Matthew's Exception Clause

[rcwitness]

But Jesus was establishing the New Sacrament.

 

[Gorgias]

But Jesus was establishing the New Sacrament.

In context, he was answering a question about the proper interpretation of the Mosaic covenant.

Yes, he continued that train of thought in His New Covenant. However, the question as asked (and as answered) dealt with the prescriptions found in Deuteronomy.

 

[rcwitness]

Not limited to. He put that objection down, as “heardness of heart”.

 

[rcwitness]

Remember, He said the same thing outside of that context, in Matthew 5:32

Its true (and relavent) that He didnt use that word “porneia”, since He spoke Aramaic. Its also possible that Matthew was inspired to insert what was relative to the matter of his direct community.

In any case, the word porneia has meaning, and as Catholics we believe that it does NOT mean adultery! So what does it mean?

Its logical to underatand it to refer to marriages that were contracted by the State, but were not lawfully binding by God (through the Christian priesthood of both spouses).

 

[ericc]

In Matt 15 Jesus is asked a question about his disciples not washing their hands before meals, which he answers with a remark about filial duty, “honor thy father and thy mother”. He doesn’t always stick closely to the subject when he answers the Pharisees’ questions.

Even if what you said about Mat 15 is true, it is at most a fallacious argument. ie. what is true for Mat 15 is true for all others.

For Mat 15, Jesus did answer the pharisees/scribes in verses 11-20. But that was after giving them an earful of what he thought of them.

 

[ericc]

But Jesus condemned the concession of Moses. He referred back to what God binds.

You are mixing aspects here. The examples you are giving (bestiality, same sex, incest) were not binding by God.

Why would God bind such unions???

The Mosaic laws allow divorce for these reasons. What is your point then?

But a man and woman couple, who are free to legally marry, and do get married in Christian consent, are bound by God. For this, Jesus says nothing can dissolve.

But if the couple are commiting porneia by being together, then their “release” is proper.

I am not objecting to divorce that is permitted for proper reasons. The Church allows it for various reasons. But perhaps your issue if not so much as of divorce but the remarriage bit?

Yes marriage is a triparty covenant. The husband and wife swears to God to live it through. Even if husband and wife agrees the marriage was not working, nothing they can do , except death, can revoke it because being a tri-party covenant, God’s assent is required. Oaths to God are not to be lightly taken because one is unlikely to get a divine sign of revocation.

 

[rcwitness]

The Mosaic laws allow divorce for these reasons. What is your point then?

Mosaic law may have offered a divorce, but that was not from God, as Jesus convicted us. That its not a true divorce (according to the faith, but a true divorce according to the State), but a recognition that it was not binding by God.

I am not objecting to divorce that is permitted for proper reasons. The Church allows it for various reasons. But perhaps your issue if not so much as of divorce but the remarriage bit?

No! The Church does NOT permit divorce. The Church permits separation when reconciliation is denied, as long as neither has another sexual partner.

Yes marriage is a triparty covenant. The husband and wife swears to God to live it through. Even if husband and wife agrees the marriage was not working, nothing they can do , except death, can revoke it because being a tri-party covenant, God’s assent is required. Oaths to God are not to be lightly taken because one is unlikely to get a divine sign of revocation.

Right.

 

[ericc]

In any case, the word porneia has meaning, and as Catholics we believe that it does NOT mean adultery! So what does it mean?

Why do you think it exclude adultery? The general meaning of porneia INCLUDES adultery as well as other unspecified immoral sexual acts.

 

[rcwitness]

Because of the context, because the fact that the other Gospels do not mention it, because Paul specifically rejects it, because porneia and adultery are also used as different words in the same sentance sometimes.

If I am married, and i have sexual relations with someone other than my wife, it is adultery. It may be porneia too, but it is always adultery.

This is not what Jesus was talking about. He was saying if you and your wife are joined by porneia, and not by God, you are not bound by God, but commiting porneia.

