Early Church and divorce confusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1ke said:
He did not say "except for adultery’. That is a faulty translation.

The term means unlawful marriage-- invalid.
Click to expand...
It does say except for adultery. That is " no faulty" translations as you claim to be.
However this passage refers that the man can separate physically from his wife in case that the wife or husband commits adultery.
But they can never ever remarry in that case as the other passages from the bible that were posted.

No it does not although in the case of someone who had already the intention to be unfaithful to his wife or her husband before marriage (while they meditated .and consented in their minds that they will be unfaithful during their marriage) then that marriage is invalid. (Then it was that case since it was discovered that they were not married, due to lack of form, basically a preexisting condition before marriage ceremony that would make it invalid.(the mass and marriage ceremony in itself is not invalid. But the circumstances that existed before the marriage does not makes it invalid.)they can remarry after having the declaration of nullity, the declaration does not invalidate a marriage, since marriage cannot be invalidated. it only affirms that there was not a marriage)
 
To be honest I’m having a difficult time getting my mind around some things right now… Maybe i just need to process all I read yesterday… But I’m wondering about two things - the synod I mentioned in one of the posts that was presided by a Pope… Did that synod support divorce? How could that be? Or am I missing something about it? The second question is about the verse in Matthew and “except fornication”… I’d be grateful for any explanations of that pre-Schism that don’t say it means adultery. I have quotes saying adultery doesn’t excuse remarriage but I’m looking for something that also connects to that verse, and so explaining it. Also I’m still unsure what St John Chrysostom meant about aarriage getting dissolved. I’ll keep looking into these things but if anyone has anything to share I’d be grateful.

I’m not saying I don’t want to be Catholic anymore… I am trying to resolve questions that are difficult for me
 
Monica4316 said:
To be honest I’m having a difficult time getting my mind around some things right now… Maybe i just need to process all I read yesterday… But I’m wondering about two things - the synod I mentioned in one of the posts that was presided by a Pope… Did that synod support divorce? How could that be? Or am I missing something about it? The second question is about the verse in Matthew and “except fornication”… I’d be grateful for any explanations of that pre-Schism that don’t say it means adultery. I have quotes saying adultery doesn’t excuse remarriage but I’m looking for something that also connects to that verse, and so explaining it. Also I’m still unsure what St John Chrysostom meant about aarriage getting dissolved. I’ll keep looking into these things but if anyone has anything to share I’d be grateful.

I’m not saying I don’t want to be Catholic anymore… I am trying to resolve questions that are difficult for me
Click to expand...
Aha now that makes sense as to why you are seeking the information.
I’ll tell you what I do research on that topic and will gladly provide you that information
 
Thank you! 🙂

Specifically I’m uncertain why Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 are different. I explained that in one of the first posts in this thread. In one of the verses “except for fornication” is linked to the separating part but not to the marrying again… But in the other verse, it seems to apply to both, and sounds in English at least as if remarrying is prohibited “except for fornication”. That is confusing with the Church teaching. I did provide some quotes from the Church like St Augustine talking against such remarriages, but how do we understand the verse?

The other question is how come a regional council presided by a Pope used the same phrasing. Its in one of my first posts too. I wonder how that goes with infallibility as well. Yet there are councils that say differently.

I’ll keep researching but I feel like I don’t know enough to answer these questions…
 
Monica4316 said:
Thank you! 🙂

Specifically I’m uncertain why Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 are different. I explained that in one of the first posts in this thread. In one of the verses “except for fornication” is linked to the separating part but not to the marrying again… But in the other verse, it seems to apply to both, and sounds in English at least as if remarrying is prohibited “except for fornication”. That is confusing with the Church teaching. I did provide some quotes from the Church like St Augustine talking against such remarriages, but how do we understand the verse?

The other question is how come a regional council presided by a Pope used the same phrasing. Its in one of my first posts too. I wonder how that goes with infallibility as well. Yet there are councils that say differently.

I’ll keep researching but I feel like I don’t know enough to answer these questions…
Click to expand...
Haydock Commentary, Matthew 19

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.)
 
Monica4316 said:
Thank you! 🙂

Specifically I’m uncertain why Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 are different. I explained that in one of the first posts in this thread. In one of the verses “except for fornication” is linked to the separating part but not to the marrying again… But in the other verse, it seems to apply to both, and sounds in English at least as if remarrying is prohibited “except for fornication”. That is confusing with the Church teaching. I did provide some quotes from the Church like St Augustine talking against such remarriages, but how do we understand the verse?

The other question is how come a regional council presided by a Pope used the same phrasing. Its in one of my first posts too. I wonder how that goes with infallibility as well. Yet there are councils that say differently.

I’ll keep researching but I feel like I don’t know enough to answer these questions…
Click to expand...
Still divorce is forbidden,there is no contradiction in Holy scripture
It says put away and matches with all other Gospels. It does not say divorce. Nor is it saying remarry in is acceptable, to say divorce is acceptable that would go against what Our Lord has said.

But as far as for the council I would not be able to say because I have to read it.
I am pretty sure they were also against divorce but I need to read more of it
 
Vico said:
Haydock Commentary, Matthew 19

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.)
Click to expand...
Thank you! That does help 🙂 I didn’t realise that the second part, about someone marrying the woman, simply says that they commit adultery - and it doesn’t specify why she was put away.

The Catholic way to read it would be

Whoever puts away his wife, except for immorality, commits adultery

And if marries another (for any reason) commits adultery

And who married a way who has been put away (even the same one in example 1) commits adultery.

I hope I understand it correctly…

I guess if the marriage ceases with adultery, as the Orthodox say, it would have been ok.for the other person to marry the adulterous woman… But even he commits adultery too. That does point to.the Catholic teaching… The only grammatically awkward point is having to.return back to the first phrase mid sentence, maybe I’ll see what its like in the Latin
 
Monica, in the Old Testament , I think just about when the Exodus wanderers were to cross that river , behind the Ark of the Covenant, ( did you know that crossing happened after God rolled back the waters into the promised land) God said divorce could happen because otherwise men would kill their wives. Not sure of the conditions though, it’s in the Bible.

But after Jesus established the Church, and the Holy Spirit continued leading and instructing the Holy See,

Now civil divorce on any grounds is not recognised by the Curch.

So for example, I am divorced but not annulled. Hence still married in the eyes of the Church. If I were to remarry civilly I commit adultery.

So what happens is a person, if they want to remarry, must apply for an annulment, and be granted that annulment, or commit adultery.

Pretty simple really. Easy to understand without trying to wade through tonnes of Canon Law past and present.
 
Monica4316 said:
Thank you! That does help 🙂 I didn’t realise that the second part, about someone marrying the woman, simply says that they commit adultery - and it doesn’t specify why she was put away.

The Catholic way to read it would be

Whoever puts away his wife, except for immorality, commits adultery

And if marries another (for any reason) commits adultery

And who married a way who has been put away (even the same one in example 1) commits adultery.

I hope I understand it correctly…

I guess if the marriage ceases with adultery, as the Orthodox say, it would have been ok.for the other person to marry the adulterous woman… But even he commits adultery too. That does point to.the Catholic teaching… The only grammatically awkward point is having to.return back to the first phrase mid sentence, maybe I’ll see what its like in the Latin
Click to expand...
For Catholic Matrimony between two Christians a consummated marriage is indissoluble, however a non-consummated marriage, or a natural marriage (not both Christian) is dissoluble. Matrimony between Christians was changed by Jesus Christ. Mt. 19:4-6.4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top