. Google annulment(?).

No. The Pauline priviledge is not an “annulment”. It happens on a valid, natural marriage where both have never been baptized. It is complex.

What is the Pauline Privilege? - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easy

 

[rcwitness]

I believe the above, but if it’s for life, I do not understand the rationale behind church annulments. Sure, it can be impossible to live with some people, but I would think a separation would be all that’s allowed.

Now if a marriage is not valid according to the Catholic church, I can understand why they would annul it. But there are persons who go through a valid Catholic marriage, by a priest, in a church, and still get an annulment. It seems the church might as well allow divorce under some conditions since it does grant annulments to those it considers validly married.

Remember, my friend, these are not infallible declarations.

The United States has a vastly higher percentage of marriages granted annulments based on lack of consent than the rest of the world.

These rates were criticized by Popes St JPII and Benedict.

 

[ConstantLearner]

The United States has a vastly higher percentage of marriages granted annulments based on lack of consent than the rest of the world.

Consent to what? Marriage?