Koine Greek Expert Regarding Matthew's Exception Clauses

[Gorgias]

That’s my point. The Catholic Church does not know if porneia refers to unfaithfulness, or unlawful marriage.

Except that it’s making an assertion about what it means, based on its canon law and teachings.

It’s only been a very recent situation of marriages being released with decrees of nulity for wide interpretations of lack of consent. This was unheard of for almost 2000 years.

It’s not that ‘nullity’ is a “very recent” development; it’s always existed. You’re conflating “practice” with “theory”.

Catholic Teaching opposes remarriage.

A widow may remarry…

 

[EndTimes]

NOTE: Although some disagree - Original Matthew is said to be Hebrew…

That said: In the Latin Vulgate - Chapter 5 -

But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

 

[Ammi]

Except that it’s making an assertion about what it means, based on its canon law and teachings.

Formal Catholic Teaching is what I follow. Not necessarily all the interpretations and what any particular Catholic thinks it means.

It’s not that ‘nullity’ is a “very recent” development; it’s always existed. You’re conflating “practice” with “theory”.

I’m not addressing theory at all. I’m addressing Scripture, and also a very modern United States decision to begin labeling thousands upon thousands of Catholic marriages as null due to lack of consent. This is a modern phenomenon.

widow may remarry…

No one has questioned that. The context is divorce and remarriage. The Scripture which causes millions of Christians (and even many Catholics) to believe there is justification, is Matthew’s exception clause. Some Church Fathers thought it referred to unfaithfulness, yet still prohibited remarriage (WHILE THE SPOUSE WAS LIVING OF COURSE).

I actually find it more reasonable to mean unlawful unions which resulted in some sort of contract or agreement. But also a violation of a betrothal which has not been consummated.

Matthew interprets Jesus as using both porneia and moicheia side by side (Ch. 15) which is strong evidence that porneia used in the exception clause is not meant to refer to adultery.

 

[Gorgias]

Formal Catholic Teaching is what I follow. Not necessarily all the interpretations and what any particular Catholic thinks it means.

That’s nice, but we’re talking about something different than “all the interpretations” or the misunderstandings of “any particular Catholic”! What we’re talking about is the teaching of the Church, as it’s incapsulated in the provisions of canon law and magisterial teaching!

I’m addressing Scripture, and also a very modern United States decision to begin labeling thousands upon thousands of Catholic marriages as null due to lack of consent.

So, you’re avoiding Church teaching and moving straight to one particular implementation of Church law? Got it.

 

[Ammi]

Please show me where magisterial Teaching explains what Porneia means in Matthew’s exceptions clause.

You wont find any.

 

[Ammi]

So, you’re avoiding Church teaching and moving straight to one particular implementation of Church law? Got it.

Please explain what Church teaching is being avoided.

 

[Gorgias]

Please show me where magisterial Teaching explains what Porneia means in Matthew’s exceptions clause.

We see it in a number of places, in terms of how the Church approaches marriage:

1605 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”

1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts. The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

1615 This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed

1629 the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.

1638 “From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament.”

1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.

1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.”

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was.

1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ.

Notice what’s being taught in the catechism here: although it quotes the Scriptural passages and does not use the word ‘porneia’, it explicitly teaches from this Scriptural imperative: valid marriages are indissoluble; invalid marriages may be nullified.

You wont find any.

Just quoted you a boatload, brother.

 

[Gorgias]

Please explain what Church teaching is being avoided.

You moved from ‘Scripture’ straight to '21st century practice", without acknowledging the teachings of the Church (which I just quoted to you in the previous post).

 

[Ammi]

We see it in a number of places, in terms of how the Church approaches marriage: Notice what’s being taught in the catechism here: although it quotes the Scriptural passages and does not use the word 'porneia’, it explicitly teaches from this Scriptural imperative: valid marriages are indissoluble; invalid marriages may be nullified.

I understand how the Church “approaches marriage” and I dont dissent from her formal Teaching either.

Notice the passage used is NOT even from Matthew, but from Mark (which does not contain the exception clause)? Why would it not use the relative passage from Matthew (which contains the clause), if relating what the clause means?

Furthermore, invalid marriage due to prohibited eligibility and even lack of consent, was recognized even in Moses’ time. St Jerome even acknowledges this rule of invalid marriage.

The issue with the United States tribunals, which I brought up in light of the Matthew exception clauses, is not a problem of Church Teaching or canon law, but of interpreting canon law and its application. Officials in Rome (including a Saint and Pope, a second Pope,
Abp. Vincenzo Fagiolo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, and Cdl. Achille Silvestrini, head of the Roman Rota, the Church’s highest court) have criticized tribunals for “incorrect interpretation of the common canonical laws” and causing “grave scandal”.

These leaders from Rome, are primarily where I base my understanding of the phenomenon happening. But certainly not the only source.

 

[Gorgias]

Notice the passage used is NOT even from Matthew, but from Mark (which does not contain the exception clause)?

