R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes, yet they were joined in porneiarcwitness:
Ah, now I’m beginning to catch up with you. Are you saying the same as @stpurl, that the husband and wife were not legitimately married to begin with?
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
With a valid husband and wife, who cheat, it is called adultery. With an invalidly married couple who have sex, its called porneia.
Porneia is not referring to a spouse cheating on another spouse, but two people engaging in sex, when they are forbidden to do so.
Porneia is not referring to a spouse cheating on another spouse, but two people engaging in sex, when they are forbidden to do so.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Okay, @rcwitness and @stpurl, you have the editors of the NAB on your side, so you’re right in saying that this is at least one possible interpretation of Jesus’ words. I’ll leave it at that.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
It is actually very reasonable. Did you read the way the sentance is written in Greek?
And combine this with the fact that an absolute prohibition is Taught in every other New Testament Scripture!
And that St Paul even describes a porneia union as joining the two in flesh!
And that the word adultery would be so much more accurate to describe the scenerio, if Jesus was talking about a cheating spouse!
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Yes, that seems to make sense, but I need to speak to a friend whose Greek is much better than mine.
Q
QContinuum
Guest
So many uses for the word, “porneia!”
Wait, that did not sound right…
So many ways to use “porneia!”
Still not right.
Oh well, the burning question I have is what if Wife A and Wife B, in a bit of a snit with the unlawful husband, go off and marry each other?
Is that…also porneia?
Wait, that did not sound right…
So many ways to use “porneia!”
Still not right.
Oh well, the burning question I have is what if Wife A and Wife B, in a bit of a snit with the unlawful husband, go off and marry each other?
Is that…also porneia?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nope. It’s unchastity.
Q
QContinuum
Guest
In Greek? Or some other base word?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well, I think it’d be even more reasonable to assert “this is what the Church teaches” rather than simply “this is what NAB editors think.”
Matthew 5:32 –
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται.
Matthew 19:9 –
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται.
Even if, as the NAB editors suggest, there was a particular situation in Matthew’s target audience, the Church has interpreted these passages as pointing out the only exception to Jesus’ “no divorce” statements: if the marriage was unlawful to begin with, then the couple may separate (since this does not create a situation of divorce).
In both cases, Matthew calls the possible exception πορνεία.
E
Elf01
Guest
Small correction. It is the only scenario where the Church permits divorce snd remarriage. Secular divorce may be permitted for safety or other serious reasons.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes, but secular divorce does not change the sacramental reality.
For that matter, the Church allows “separation with the bond remaining”, for exactly the reasons you mention…
R
rcwitness
Guest
Please do, and share.rcwitness:
Yes, that seems to make sense, but I need to speak to a friend whose Greek is much better than mine.
V
Vico
Guest
Dr. Kenneth Howell is the Resident Theologian and Director of Pastoral Care of the Coming Home Network International wrote: “Scripture gives no reasons at all to end a marriage in divorce, but these verses in Matthew do show reasons that a marriage may be considered invalid.”
R
rcwitness
Guest
Wow! Thats a whole lot of jargon for this:
“Porneia, being a general word, may refer to some kind of inherent sexual problem that would constitute a serious impediment to a valid marriage.”
What is that suppose to mean?
“Porneia, being a general word, may refer to some kind of inherent sexual problem that would constitute a serious impediment to a valid marriage.”
What is that suppose to mean?
V
Vico
Guest
- general: without being specific.
- inherent: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
- impediment to marriage: an obstacle that prevents the marriage from being performed validly or licitly.
- valid marriage: a real covenant established with the celebration of marriage.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Do you think that was the meaning of the clause? That some have a sexual impediment to marriage???rcwitness:
- general: without being specific.
- inherent: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
- impediment to marriage: an obstacle that prevents the marriage from being performed validly or licitly.
- valid marriage: a real covenant established with the celebration of marriage.
I think its that some have commited an immoral sexual union with someone, and thus it is not binding.
1 Corinthians 7
It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality (porneia), each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Between two baptized what would be a natural marriage is a sacrament, which once consummated is indissoluble. With an impediment there is not a true marriage so it would be fornication. It happens often that a civil marriage occurs between the baptized, and it must be convalidated because it is fornication.
1 Corinthians 7
R
rcwitness
Guest
I thought the early Church did not have a marriage liturgy?
What struck me quite lacking about that article, is that the author summed up the Matthew clause as a sexual problem in a person that meant they were incapable of marriage.
That may be a possible impediment, if somehow proven. But its not the way to explain the clause, by any means.
This is a much better article:
Last edited:
H
Hereiam
Guest
Herein lies the desire for taking scripture literally as the be all; end all, and in making it the only consideration in Church theology.
Catholic theology and teachings of the Magisterium develop over time, and while Sacred Scripture is a significant factor, the Literal Sense is important, including examination of the original language used, it is often confused or carried over into the taking scripture “literally”, which is quite different.
As Catholics, we are called to consider first the Literal Sense of scripture, but we are not instructed to take scripture literally.
Catholic theology and teachings of the Magisterium develop over time, and while Sacred Scripture is a significant factor, the Literal Sense is important, including examination of the original language used, it is often confused or carried over into the taking scripture “literally”, which is quite different.
As Catholics, we are called to consider first the Literal Sense of scripture, but we are not instructed to take scripture literally.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Whats your point?
We should be able to gather from the text that the reasonable intention is an exception about the couple’s union itself, and not referring to a case of adultery.
We should be able to gather from the text that the reasonable intention is an exception about the couple’s union itself, and not referring to a case of adultery.
- Status