Is divorce allowed in the Gospel written by Saint Matthew?

[Archedreamer]

I have never understood this. I was educated all my life in the indisolubility of marriage. When I read this by first time, as an Evangelical guy, I thought that It must be real. Late I tought (and I already think that it is real, but because I am someone who never speak to noone) that It must be a cultural categorization under wich Jews become Christians can divorce if someone of the couple commits fornication. They should be able to do it because they know the Law. Pagans (towards are written the Gospels of Marc, Lukes and John) cant divorce because they do not know the Law and so they do not know the importance of chastity…

But Evangelical Bibles say “fornication” as cause and Catholics say “illegitimate union”. I think that fornication (also adultery) must be an illegitimate union… but I even do not know if it this the explanaition… I read an explanaition of the term under the Catholic Bible page (edition Biblia de America) it said that illegtimate union should mean a marriage between relatives, very extended within pagans at that era… but if the Gospel of Matthew is written toward Jews… why are contemplated also Pagans?

I know that there are not divorces today… but why is that? How decided the Church to legislate that? Personally I deeply agree but it should be very important to me know that on that it has been decided.

Thank you so much another time

 

[NotWorthy]

Marriages can not be revoked, “… til death do you part”, unless the marriage was illegitimate. Several theologians think that Jesus meant that an illicit marriage is one in which the couple are too closely related. These stipulations are stated in Leviticus.

One must remember that it is not the Church that marries a couple, but the couple themselves, in union with God. The Church can grant an annulment if the marriage was never valid, such as when someone enters into the marriage covenant never intending to honor their vows that they made to God and their spouse.

But adultery is not a valid reason for divorce, as many people think it is. Even the Apostles understood this, as evidenced in Matthew 19 - *I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” 10[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” *

 

[Archedreamer]

It is true. The words of the Priest are clear… Marriage does not finish until the Death. But what is between that and that that is said in the Gospel of Saint Matthew?

 

[NotWorthy]

It is true. The words of the Priest are clear… Marriage does not finish until the Death. But what is between that and that that is said in the Gospel of Saint Matthew?

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your question.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Divorce is permitted by the Church under certain circumstances, but it is REMARRIAGE after a valid, sacramental marriage results in divorce that is the problem.

 

[Archedreamer]

No. I think that I have already incorporated this thing… I was too influented by the Evangelical (Reina-Valera) version of the Bible, and it says “only in case of fornication” it is allowed the divorce. I think that Casiodoro Reina and Cipriano Valera understood an illegitimate union as a way to say fornication (whose most common significant in greek is porneia, not illegitimate union, but the Gospel of Saint Matthew was not written in greek, but in hebrew).

When I read the Catholic Bible it says “illegitimate union”. I thought that thinking that it was about relatives-between-marriage was a mistake than Catholics commited because those unions were not common within Jews (as the members of the audience of Matthew) but within Pagans as the note under the page said…

All that had confused me.

But I understood now that the illegitimate union is not only a reason to divorce between Jews but also between Goys, even if the Gospels of such Mark as Luke and John do not have anything as an illegitimate union as reason to divorce… so I should not think with that ethnic cathegories?

Illegitimate union as relative-between-marriage should explain the (tries of ) claims of Henry VIII… at the other hand I have never known about a divorce caused by fornication by any of the spouses.

 

[bmonk]

This is what I heard on this verse. Back in the day, there were many gentiles entering the Church. Some of them were in marriages closer than allowed by Jewish (and hence Church) law–and so these marriages were “unlawful”. But an unlawful marriage is really no marriage–which is why we still examine the marriage of those seeking annulments to see if they really did have a marriage, or if they tried but could not in fact have all the needed elements.

We do similar things in civil law: if your minor child would sign papers to purchase a car, you could show they had no legal standing to enter a contract, and so it’s null and void. Similarly, annulments declare the marriage contract did not actually exist; it’s not a divorce as such, but a recognition of something lacking from the beginning.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have never understood this. I was educated all my life in the indisolubility of marriage. When I read this by first time, as an Evangelical guy, I thought that It must be real. Late I tought (and I already think that it is real, but because I am someone who never speak to noone) that It must be a cultural categorization under wich Jews become Christians can divorce if someone of the couple commits fornication. They should be able to do it because they know the Law. Pagans (towards are written the Gospels of Marc, Lukes and John) cant divorce because they do not know the Law and so they do not know the importance of chastity…

No, it isn’t exactly a cultural category; Moses entered into a dialog with God on how the Law was to be carried out with the people. Within the Jewish people, there were some marriages so abusive/destructive that keeping them together would cause grave harm. For this reason (hardened hearts) the separation of marriage partners was a necessity. Even today, within the Catholic Church, separation for the reason of hardness of hearts is permitted:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P45.HTM

In particular, Adultery is so grave an offense against the marital bond that violence is often historically perpetrated by one spouse against another, and forcing people in this situation to “stay together” when they have lost control of themselves, is not within reason.

On the particular offense cited (Adultery), in Catholic Law, the marriage bond (that is, the right to RE-MARRY) is not dissolved; but the marriage requirements made in oath (conjugal/living together) is. One is no longer bound to the spousal duty of sexual and conjugal living.