Let’s review the footnotes’ citations from that section:

95 Mt 19:6.
101 Cf. Mt 19:8
106 Cf. Mt 19:8.
107 Mt 19:6.
109 Cf. Mt 19:11.
115 Mt 19:12.
117 Cf. Mt 19:3-12.
153 Mt 19:6
163 Mt 19:4

Nine citations from Matthew 19. So… sorry! I think it’s pretty obvious that your assertion doesn’t hold up!

The issue with the United States tribunals, which I brought up in light of the Matthew exception clauses, is not a problem of Church Teaching or canon law, but of interpreting canon law and its application.

Perfect. Therefore, it’s not relevant to this discussion, which is considering doctrine rather than practice. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Ammi]

Let’s review the footnotes’ citations from that section:95 Mt 19:6.101 Cf. Mt 19:8 106 Cf. Mt 19:8.107 Mt 19:6.109 Cf. Mt 19:11.115 Mt 19:12.117 Cf. Mt 19:3-12. 153 Mt 19:6 163 Mt 19:4 Nine citations from Matthew 19. So… sorry! I think it’s pretty obvious that your assertion doesn’t hold up.

Yes you should review those citations and where they reference. The only sections referring to invalid marriage that you quoted were numbers 1629 and 1650 and the citations were canon law and Mark 10:11-12.

The only citation which included Matthew 19:9 was with verses 3-12 (citation #117) paragraph 1620 which had nothing to do with verse 9 and was addressing marriage and virginity. Nothing to do with unlawful marriages.

 

[EndTimes]

Please show me where magisterial Teaching explains what Porneia means in Matthew’s exceptions clause.

It doesn’t have to be mentioned in the Magisterium

Scriptures can stand on its own…

Linquistically - P and F and commonly interchanged

Porneia? Forni…cation.

Married yet fornicate? Adultery…
_

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Please show me where magisterial Teaching explains what Porneia means in Matthew’s exceptions clause.

It doesn’t have to be mentioned in the Magisterium

Scriptures can stand on its own…

Linquistically - P and F and commonly interchanged

Porneia? Forni…cation.

Married yet fornicate? Adultery…
_

Yes, of course. I didnt imply that it had to be specifically “mentioned” through maisterium.

My point is that its NOT mentioned. There are two, or more, accepted possible interpretations of the exception clause in Matthew. And I’m learning about the different interpretations. I also think that they all cannot be true, though Church Teaching can still uphold some or that more than one do not contrast Church Teaching.

 

[EndTimes]

Frankly, I’ve different translations and as far as the Meaning - it’s always comes out the same.

Since “Adultery” is given mention in the context of the Greek translation of the original and unknown Hebrew of Matthew - by working backwards - we know what causes Adultery, yes?

And by whatever name one reads … the Meaning is singular.

 

[Ammi]

I dont mean translations. I mean interpretations.

By the way, I think fornication is the best translation. But it still needs interpretation, which I believe “unlawful marriage” makes more sense than “unfaithfulness” for interpreting the meaning of porneia.

 

[EndTimes]

I dont mean translations. I mean interpretations.

God’s Holy Spirit gives actual Meanings aka Interpretation of all Vernaculae.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes you should review those citations and where they reference.

It’s about context. The context here is the passage you want to claim that the Church doesn’t teach anything about.

Nothing to do with unlawful marriages.

And yet, the whole section asserts, over and again, that there is no divorce for valid marriages, and that invalid marriages may be annulled. In other words, the Church does teach what you claim it does not.

My point is that its NOT mentioned

Nevertheless, the teaching found there is also found in magisterial teaching.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Yes, of course. I didnt imply that it had to be specifically “mentioned” through magisterium. My point is that its NOT mentioned.

Tradition and Scripture are part of the Ordinary Magisterium. You will see unanimity amongst the early church fathers on this subject as they write about what they have received as part of the Faith.

 

[Ammi]

I believe the Church is clear, that adultery does NOT dissolve a marriage. And that there are situations which a marriage can be dissolved. The Petrine and Pauline privileges. Also, ancient Jewish law, and the Church have always recognized invalid marriages.

The specific matter, which I’m saying the Church has not specifically, and formerly defined, is the exception clause in Matthew’s Gospel.

It appears that some Church Fathers interpreted the clause (and specifically porneia) to be infidelity which is grounds for “divorce” yet NOT remarriage. The Church does not contradict this interpretation because it approves separation with the bond remaining.

It also appears some Church fathers may have interpreted the clause as “unlawful marriages”. Again, the Church does not contradict this interpretation either, since it investigates validity of marriages by a tribunal.

The two issues I have raised in this thread, are first, that the exception clause cannot mean both infidelity and invalid marriage. Those are two different concepts. And second, the United States interpretive process which has become a phenomenon criticized by the highest leaders in Rome.

If you can find Church Father’s Teachings regarding the issue of the exception clauses, I am under the impression that more of them were under the impression that the exception meant divorce was permissible for unfaithfulness, but remarriage prohibited, since the bond is until death.

I personally believe unlawful (including infidelity during betrothal situations) marriages makes more sense.

 

[Gorgias]

The specific matter, which I’m saying the Church has not specifically, and formerly defined, is the exception clause in Matthew’s Gospel.

It has. (And I’ve quoted it.) It’s the Church’s statement on what ‘nullity’ is, and what it means, and what its effects are.