C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Jesus doesnt make “an exception” for grave sin.
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
Clearly, you have been unable to defend the practice of annulments. I know it is difficult–it is not easily defendable.
Go in peace.
I pray that they will see that our God is a God of love, mercy, and forgiveness. He knows that we are weak and does not condemn us with legalistic proclamations. He sees our hearts and listens to our heartfelt confessions. He heals our wounds with the soothing balm of compassion.
Slava Isusu Christu!
M
Mickey
Guest
Oh my! Are you saying that Jesus Christ will not forgive the sinner of a grave sin?
Now I’m outta here!
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
I agree it’s a grave sin to divorce, just as it’s a grave sin to lie about the existence of a marriage in the first place but through the Church we have the opportunity to repent, confess our sins and be forgiven. Why is the case of this sin different than others?
God Himself made a exception for our weakness by choosing to become Incarnate for our sake. I’m not sure this attitude is what Christ intended.
Christ Himself makes an exception to divorce.
So it’s not a blanket rule, God can’t contradict Himself, so if Christ is willing to make an exception why can’t the Church, that is the Body of Christ make an exception as well?
R
roncriss
Guest
Mickey,
I notice you didn’t answer the question. I’ve only had one wife. There is no “log” to remove. But it was just this sort of prevarication and dissimulation that caused me to leave the Orthodox Church for the one, holy and Catholic Church. It is the only church that maintains the received doctrine and does not seek to justify and explain away compromises with sin. When I was Orthodox I witnessed several converts who left the Catholic Church simply because the Catholic Church refused to annul a legitimate marriage, while the Orthodox Church was only too willing to recognize the adulterous union as equally as to subject itself to obedience to a secular state.
You have the facts. Now you are responsible for the knowledge.
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
That is a fualty translation. The Greek word here translated as “marital unfaithfulness” is actually the Greek word “porneia”, rendered as “fornication” in the faulty Protestant translations relied on by english-speaking Orthodox.
Protestants pretend that this contradicts Christ’s clear injunction and allows the very thing He speaks against, an adulterous marriage. But the Catholic NAB renders the verse more accurately:
Matthew 5:31
30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
31 "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’
32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
In other words Jesus forbids all divorce. Clearly He is not talking about adultery because He says that whoever divorces or marries a woman CAUSES her to commit adultery. That porneia does not mean “adultery” is evident by the fact that a separate greek word MEANING adultery appears together with it in the same passage.
St Clement of Alexandria, who certainly knew the greek language better than your protestant sources, as I have quoted to you two times already, interprets porneia as a bigamous marriage, one that is illegitimate from the inception. In other words no legitimate marriage at all, one that would be null and recognized as such by a Catholic tribunal and resulting in an annullment.
The Catholic Church’s doctrine follows the Lord’s commandment, Scripture and the Fathers as is evident here, while Orthodoxy seeks to evade the clear words of Scripture:
1 Corinthians 7
8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9 But if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
10 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): 7 a wife should not separate from her husband
11 --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.
Note: Paul specifically states this is “from the Lord”. The Scripture is clear. Orthodox defy it.
(I will post separately an article I wrote on this topic)
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
The Fathers on Divorce (Pt 1)
Matt 19:
19:1Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say, and he left Galilee and came into the territory of Judaea on the far side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him and he healed them there. 3Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, ‘Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?’ 4He answered, ‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female 5and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh? *[Gn 1:17; 2:24] 6They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’ 7They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’ *[Dt 24:1. On Mt’s exception in v. 9, see 5:32.] 8He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning. 9Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife-I am not speaking of an illicit marriage-and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’
10The disciples said to him, ‘If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.’ 11But he replied, ‘It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted. 12There are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’
The Fathers on Divorce
Most Protestants and Orthodox argue that Jesus allowed divorce when He allowed an exception for “porneia”. Orthodox and Protestant Bibles tend to interpret the word “porneia” to mean fornication or unchastity. Good Catholic Bibles generally interpret the word to mean “illegitimate marriages”. As you will see, St Clement (c.150-211/216), an ancient Greek Father whose first lanugage was greek, interpreted it the way the Catholic Church does. First here is the Scripture in question:
Matthew 5
31’It has also been said, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a writ of dismissal. *[Dt 24:1.] 32But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit marriage, *[Marriage within the Jewish forbidden degrees, allowed by the Romans but not in Christianity.] makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Divorce for adultery was already legal under Roman law and was accepted by some Jewish authorities. There was some debate on the issue and the inquisitors were trying to get Jesus to side with one of the parties in the dispute.
