C
cfrancis
Guest
I provided the Scriptures; I also asked you, at least twice, what evidence would satisfy you. I want to know what words in the Bible you want to see.
- Status
M
mark_a
Guest
Works for me. Thanks.
M
mark_a
Guest
Layman’s terms please.
K
khutcheson
Guest
I see a lot of these threads regarding Protestant/Catholic family issues go horribly off track.
I’m a divorce lawyer.
From my perspective you are a smart man…very smart.
R
ralphinal
Guest
As a Catholic who has had a divorce, I can answer this.
Divorce, in the eyes of the Church, is a bad thing that at times needs to be done. All that a divorce does is end the governmental recognized part of a marriage. It divides property and handles issues of children’s rights. That is all. A divorce CANNOT end the part of the marriage that God has joined together.
A divorced Catholic is not in a state of sin simply because they are divorced. If they remarry without an anulment, it is a mortal sin. IF they have sex with someone else, it is a sin. And so on. If they are able to have the marriage annuled (as I was), they are free to re-marry (as I have).
The last line in interesting to me. Do you think it is better to split that which God has joined together or have an affair? How about keeping ones private parts in ones pants and avoiding the issue all together? Yes, one can have a divorce if that is the issue, but it is better to try to fix the marriage first. There is no garuntee that they can get an annulment later.
1
1ke
Guest
You are incorrect regarding the Church’s teaching on the gravely immoral nature of divorce. Check your catechism. Divorce is a sin against the Sixth Commandment:
2384 Divorce is a **grave offense **against the natural law.
2385 Divorce is **immoral **also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society.
1
1ke
Guest
Divorce is a sin against the Sixth Commandment. It is an offense against marriage.
It is possible to separate physically from a spouse in the case of abuse, etc, and even have recourse to civil remedies to protect children, enforce rights, etc.
But, the bond remains. “What God has joined, let no man separate.” A person in a valid marriage, joined by God, is not free to “remarry” until their spouse dies.
This is what the Church teaches regarding divorce:
*2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.
Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.*
Also, it is possible for a Catholic to go to Confession and receive forgiveness for the sin of divorce. This restores them to grace. It does not mean they are free to contract another marriage.
Both are equally immoral.
1
1ke
Guest
See the Catechism, this is not exactly accurate.
Divorce is an objectively grave act, it is immoral, and it is mortally sinful when done with full knowledge and free will.
It is possible to be an innocent party to a divorce, but in most cases both spouses are culpable to some degree and must go to Confession for their part in the divorce.
1
1ke
Guest
Reformed, You have not answered my question regarding what you believe a Sacrament to be.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Not at all. But you stated that, according to the Bible, the man is the spiritual head of the household, and could compel his wife to change churches, even when she did not agree with her husband’s church.
So, supposing I married a man who converted to Islam. Should I obey Ephesians and submit to my husband, and accept his spiritual leadership and convert to Islam, even though I do not believe in Islam?
Are you saying that the Bible is superior to Jesus Christ, God the Son and the Second Person of the Trinity?
Or are you saying that choosing between the Bible and Jesus is a false dichotomy? (Kind of like choosing between the Bible and the Catholic Church.
)
J
Julianna
Guest
My parents were married close to 50 yrs. My dad is first generation Italian Catholic…my mother Baptist from the south. They were married in the Catholic Church in 1956. Yes, they met with the parish priest who admonished my father in front of my mother by stating “You know better!”. My dad said, “Well Fr. V we’ll just go down her church and get married…either way, this is the woman I am going to marry.” My mother told my dad…“if it is allowed for us to marry in the Catholic Church…I do not want that priest to marry us.”
Well…it was allowed and my dad told Fr. V what my mother had said. They were married at the first pew (not on the altar)…by Fr. G, whom my mother received counsel. She attended 12 sessions with Fr. G and all her questions were answered. She promised God…(not the Church, the priest) she would raise any children from this marriage Catholic. She did. She never converted but was very active in getting us through our sacraments. She called the rectory and met with the priest or asked a religious if she had a question.
