Economia

[mardukm]

Dear brother Phillip,

Thank you for your humble self-correction on the matter of annulment.

I have a question on the following:

This exercise is founded upon Christ’s statement that the one who divorces and remarries, except in cases of adultery****, commits adultery themselves.

Scripture itself distinguishes between “adultery” and “fornication.” The famous clause “except in cases of adultery” is actually “except in cases of fornication.” Adultery occurs within marriage, and fornication occurs outside the context of marriage. The Church Fathers also understood that adultery was a different sin than fornication.

But somewhere along the line in the history of the Church, the biblical phrase “except in cases of fornication” got transformed into “except in cases of adultery.” Does anyone know when this reinterpretation came about?

(Btw, I do admit that Latin apologetics has the most acceptable answer to explain what “except in cases of fornication” means)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Scripture itself distinguishes between “adultery” and “fornication.” The famous clause “except in cases of adultery” is actually “except in cases of fornication.” Adultery occurs within marriage, and fornication occurs outside the context of marriage. The Church Fathers also understood that adultery was a different sin than fornication.

But somewhere along the line in the history of the Church, the biblical phrase “except in cases of fornication” got transformed into “except in cases of adultery.” Does anyone know when this reinterpretation came about?

(Btw, I do admit that Latin apologetics has the most acceptable answer to explain what “except in cases of fornication” means)

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s a most interesting question. I sure hope someone on here knows the answer because I myself am now very curious. Just as a refresher, could you remind us of what Latin apologetics has to say about the whole “except in cases of fornication” issue?

 

[mardukm]

That’s a most interesting question. I sure hope someone on here knows the answer because I myself am now very curious. Just as a refresher, could you remind us of what Latin apologetics has to say about the whole “except in cases of fornication” issue?

Latin apologetics state:

1. The clause “except in cases of fornication” occurs only in one place - the book of Matthew.
2. The Book of Matthew was primarily intended for a Jewish audience.
3. Only a Jewish audience could understand what is meant by “except in cases of fornication” in the context of a teaching regarding marriage.
4. The reason that the statement “except in cases of fornication” is relevant in the context of marriage to a Jewish audience is that Jewish marriage actually comes in two stages: the Betrothal and the actual Marriage (i.e., consummation).
5. Jewish marriage actually begins at the stage of Betrothal. It is at this stage that a Jewish couple are considered “husband and wife” (as evident in the description of the marriage of Joseph and Mary while they were just betrothed). During the stage of Betrothal, the couple are expected to have the same fidelity to each other as if they had already consummated their marriage and become truly “one.”
6. Infidelity during the Betrothal stage was called fornication, because the couple had not yet consummated their marriage. At this stage, the aggrieved party could actually file for a writ of divorce or separation. It is to this that the Book of Matthew refers when it speaks of “except in cases of fornication” whereby a husband could divorce his wife.
7. After the marriage was consummated, infidelity at that stage would be called “adultery.”
8. Since the Book of Matthew refers to “in cases of fornication” instead of “in cases of adultery,” then the Book of Matthew is not referring to permission to divorce after a marriage has been validly consummated.

Of course, I don’t really want to discuss the merits of the Latin understanding. I accept that the change in meaning came about, and that this is the Tradition of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. I just want to know when (and perhaps how) this came about - if anyone could shed light on it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

If the EC churches are ever allowed to grant divorces, and if the Latin Church ever cracks down on annulments, you’ll see a record number of people headed East.

A definite “No, it won’t happen” to both of your points!

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

Latin apologetics state:

1. The clause “except in cases of fornication” occurs only in one place - the book of Matthew.
2. The Book of Matthew was primarily intended for a Jewish audience.
3. Only a Jewish audience could understand what is meant by “except in cases of fornication” in the context of a teaching regarding marriage.
4. The reason that the statement “except in cases of fornication” is relevant in the context of marriage to a Jewish audience is that Jewish marriage actually comes in two stages: the Betrothal and the actual Marriage (i.e., consummation).
5. Jewish marriage actually begins at the stage of Betrothal. It is at this stage that a Jewish couple are considered “husband and wife” (as evident in the description of the marriage of Joseph and Mary while they were just betrothed). During the stage of Betrothal, the couple are expected to have the same fidelity to each other as if they had already consummated their marriage and become truly “one.”
6. Infidelity during the Betrothal stage was called fornication, because the couple had not yet consummated their marriage. At this stage, the aggrieved party could actually file for a writ of divorce or separation. It is to this that the Book of Matthew refers when it speaks of “except in cases of fornication” whereby a husband could divorce his wife.
7. After the marriage was consummated, infidelity at that stage would be called “adultery.”
8. Since the Book of Matthew refers to “in cases of fornication” instead of “in cases of adultery,” then the Book of Matthew is not referring to permission to divorce after a marriage has been validly consummated.

Of course, I don’t really want to discuss the merits of the Latin understanding. I accept that the change in meaning came about, and that this is the Tradition of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. I just want to know when (and perhaps how) this came about - if anyone could shed light on it.

Blessings,
Marduk

Bro. Marduk,

I expected your answer to be that “Porneia” has been improperly translated to “fornication”. The correct translation (according to Latin apologists) is “unlawful marriage”. This has been the primary answer I’ve always came across by the West. This is the first time I’ve heard your explanation.

As for the question of how “fornication” changed to “adultery”, the grounds for divorce became more strict over time at first, but then later became more laxed. Originally there were no vows taken in the sacrament of marriage, nor were there vows of chastity taken by monks. Vows for monks were first introduced by St Basil saying that a monk who leaves his calling, because he has also broken vows, can be charged with “adultery”, that is “the adultery of disobedience”. Hence a disobedient monk can receive a 15 year epitimia instead of only a 7 year epitimia. Likewise with marriage, if vows were taken, the canonical penalty for leaving your calling and braking vows is 15 years. This does not mean that vows have anything to do with the definition of adultery, they do not, only the canonical penalty. (Incidentally, I was married in the Russian Church and no vows were then taken as they are not essential to the sacrament.)