Continued…
Matt 19:
19:1Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say, and he left Galilee and came into the territory of Judaea on the far side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him and he healed them there. 3Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, ‘Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?’ 4He answered, ‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female 5and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh? *[Gn 1:17; 2:24] 6They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’ 7They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’ *[Dt 24:1. On Mt’s exception in v. 9, see 5:32.] 8He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning. 9Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife-I am not speaking of an illicit marriage-and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’
10The disciples said to him, ‘If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.’ 11But he replied, ‘It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted. 12There are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’
The Fathers on Divorce
Most Protestants and Orthodox argue that Jesus allowed divorce when He allowed an exception for “porneia”. Orthodox and Protestant Bibles tend to interpret the word “porneia” to mean fornication or unchastity. Good Catholic Bibles generally interpret the word to mean “illegitimate marriages”. As you will see, St Clement (c.150-211/216), an ancient Greek Father whose first lanugage was greek, interpreted it the way the Catholic Church does. First here is the Scripture in question:
Matthew 5
31’It has also been said, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a writ of dismissal. *[Dt 24:1.] 32But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit marriage, *[Marriage within the Jewish forbidden degrees, allowed by the Romans but not in Christianity.] makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Divorce for adultery was already legal under Roman law and was accepted by some Jewish authorities. There was some debate on the issue and the inquisitors were trying to get Jesus to side with one of the parties in the dispute.
Continued…
R
roncriss
Guest
Fathers on Divorce (Pt 2)
For Jesus to have said that it was legitmate to divorce over adultery would have been to concede to them the Roman position. But if we examine the greek we discover that the interpretation of porneia as “adultery” makes no sense because the actual greek word for “adultery” appears together in the same passage. A woman who had an adulterous relationship with a man would have been committing adultery, not fornication. Obviously the word “porneia” cannot, then, mean adultery or unchastity, as some Bibles translate the word.
What Jesus has in mind here are the Jewish laws concerning illegitimate marriages, such as bigamous marriages, marriage between a sister and brother, or marriage to a brother’s wife (as Herod did and was criticized for it by St John the Baptist). In other words this refers to a marriage which would be illegitimate or annuled in Catholic practice. That St Clement held to the Catholic interpetation is clear in the quote which follows:
“Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release
from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not
put away thy wife, except for the cause of porneia;’ and it
regards as porneia, the marriage of those separated while the
other is alive…‘He that taketh a woman that has been put away,’ it is said, ‘committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,’ that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.”
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,2:24(A.D. 202),in ANF,II:379
Clement states that Scripture “regards as porneia, the marriage
of those separated while the other is alive.” In other words, as the
Catholic Church says, a marriage that is illegal from the start, in
this case because it involves the marriage of someone who is already
married to another. Then he says the person who marries a woman who
is already married commits adultery and sins “for did he not take
her, she would return to her husband.” In other words he expects her
to return to her husband after committing adultery. This proves the
Protestant/Orthodox interpretation is incorrect and that Clement conforms to the teaching of St Paul, which he, Paul, claims is from God:
1 Corinthians 7
8To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me. 9But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up. 10To the married I give this ruling, and this is not mine but the Lord’s: a wife must not be separated from her husband- 11or if she has already left him, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband-and a husband must not divorce his wife.
As you see, Orthodoxy and protestantism both violate the Scriptural precepts by allowing divorce and re-marriage.
Ron Criss
For Jesus to have said that it was legitmate to divorce over adultery would have been to concede to them the Roman position. But if we examine the greek we discover that the interpretation of porneia as “adultery” makes no sense because the actual greek word for “adultery” appears together in the same passage. A woman who had an adulterous relationship with a man would have been committing adultery, not fornication. Obviously the word “porneia” cannot, then, mean adultery or unchastity, as some Bibles translate the word.
What Jesus has in mind here are the Jewish laws concerning illegitimate marriages, such as bigamous marriages, marriage between a sister and brother, or marriage to a brother’s wife (as Herod did and was criticized for it by St John the Baptist). In other words this refers to a marriage which would be illegitimate or annuled in Catholic practice. That St Clement held to the Catholic interpetation is clear in the quote which follows:
“Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release
from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not
put away thy wife, except for the cause of porneia;’ and it
regards as porneia, the marriage of those separated while the
other is alive…‘He that taketh a woman that has been put away,’ it is said, ‘committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,’ that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.”
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,2:24(A.D. 202),in ANF,II:379
Clement states that Scripture “regards as porneia, the marriage
of those separated while the other is alive.” In other words, as the
Catholic Church says, a marriage that is illegal from the start, in
this case because it involves the marriage of someone who is already
married to another. Then he says the person who marries a woman who
is already married commits adultery and sins “for did he not take
her, she would return to her husband.” In other words he expects her
to return to her husband after committing adultery. This proves the
Protestant/Orthodox interpretation is incorrect and that Clement conforms to the teaching of St Paul, which he, Paul, claims is from God:
1 Corinthians 7
8To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me. 9But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up. 10To the married I give this ruling, and this is not mine but the Lord’s: a wife must not be separated from her husband- 11or if she has already left him, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband-and a husband must not divorce his wife.
