Matthew's Exception Clause

[Gorgias]

As Catholics, we are called to consider first the Literal Sense of scripture, but we are not instructed to take scripture literally.

Mind if I quibble?

We’re not instructed to take Scripture literalistically in all the text in its entirety. Some passages and narratives we are supposed to take literally. Just not all, and not as if it were all the same kind of narrative.

 

[Hereiam]

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.

Granted. Augustine did tell us that we should not be afraid to interpret scripture, because even if we are wrong, if it is done with charity there is no harm or no foul.

 

[Hereiam]

Mind if I quibble?

We’re not instructed to take Scripture literalistically in all the text in its entirety. Some passages and narratives we are supposed to take literally. Just not all, and not as if it were all the same kind of narrative.

Of course I don’t mind.

Granted.

So, what’s your thoughts applying this contention to the verse in question?

 

[Gorgias]

So, what’s your thoughts applying this contention to the verse in question?

I think that the Church has spoken on the matter, and given its authority and competence in this context, she calls us to listen and follow her direction. Through its statements on doctrine and in the text of its canon law, the Church asserts that there are certain conditions (related to consent, impediments, and form) that would render a putative marriage invalid, and short of these, there is no divorce.

 

[rcwitness]

I think that the Church has spoken on the matter, and given its authority and competence in this context, she calls us to listen and follow her direction. Through its statements on doctrine and in the text of its canon law, the Church asserts that there are certain conditions (related to consent, impediments, and form) that would render a putative marriage invalid, and short of these, there is no divorce.

I agree. And knowing that an invalid Christian marriage, due to various ways that the faith was rejected, is not a divorce according to God, since God was rejected in binding the Marriage.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

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:
https://shamelesspopery.com/divorce...e-of-adultery-what-does-the-bible-really-say/

The celebration of marriage is whatever form that the Church accepts at the time. He did not say it was “a sexual problem in a person” rather “inherent sexual problem”. Note later he states “the exception clause [porneia] in Matthew is giving an example of when that original intention was not met and therefore a valid marriage has not taken place.”

I like the article you linked.

 

[Darryl_B]

Matthew 19:9

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”

The way I understand this “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery” in particular from the exception, the unchastity of the spouse, has already enacted the divorce.

I do not believe this to imply that remarriage is a luxury. I believe it is who is culpable for the one becoming two. Marriage 2 become 1. Divorce 1 becomes 2.

 

[rcwitness]

The way I understand this “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery” in particular from the exception, the unchastity of the spouse, has already enacted the divorce…I do not believe this to imply that remarriage is a luxury. I believe it is who is culpable for the one becoming two. Marriage 2 become 1. Divorce 1 becomes 2.

So are you saying you understand Jesus as referring to a “cheating” adultery situation?

 

[Darryl_B]

Yes. When a spouse gives themselves over to another they have already enacted a breaking of bond and become 1 with another. The divorce, loosing from, has already occurred and cannot be repeated with formality by the other party. A grave error has been done in God’s plan, tearing the fabric of a seamless tunic.

 

[rcwitness]

Thats why reconciliation is needed for a husband and wife. Just as it is needed when we tear our relationship with Jesus through serious sin.

I think you disagree with the Church about this passage and what she Teaches about indissolubility. No?

 

[rose321]

Im saying Jesus was saying that Porneia is not binding. Its unlawful sex, but because even unlawful sex “joins” two people Jesus was saying a valid Christian marriage cannot be dissolved, even because of adultery.

Respectfully opinion only and a question if God allows divorce been of interest to me.
So who better to know then God himself knowing His Spoken Words all throughout the Bible. Found if one cannot find what a word used means go back to the very front of the bible when that word was first used, how it was used and seek out a deeper understanding of Jesus teaching, sayings, etc after all the OT was Jesus Holy Scripture,( NT did not exist for decades later after Jesus left?) he heavily quotes from, constantly refers back to, in his preaching, teaching and boldly harsh questions he put to his own Elders of his Temple, Pharisees? Sadduccees? Sanhedrin’s when brought before them etc?

Does God give a bill of divorce to Israel?
If so why?
Cross references His Spoken Word throughout His chosen Men/woman and His Prophets>>
Exodus 4:22
Jeremiah 3:1 >she betrays, who betrays?
Jeremiah 2:19 3:1 3:8, 3:1-5, 3:14, 31:31-36>(>>Jer. 31:32>>did this verse within at one time read>>My Covenant which they broke although I was a husband to them?)

Jeremiah Chapters 7: 3-7-21-31, 23:7-8
Jeremiah mentions 5 times, return to Me?
Ezekiel 16:47? 16:51, 23:11, 23:9
Deut 24:1-3 When a man taken a wife and it comes to pass…
Deut Chapters 28-29? If they remain faithful …?
Isaiah 50:1 “Thus said the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorce whom…”
Isaiah 54:8-10
Isaiah Chapter 18-59
Hosea 3:4, 4: 15, 9:15-17
Broke their Covenant, how?
New Covenant does what? Restores both Houses as mentioned?>>>Reunification, unity, oneness, mercy is given, forgiveness>> Jeremiah 31: 34 I Will forgive and remember no more?

What do the Prophets seem to indicate? Unfaithfulness to Him?> Broke their Covenant, like a marriage contract?
Why does Jesus called Himself our Bridegroom?
And we who believe in Him, are faithful to Him, join in unity oneness with Him, he calls us his Bride?
House of Israel and House Judah were they unfaithful to God and joined to other gods of the heathen world, maybe? Exodus 4:22

Metaphors? Parables? Stories in teaching?

Was it a Spiritual Divorce, because of disloyalty and unfaithfulness to him?