As children we also attended her church…but we went to Mass first and foremost…my mother saw to it that it happened. On special feasts and holidays…she went with us. She insisted we get our throats blessed and truly believed that is why my siblings and I never had ear infections or throat related problems. Now keep in mind she was raised Southern Baptist. The thing here is people, she “loved” my father and knew he was Catholic. When my grandmother died…he stopped going to Mass. My Baptist mother made sure we went…and when we strayed from the Church when we were wild teenagers…she prayed we would come back. She was there when all 3 of us made our Confirmation at 28, 26 and 20.
She had fullfilled her promise to God.
I married a Catholic in the Church. My sister married a Methodist outside the Church…but later had her marriage in the Church and her son was raised Catholic. Her Methodist mother-in-law paid for my nephew to go to Catholic school. Who’da thunk it?
My brother married a Pentacostal in the Catholic Church at the altar with a Mass. They have no children (infertility).
As far as the poster who said that Catholic-Protestant marriages should be prohibited…has never met mine.
It was my dad’s side of the family who said the marriage would never last because of religion…my mothers side of the family said it wouldn’t last because of religion. Dad died in May of 2006…in Sept of 2006 they would have been married 50 yrs.
I would like to send a big raspberry to the naysayers…
Well…it was allowed and my dad told Fr. V what my mother had said. They were married at the first pew (not on the altar)…by Fr. G, whom my mother received counsel. She attended 12 sessions with Fr. G and all her questions were answered. She promised God…(not the Church, the priest) she would raise any children from this marriage Catholic. She did. She never converted but was very active in getting us through our sacraments. She called the rectory and met with the priest or asked a religious if she had a question.
As children we also attended her church…but we went to Mass first and foremost…my mother saw to it that it happened. On special feasts and holidays…she went with us. She insisted we get our throats blessed and truly believed that is why my siblings and I never had ear infections or throat related problems. Now keep in mind she was raised Southern Baptist. The thing here is people, she “loved” my father and knew he was Catholic. When my grandmother died…he stopped going to Mass. My Baptist mother made sure we went…and when we strayed from the Church when we were wild teenagers…she prayed we would come back. She was there when all 3 of us made our Confirmation at 28, 26 and 20.
She had fullfilled her promise to God.
I married a Catholic in the Church. My sister married a Methodist outside the Church…but later had her marriage in the Church and her son was raised Catholic. Her Methodist mother-in-law paid for my nephew to go to Catholic school. Who’da thunk it?
My brother married a Pentacostal in the Catholic Church at the altar with a Mass. They have no children (infertility).
As far as the poster who said that Catholic-Protestant marriages should be prohibited…has never met mine.
It was my dad’s side of the family who said the marriage would never last because of religion…my mothers side of the family said it wouldn’t last because of religion. Dad died in May of 2006…in Sept of 2006 they would have been married 50 yrs.
I would like to send a big raspberry to the naysayers…
H
Hajnalcsillag
Guest
Julianna, that’s an awesome story.
R
Reformed
Guest
R
Reformed
Guest
The instructions in Ephesians 5 in within the context of “in the Lord”. When you compare Islam and Protestantism in the same context, you are making an ungodly and sinful comparision. Within the Scriptures, we are warned that there will be many false Christs that appear. Therefore, we need to worship the true and living Jesus Christ only. Many people call upon a false Jesus in this world.Not at all. But you stated that, according to the Bible, the man is the spiritual head of the household, and could compel his wife to change churches, even when she did not agree with her husband’s church.
So, supposing I married a man who converted to Islam. Should I obey Ephesians and submit to my husband, and accept his spiritual leadership and convert to Islam, even though I do not believe in Islam?
Are you saying that the Bible is superior to Jesus Christ, God the Son and the Second Person of the Trinity?
Or are you saying that choosing between the Bible and Jesus is a false dichotomy? (Kind of like choosing between the Bible and the Catholic Church.