As you see, Orthodoxy and protestantism both violate the Scriptural precepts by allowing divorce and re-marriage.
Ron Criss
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
The poor Greek Orthodox Church and it’s poor understanding of the Greek language. 
So according to you the proper translation of the word porneia is, and therefore that passage is “whoever divorces his wife for any reason except (that that marriage be declared null by a tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church)”?
I simply don’t buy that.
And by the way, since you say the Church makes no exception whatsoever to divorce what is the Petrine and Pauline privilege?
So according to you the proper translation of the word porneia is, and therefore that passage is “whoever divorces his wife for any reason except (that that marriage be declared null by a tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church)”?
I simply don’t buy that.
And by the way, since you say the Church makes no exception whatsoever to divorce what is the Petrine and Pauline privilege?
R
roncriss
Guest
He knows we are weak, but He does not condone or approve sin, much less aduletrous sexual sin. Your “compassion” is nothing more than the typical progressive license. That is the same argument that many make to approve homosexuality, sodomy and homosexual marriage. Will the Orthodox churches soon recognize homosexuality and homosexual marriages because “He knows that we are weak and does not condemn us with legalistic proclamations”? They must if your argument has any merits. The law of logical non-contradiction requires it.
God has compassion on those who REPENT of sinful behaviors. His compassion does not condone sin, sexual sin resulting from lust or otherwise.
Readers, choose which church you will follow, the one that follows our Lord’s commandments, or the one that flouts them in the name of a false “compassion”.
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
No, Joseph. I didn’t define the word “porneia”. The Greeks did that themselves, as was shown by the words of the St Clement of Alexandria. Now who are you going to trust to define an ancient Greek word here? A 2nd Century Greek father who SPOKE ancient Greek, or a 17th Century Protestant translator? You do know, of course, that English-speaking Orthodox for the most part use the KJV or a derivative, don’t you?The poor Greek Orthodox Church and it’s poor understanding of the Greek language.
So according to you the proper translation of the word porneia is, and therefore that passage is “whoever divorces his wife for any reason except (that that marriage be declared null by a tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church)”?
I simply don’t buy that.
And by the way, since you say the Church makes no exception whatsoever to divorce what is the Petrine and Pauline privilege?
The so-called “Petrine Priveledge” or, more properly the “Pauline Priveledge” stems from St Paul’s words and applies only to a marriage between a Christian and an un-baptized pagan. We return once again to Paul’s words in his epistle to the Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 7
10 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): 7 a wife should not separate from her husband
11 --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest 8 I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her;
13 and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband.
14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy.
15 If the unbeliever separates, 9 however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace.
Note that this refers to a secular or pagan marriage between a Christian and an un-baptized pagan. Let’s remember our context here. Don’t try to distract. We are discussing the fact that the Orthodox Church allows the divorce and re-marriage of two baptized Christians in a legitimate sacramental and Christian marriage. I refer you again to verses 10 thru 11.
No one here has advocated the recognition of secular or pagan marriages as legitimate.
Ron
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Lets approach this from another angle. I’m far from an expert in Catholic canon law so I hope you can provide me with some examples. What are some legitimate grounds for an annulment?
R
roncriss
Guest
Joseph,
OK, I will assume you accepted my argument since you no longer address it. Now to move on to your present question:
A reason for annulment is called an diriment impediment to the marriage. Diriment impediments, such as being brother and sister, or being married to another person at the time of the wedding, prevent such a marriage from being contracted at all, the result is a putative marriage.
Diriment impediments or grounds for annulment include:
Consanguinity (such as marriage of brother and sister)
Psychological state precluding ability to consent. (A mentally ill or handicapped person, for example, would lack responsibility for consent)
No intention, when marrying, to remain faithful to the spouse (simulation of consent)
No intention, when marrying, to have children
Deception of one party by the other in order to obtain consent, and if the partner had been aware of the truth, would not have consented to marry
Abduction with the intent to compel marriage (known as raptus), constitutes an impediment as long as he/she remains in the kidnapper’s power.
Failure to adhere to requirements of canon law for marriages, such as clandestinity (Lack of priest witness)
Impediment of Crime, bringing about physically (or through moral cooperation) the death of one’s own spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage
Undispensed lack of form
In short cases where the marriage was illegitimate from the start.
Ron
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
No I’m just not going to argue with you over translations of Greek words. It’s not only the English speaking Orthodox who make an exception it’s the entire Church.