 

[ericc]

Mosaic law may have offered a divorce, but that was not from God, as Jesus convicted us. That its not a true divorce (according to the faith, but a true divorce according to the State), but a recognition that it was not binding by God.

Mosaic laws are God’s laws. They are binding to the Jews. How did you determine that it was not binding by God? Jesus did not declare Mosaic laws non-binding. In Mat 5:17 he declared that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfilled them. When he came, he enhanced those laws.

No! The Church does NOT permit divorce. The Church permits separation when reconciliation is denied, as long as neither has another sexual partner.

You are right in one sense. It is called Separation with the Bond Remaining. But there are permitted cases of divorce i.e. Pauline Privilege, Petrine Privilege.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

 

[rcwitness]

Mosaic laws are God’s laws. They are binding to the Jews. How did you determine that it was not binding by God? Jesus did not declare Mosaic laws non-binding. In Mat 5:17 he declared that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfilled them. When he came, he enhanced those laws.

I could agree that God tolerated Moses’ concession in part. Perhaps adultery was not strictly held against one of these situations of remarriage. And yes, He brought Marriage to what God intended.

You are right in one sense. It is called Separation with the Bond Remaining. But there are permitted cases of divorce i.e. Pauline Privilege, Petrine Privilege. Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

Yes. But again, its not a Sacramental divorce.

Canon 1141:
Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum etconsummatum can be dissolved by no humanpower and by no cause, except death.

 

[rcwitness]

In light of the Teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the Council of Trent, it is accurate to understand the Matthew references to “porneia” as referring to marriages (or sexual unions) which are lacking Christian character and the priestly conferral of the Sacrament on one another (In general).

 

[BartholomewB]

In light of the Teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the Council of Trent, i

Quoting the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent isn’t going to get you very far if you’re in a discussion with a Protestant. Knowing what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject is one thing. Understanding what all the possible meanings are of this Greek word in this context is something else.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

In light of the Teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the Council of Trent, i

Quoting the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent isn’t going to get you very far if you’re in a discussion with a Protestant. Knowing what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject is one thing. Understanding what all the possible meanings are of this Greek word in this context is something else.

Im not worried about “Protestants”.

I want to understand whether Jesus meant a valid married couple with one person being unfaithful, or the unfaithfulness of the actual couple in some sort of invalid marriage.

It cant be both. They are too much of a different notion.

 

[BartholomewB]

I want to understand whether Jesus meant a valid married couple with one person being unfaithful,

You say you “want to understand,” but from everything you’ve posted on this thread up till now I had the impression that you’re very confident that you already know the answer. Are you still really searching for “understanding”?

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

I want to understand whether Jesus meant a valid married couple with one person being unfaithful,

You say you “want to understand,” but from everything you’ve posted on this thread up till now I had the impression that you’re very confident that you already know the answer. Are you still really searching for “understanding”?

Well who has made a solid case for Jesus to be talking about a spouse cheating?

Or where is there any sort of Teaching about this passage that distiguishes?

 

[BartholomewB]

In your OP you wrote: ”I would like to examine the greek language expressed by Matthew in these verses to try and understand them better.”

When you wrote that, were you really in doubt as to whether you had understood them correctly? Did you truly feel a need – in your own words – “to try and understand them better”?

 

[rcwitness]

Of course.

What expertise has been offered???

 

[BartholomewB]

What expertise has been offered???

What kind of “expertise” did you expect to find here? There are basically two alternative readings of “Matthew’s exception clause.” One is the Catholic reading, namely that porneia here means an illicit union, not a true marriage. The other is the usual Protestant reading, namely that porneia here means marital infidelity. If you were looking for a dialogue with people who could display their “expertise” in arguing the case for the latter view, you would have stood a better chance of finding what you were looking for on a Protestant website rather than a Catholic one. Did you consider that possibility?

 

[rcwitness]

Not exactly… many Catholics say that Jesus WAS talking about “cheating” and only meant a divorce, but not remarriage.

Again… to me, that sounds silly, and doesnt fit the text.

Even though Paul talked about a similar situation when a spouse must separate, they cannot remarry.