Here is the context again:
Wives and Husbands
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [1] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. - Ephesians 5
R
Reformed
Guest
That was a great testimony in how God works in-spite of our man-made divisions. We all know in part in this world. One day, we will be able to see Him as He is.My parents were married close to 50 yrs. My dad is first generation Italian Catholic…my mother Baptist from the south. They were married in the Catholic Church in 1956. Yes, they met with the parish priest who admonished my father in front of my mother by stating “You know better!”. My dad said, “Well Fr. V we’ll just go down her church and get married…either way, this is the woman I am going to marry.” My mother told my dad…“if it is allowed for us to marry in the Catholic Church…I do not want that priest to marry us.”
Well…it was allowed and my dad told Fr. V what my mother had said. They were married at the first pew (not on the altar)…by Fr. G, whom my mother received counsel. She attended 12 sessions with Fr. G and all her questions were answered. She promised God…(not the Church, the priest) she would raise any children from this marriage Catholic. She did. She never converted but was very active in getting us through our sacraments. She called the rectory and met with the priest or asked a religious if she had a question.
As children we also attended her church…but we went to Mass first and foremost…my mother saw to it that it happened. On special feasts and holidays…she went with us. She insisted we get our throats blessed and truly believed that is why my siblings and I never had ear infections or throat related problems. Now keep in mind she was raised Southern Baptist. The thing here is people, she “loved” my father and knew he was Catholic. When my grandmother died…he stopped going to Mass. My Baptist mother made sure we went…and when we strayed from the Church when we were wild teenagers…she prayed we would come back. She was there when all 3 of us made our Confirmation at 28, 26 and 20.
She had fullfilled her promise to God.
I married a Catholic in the Church. My sister married a Methodist outside the Church…but later had her marriage in the Church and her son was raised Catholic. Her Methodist mother-in-law paid for my nephew to go to Catholic school. Who’da thunk it?
My brother married a Pentacostal in the Catholic Church at the altar with a Mass. They have no children (infertility).
As far as the poster who said that Catholic-Protestant marriages should be prohibited…has never met mine.
It was my dad’s side of the family who said the marriage would never last because of religion…my mothers side of the family said it wouldn’t last because of religion. Dad died in May of 2006…in Sept of 2006 they would have been married 50 yrs.
I would like to send a big raspberry to the naysayers…
C
cfrancis
Guest
Interesting read; much of what is said agrees with Catholic teaching.
The last paragraph, however, is an example of futile reasoning:
Let’s see:
- The Catholic Church supports its position on the sacraments frm Scripture (presented above, and much more than that, too)
- The author claims tradition is the source (however, note, in the linked article, all the references to tradition)
- The claim - if the author is speaking of Tradition - is true; however, the author appears to be speaking derisively, implying Catholic view of Scripture is faulty
- The author’s evidence? Their view of Scripture, of course.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Check that. Divorce is NOT ALWAYS a sin for both parties. From the CCC
[QUOTE2382]
The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177
**If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. **
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179
Re-read 2383. I bolded the important part. In some cases, it is not a sin for EITHER party. It is always a bad thing, and is always against natural law, but it is not always a sin. This passage does not talk about culpability in that regard, either.
Further, it is possible to be innocent in a divorce. One spouse may want to get counciling and the other does not. One may want to make it work and the other does not.
Divorce is not as black and white as some other issues.
What is clear is that just because you are divorced does not mean you are free to re-marry.
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Out of curiosity, what does that bolded statement mean? It seems to outline three conditions where civil divorce can be acceptable, to ensure:
– certain legal rights
– the care of children
– the protection of inheritance
Are the first two references to spousal/child abuse, or something else? And what could the third mean?
– certain legal rights
– the care of children
– the protection of inheritance
Are the first two references to spousal/child abuse, or something else? And what could the third mean?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes.
For example, if one spouse has an addiction of some kind and is using the children’s inheritance money from a deceased grandparent to pay for drugs, gambling, etc., or else if he or she is selling off family antiques that are supposed to one day be handed down to the children, divorce would be permitted so that the addicted spouse would no longer have access to the children’s trust fund.
- Status