Matthew's Exception Clause

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You haven’t answered my question. What kind of “expertise” did you expect to find here?
 
Someone explaining Koine Greek knowledge, someone providing examples of similar expressions of the sentence.

Someone claiming some knowledge of Koine Greek education.

Someone providing articles and scholarly explanations…

Ya know, educated explanaitions…
 
rcwitness said:
Someone claiming some knowledge of Koine Greek education.
Click to expand...
“In the exception clause, why did Jesus use the word porneia rather than moicheia?” That’s the only question I remember seeing on this thread that calls for some knowledge of Koine Greek. Were there any others?
 
And are you still genuinely interested in finding someone who could give you an authoritative answer to that question, drawing on their expert knowledge of Koine Greek?
 
Authoritive? I doubt that will be possible.

But yes, id like to hear expert opinions. Or at least educated opinions
 
Okay, I’ll do my best to find somebody who has the necessary qualifications. Of course, it may mean that you will have to carry on the discussion on another website instead of here at CAF. I’ll get back to you.
 
rcwitness said:
Yes. But again, its not a Sacramental divorce.
Click to expand...
Of that I am not so sure. What the Pope binds on earth is also bound in heaven by virtue of his Keys? If God’s representative on earth has authority, one could deem he wields sacramental powers?
 
ericc said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Yes. But again, its not a Sacramental divorce.
Click to expand...
Of that I am not so sure. What the Pope binds on earth is also bound in heaven by virtue of his Keys? If God’s representative on earth has authority, one could deem he wields sacramental powers?
Click to expand...
Right. But the Pope is not binding the Sacrament. In fact he is declaring it “open” until consumation.

Maybe like a pending period?
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Right. But the Pope is not binding the Sacrament. In fact he is declaring it “open” until consumation.

Maybe like a pending period?
Click to expand...
Not really. Can. 1142 says 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. I interpret that the marriage has been validly sacramented but not consummated. Assuming the couple split, there is no “open nor pending” period for consummation, at least for this particular case. Such situation may arise when there is a risk of one of the spouse being seriously at risk of losing his/her faith due to the actions of the other spouse. Such as one of them converted to a “hostile or unfriendly” religion and the other spouse is expected to comply eventually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top