Separation is not exactly divorce; although in Civil Law (at least here in Oregon) there is no difference in effects between the two except the right to re-marry. Having just discussed the issue with a civil lawyer, there is variation on the differences depending on where one lives in the United States. Civil code can permit a separation of finances for a period of time (or even indefinitely) in many places; and divorce is uniformly permitted in civil code.

So, there is some grey area in civil law as to how the Catholic Understanding is to be carried out; but either separation or divorce (without permission to remarry in the Church) can both satisfy the Church Law in a case of abuse/captivity/danger where living together has become destructive.

My point is simply that spouses may separate for “hardness” of heart even now.
In such a marriage, one of the spouses is clearly in violation of their marital oath and the other is simply being protected from abuses related to an un-reconcilable violation. The consequences of separation, today, are not the same as they were in the times of Moses and so the particulars of what needs to be protected and how much has changed – but the underlying principle is the same.

But Evangelical Bibles say “fornication” as cause and Catholics say “illegitimate union”. I think that fornication (also adultery) must be an illegitimate union… but I even do not know if it this the explanaition… I read an explanaition of the term under the Catholic Bible page (edition Biblia de America) it said that illegtimate union should mean a marriage between relatives, very extended within pagans at that era… but if the Gospel of Matthew is written toward Jews… why are contemplated also Pagans?

I know that there are not divorces today… but why is that? How decided the Church to legislate that? Personally I deeply agree but it should be very important to me know that on that it has been decided.

Thank you so much another time

Marriages are a matter of Law; When Jesus says “What God has joined (journeyed together) let no man send away” he is referring to the duty of the spouses to remain in conjugal living when they “LAWFULLY” entered marriage.
The key issue to grasp is that God will NOT PERMANENTLY join together people who violate his law from the beginning. This includes any kind of perversion that is forbidden by Law (and which may change with time) at the discretion of the church; incest, captive rape, below age marriages, and even willing (illicit) fornication and other problematic unions (contraceptive/false God/idol fertility worship) are forbidden by the Church and therefore – anything with these problems that tries to pass itself off as a “marriage” in the civil arena are still forbidden by the Law of God.

When Jesus makes the comment with the exception; he does so at a particular location where John the Baptist preached and condemned King Herod and Herodias for an illicit union. John the Baptist said it is not right for Herod to take Herodias as his wife while her husband (King Philip) still lived (and John was Beheaded for this statement); This is echoed today in how secular (parallel to the extra rights of a king like Herod) law proclaims unions forbidden by the Church to be lawful due to legislative power not within the control of the Church.

So, as an example (In Jesus’ day), adultery followed by re-marriage is within the scope of Jesus’ statement; for He permits that the marriage of Herod is illegall even though adultery and remarriage have occurred in the case of Herodias.

There was a way for Herod to resolve that issue (as did King David with Urias the Hittite) … but Jesus’ answer leaves no escape for the wickedness of one like Herod while at the same time not Giving Herodias any grounds to attack Jesus himself.
Jesus is saying that marriage is not guaranteed to be permanent in cases where a perversion underlies the coming together of spouses. God will not join a perversion of his Law.

 

[jcrichton]

I have never understood this. I was educated all my life in the indisolubility of marriage. When I read this by first time, as an Evangelical guy, I thought that It must be real. Late I tought (and I already think that it is real, but because I am someone who never speak to noone) that It must be a cultural categorization under wich Jews become Christians can divorce if someone of the couple commits fornication. They should be able to do it because they know the Law. Pagans (towards are written the Gospels of Marc, Lukes and John) cant divorce because they do not know the Law and so they do not know the importance of chastity…

But Evangelical Bibles say “fornication” as cause and Catholics say “illegitimate union”. I think that fornication (also adultery) must be an illegitimate union… but I even do not know if it this the explanaition… I read an explanaition of the term under the Catholic Bible page (edition Biblia de America) it said that illegtimate union should mean a marriage between relatives, very extended within pagans at that era… but if the Gospel of Matthew is written toward Jews… why are contemplated also Pagans?

I know that there are not divorces today… but why is that? How decided the Church to legislate that? Personally I deeply agree but it should be very important to me know that on that it has been decided.

Thank you so much another time

…I too had that problem… I could not understand why there would be a clause that would allow for a divorce… if we simply apply reason we can see that such a clause would promote rampant divorce amongst Believers since all one would have to do is find a person other than one’s spouse (including prostitutes) to disolve the marriage and be allowed to remarry (as the correction made by Jesus to the practice Mosaic for allowing divorce decrees); when I checked the notes on my Bible I came to the same conclusion as had been offered on the thread: Jesus was talking about the practice of marriages between blood relations–something commonly practiced among the Gentiles (I suspect that since Jesus brought it up, there could very well be either a hidden practice or an allotment for pagan converts to remain in their status after conversion).

…as for this requisite only applying to non-Jews, is that not as erroneous as the belief that only non-Believers will end up in Hell if they continue to sin and do not repent from their sinful acts?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jeffinjapan]

Divorce is permitted by the Church under certain circumstances, but it is REMARRIAGE after a valid, sacramental marriage results in divorce that is the problem.

This is it. It’s not that divorce is never permitted but remarriage is never permitted after a valid, sacramental marriage.

So while a Catholic may be permitted to divorce his spouse because of adultery, he can’t remarry.