By the mere fact that it is indissoluble and a bond created and intended by God. Two become one… I would refer back to Matt 19. Regardless of one’s wishes, it is a Sacrament sworn before God – one in which man cannot break. Therefor it is current and continuous – it doesn’t end because due to civil divorce.I think this may be part of the struglle. If the marriage broke down and there is no way for reconciliation to occur, then how is it current and continuous?
Refer back to CCC 1650Ok, where does the remaining celibate come from? The first marriage is irretrievably broken.
Not sure what you mean by this…So two sins, breaking the current marriage, make up for sinning the first time by breaking the marriage bond? I just don’t understand how they can reason that.
As I stated above, it can be forgiven just as any other sin.Also, I still don’t see where if it is meant to be indissoluble, there is no forgiveness for if that indissolubility just doesn’t happen due to sin. This is a major confusion for me. Like I said above, any other sin you can go on in life even after sinning/repenting, but not this one.
Ok, I am getting a glimmer of understanding here. I can see now why the tribunal looks into whether there was in fact a in dissoluble bond at the first marriage. I think one thing that throws me is that if the person didn’t understand the words they were saying then how could it be indissoluble.By the mere fact that it is indissoluble and a bond created and intended by God. Two become one… I would refer back to Matt 19. Regardless of one’s wishes, it is a Sacrament sworn before God – one in which man cannot break. Therefor it is current and continuous – it doesn’t end because due to civil divorce.
What I meant here is that if the first marriage was indissoluble (which a tribunal would have to decide), then why would it be right to again break a bond the second time if one was remarried? I am referring here to someone who did not understand that they were NOT making an indissoluble bond in the first marriage but believed they were in the second marriage…Not sure what you mean by this…
This I still don’t understand as there is no forgiveness in that they cannot take sacraments because they are judged as being in sin even if they do not believe they are. But what would the church have them do? Leave the second marriage and hurt another group of people? That’s what I meant by two wrongs–if it was wrong once, it would be MORE wrong the second time I would think. I also still don’t grasp how it could be a sin if you didn’t KNOW it was a sin but thought you were forgiven and were trying to do the right thing by moving on in life.As I stated above, it can be forgiven just as any other sin.
31-32. The Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1), which was laid down in ancient times, had tolerated divorce due to the hardness of heart of the early Hebrews. But it had not specified clearly the grounds on which divorce might be obtained. The rabbis worked out different sorts of interpretations, depending on which school they belonged to–solutions ranging from very lax to quite rigid. In all cases, only husband could repudiate wife, not vice-versa. A woman’s inferior position was eased somewhat by the device of a written document whereby the husband freed the repudiated woman to marry again if she wished. Against these rabbinical interpretations, Jesus re-establishes the original indissolubility of marriage as God instituted it (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; cf. Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 1:31; 1 Corinthians 7:10).
(continued on the next post)[The RSVCE carries a note which reads: “unchastity”: The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages which were not legally marriages, because they were within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Leviticus 18:6-16) or contracted with a Gentile. The phrase “except on the ground of unchastity” does not occur in the parallel passage in Luke 16:18. See also Matthew 19:9 (Mark 10:11-12), and especially 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which shows that the prohibition is unconditional.] The phrase, “except on the ground of unchastity”, should not be taken as indicating an exception to the principle of absolute indissolubility of marriage which Jesus has just re-established. It is almost certain that the phrase refers to unions accepted as marriage among some pagan people, but prohibited as incestuous in the Mosaic Law (cf. Leviticus 18) and in rabbinical tradition. The reference, then, is to unions radically invalid because of some impediment. When persons in this position were converted to the True Faith, it was not that their union could be dissolved; it was declared that they had never in fact been joined in true marriage. Therefore, this phrase does not do against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather reaffirms it.
On the basis of Jesus’ teaching and guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church has ruled that in the specially grave case of adultery it is permissible for a married couple to separate, but without the marriage bond being dissolved; therefore, neither party may contract a new marriage.
The indissolubility of marriage was unhesitatingly taught by the Church from the very beginning; she demanded practical and legal recognition of this doctrine, expounded with full authority by Jesus (Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18) and by the Apostles (1 Corinthians 6:16; 7:10-11; 39; Romans 7:2-3; Ephesians 5:31f). Here, for example, are just a few texts from the Magisterium on this subject:
“Three blessings are ascribed to matrimony …]. The third is the indissolubility of matrimony–indissoluble because it signifies the indivisible union of Christ with the Church. Although a separation from bed may be permitted by reason of marital infidelity, nevertheless it is not permitted to contract another matrimony since the bond of a marriage lawfully contracted is perpetual” (Council of Florence, “Pro Armeniis”, 1442).
“If anyone says that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved on account of heresy, or irksome cohabitation, or by reason of the voluntary absence of one of the parties, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, On Matrimony, Can. 5, 1547)
“If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, On Matrimony, Can. 7)
"And to begin with that same Encyclical, which is wholly concerned in vindicating the divine institution of matrimony, its sacramental dignity, and its perpetual stability, let it be repeated as an immutable and inviolable fundamental doctrine that matrimony was not instituted or restored by man but by God; not by man were the laws made to strengthen and confirm and elevate it but by God, the Author of nature, and by Christ Our Lord by Whom nature was redeemed, and hence these laws cannot be subject to any human decrees or to any contrary pact even of the spouses themselves. This is the doctrine of Holy Scripture; this is the constant tradition of the Universal Church; this the solemn definition of the sacred Council of Trent, which declares and establishes from the words of Holy Writ itself that God is the Author of the perpetual stability of the marriage bond, its unity and its firmness…although before Christ the sublimeness and the severity of the primeval law was so tempered that Moses permitted to the chosen people of God on account of the hardness of their hearts that a bill of divorce might be given in certain circumstances, nevertheless, Christ, by virtue of His supreme legislative power, recalled this concession of greater liberty and restored the primeval law in its integrity by those words which must never be forgotten, “What God hath joined together let no man put asunder.” " (Pius XI. Casti connubii)
For the Church’s definitive statement on marriage, I would carefully read the entire encyclical by Pius XI, Casti connubii, cited above:For the good of the spouses and their off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone. For, God Himself is the author of matrimony…intimate union [of marriage] and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them." (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 48)