Pondering after reading all Biblical verses over over, over, over seeking out understanding from the Highly Learned etc along with prayer>>> in asking for understanding in knowing Him and His Spoken Word, I have come to learn and realize >> Our Heavenly Father’s Great Love, Forgiveness, His Mercy, is far infinite (beyond) man’s comprehension. ( carnal minds?)

Jesus teaches us we have harden hearts of stone, does he not?
Now all flows in content when it comes to divorce and the prophecy Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, does it not?
When it comes to the Knowledge and Understanding is God speaking about >Spiritual Divorce?

Greatest Love Story indeed>>Jeremiah 31:34 clearly tells us God Will!> I Will

but man will not?

Peace

 

[Darryl_B]

No. I agree with Church teaching. I did state indissolubility but not directly.

 

[Cathoholic]

rcwitness . . . .

These two verses have been the grounds for legitimizing non Catholic Christian divorce and remarriage when a spouse commits adultery. But is this really what Jesus (or Matthew) was saying?

I think there are grounds for divorce in certain instances (including here, as you mention “pornea”), but I think you are correct regarding NOTHING permissive concerning divorce AND remarriage.

I would suggest the verses are consistent with perennial Catholic teaching which is re-affirmed in the CCC, that a Sacramental Marriage remains INDISSOLUBLE as long as both of the Sacramentally married spouses are alive.

CCC 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.106 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."107

.

Excerpt from CCC 1615 This UNEQUIVOCAL insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy . . . . he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension . . . . that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.109

(emphasis mine)

.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Cathoholic]

rose321 . . .

Does God give a bill of divorce to Israel?
If so why?

.

Good question rose321.

In the New Covenant there is the grace of a Sacramental Marriage now.

Graces that flow from our Lord Jesus Christ and His work on Calvary.

In the Old Covenant if THIS standard would have been applied without the grace to live it out, the Old Covenant adherents would just kill their spouses the Roman Catechism teaches (if I recall correctly).

Sometimes this occurs even with New Covenant graces (just like Henry the 8th). But this is a case of “graces spurned”, not “graces unavailable”.

The Old Covenant culminating in the killing of our Lord Jesus was at least a prefigurement if not a macrocosm of this concept of lack of grace that we now DO receive in the New Covenant.

 

[rose321]

In the New Covenant there is the grace of a Sacramental Marriage now.

Respectfully thank you for your reply! Peace

 

[rcwitness]

I think there are grounds for divorce in certain instances (including here, as you mention “pornea”), but I think you are correct regarding NOTHING permissive concerning divorce AND remarriage.

So what do you take Matthew’s exception clause as referring to?

1.) Adultery in a valid marriage which can be divorced, but NOT remarry?

Or

2.) A divorce of a non Christian marriage by a couple who joined through porneia? (Note: I believe the porneia can be charged to one spouse but not the other in certain cases).

 

[rcwitness]

What is quite significant to me about the exception clause, is that both St Jerome and St Augustine seemed to believe Jesus was referring to adultery in a Christian marriage, but that remarriage was still not lawful.

While i think the two practices are compatible, i dont think that the Teaching of Jesus can be taken both ways.

He either was referring to a marriage (secular and physical only) which can be divorced, or He was referring to a case of adultery which had grounds for divorce.

I dont believe He could have meant both concepts together, since they are quite different from one another. Even if both could deny a second marriage while both spouses still live.

Especially, because in a case of porneia, where a marriage of incest or premarital sex or same sex unions is “released”, the persons are free to marry anew.

 

[Cathoholic]

rcwitness:

So what do you take Matthew’s exception clause as referring to?

I don’t know.

I’ve heard good arguments for an invalid “marriage” in the first place.

Steve Wood talks about that. (Incest was the example Wood uses but its been a few years since I heard Steve’s talk on this).

I’ve also heard reasonable expositions that are broader having to do with people who ARE validly married.

But I am SURE that whatever it is, it would NOT ALLOW a Sacramental Marriage to be put asunder where one of the Sacramentally Married people can then get “RE-MARRIED”.

I am sure, the exception clause does not allow divorce and subsequent “re-marriage.”

(until the death of one of the married in that Sacramental Marriage. And sometimes, not even then such as if King Henry 8th murders one of his “wives” that would not “free” him to marry. I think the theologians call this “crimen” or “crimea”?)

I know that doesn’t really answer your question. When I get close to a computer (I’m behind an android), possibly I’ll attempt to put forth something better in a day or two?

 

[Cathoholic]

rcwitness:

So what do you take Matthew’s exception clause as referring to?

I did some more research.

I am sorry rcwitness. I could not find what you were looking for.

The best I can do is what the “exception clause” DOESN’T refer to.

 

[Cathoholic]

rose321:

Respectfully thank you for your reply! Peace

.

You are welcome.

I was doing some research on another related aspect (see above post) and came across the Roman Catechism quote on Marriage that I wanted to post for you (so if you wanted it for your reference files you would have it).

Here it is . . . . .

ROMAN CATECHISM
Marriage before Christ
.
It Was Not A Sacrament
.
How much the Sacrament of Matrimony is superior to the marriages made both previous to and under the (Mosaic) Law may be judged from the fact that though the Gentiles themselves were convinced there was something divine in marriage, and for that reason regarded promiscuous intercourse as contrary to the law of nature, while they also considered fornication, adultery and other kinds of impurity to be punishable offences; yet their marriages never had any sacramental value.
.
Among the Jews the laws of marriage were observed far more religiously, and it cannot be doubted that their unions were endowed with more holiness. As they had received from God the promise that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed," it was justly considered by them to be a very pious duty to bring forth children, and thus contribute to the propagation of the chosen people from whom Christ the Lord and Saviour was to derive His birth in His human nature. Still their unions also fell short of the real nature of a Sacrament.