And BTW do you know how the word porneia is rendered in the Vulgate?
You know this is one of the silliest discussions I’ve been a part of for a while. Christ makes an exception (fornication), St Paul makes an exception (marriage to a non-Christian) and the Church through it’s power to bind and loose makes an exception. For a person from a Church who puts so much stock in the Popes’ Apostolic succession and his resulting authority you put no faith whatsoever on the Church’s ability to bind and loose.
This is the bottom line. Whether you receive an ecclesiastical divorce from the Orthodox Church or an annulment from the Catholic Church the result is exactly the same, two people who lived together as a married couple, had sexual relations as a married couple and may very well have raised children as a married couple are no longer together. The only difference is the Catholic Church seeks to make a lie out possibly years of the couples lives not to mention their children.
Doesn’t that sound like exactly what Jesus warned about the Pharisee’s? Putting legalistic interpretations of Scripture ahead of love.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Porneia is rendered fornicationis in the Vulgate and fornication in the DOUAY-RHEIMS. It’s obvious that the word means some kind of sexual misconduct.
R
roncriss
Guest
Joseph,You know this is one of the silliest discussions I’ve been a part of for a while. Christ makes an exception (fornication), St Paul makes an exception (marriage to a non-Christian) and the Church through it’s power to bind and loose makes an exception. For a person from a Church who puts so much stock in the Popes’ Apostolic succession and his resulting authority you put no faith whatsoever on the Church’s ability to bind and loose.
This is the bottom line. Whether you receive an ecclesiastical divorce from the Orthodox Church or an annulment from the Catholic Church the result is exactly the same, two people who lived together as a married couple, had sexual relations as a married couple and may very well have raised children as a married couple are no longer together. The only difference is the Catholic Church seeks to make a lie out possibly years of the couples lives not to mention their children.
Doesn’t that sound like exactly what Jesus warned about the Pharisee’s? Putting legalistic interpretations of Scripture ahead of love.
I can’t vouch for the silliness of your arguments. But it is not phariseeical hair-splitting to obey the commandments of Christ. Christ allows that porneia, that is an illegitimate marriage, may be abandoned. St Paul cites Jesus and allows that a secular marriage between a pagan and a baptized Christian is not binding. Note that he admits this is HIS estimation, not our Lord’s, as he states quite clearly concerning the previous commandment on re-marriage after divorce.
You may call me pharisaical for accepting the commandments of our Lord and St Paul if you like. As for me and mine, we will stick with the Lord. When you stand in judgement you can attempt to explain to Him how He was wrong about all this. But I think I will not be able to even stand in His presence, let alone correct Him. But hey, that’s just me!
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
St Clement told you what it means. I’m not going to quote him a third time. BTW, the so-called Douay-Rheims you speak about, the favorite of Trads, is in reality the Challoner revision, which was based ON the Protestant KJV:
bible-researcher.com/challoner.html
Regardless, logic should tell you that a translation is only as good as it is accurate. The word “fornication” dervies from the Gk “porneia”. What is at issue here is not how Challoner decided to translate the word or borrow it from the KJV, but what the original word means. The authoritative NAB translates the verse thus:
31 "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’
32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Porneia is an unlawful (i.e. bigamous, as Clement said) re-marriage. In short Jesus only allows separation due to the impediment of an unlawful or illegitimate marriage.
To return to our original topic, the Orthodox don’t make any of these requirments. They recognize divorces of legitimate marriages in the name of economia. They make no pretense of only granting re-marriage in thecase of illegitimate marriages only, as does the Catholic Church. This all comes from efforts by Protestants and Orthodox to side-step the clear commandments of Jesus and Paul in an efort to get them to approve their adulteries. A dishonest and shameful attempt!
Ron
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
That’s a typical Protestant argument. You disagree with their interpretation of Scripture and they acuse you of disagreeing with God. It’s a tactic used to play on peoples emotions and has no place in rational debate.
As to Christ’s commandment and the Pauline privilege Christ made no distinction as to who was married so according to your logic St Paul is advocating violating Christ’s commandment. Surely your not saying that are you?
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
So instead you attempt to sidetrack Christ’s prohibition by lying about the existence of the marriage to begin with? You make a farce of the proceedings and make a lie out of peoples lives and their children. Talk about shameful and dishonest.
V
VARC
Guest
If a person’s marriage was not legitimate in the first place, why would he/she have to spend 100s(1000s?) of dollars to have an ecclesiastical court declare it? Why couldn’t they just leave there nonspouse and get married to somebody else?
How can irreconcilible differences be grounds for an annulment? How does the fact that spouses fight with each other prove that their marriage never happened?
How can irreconcilible differences be grounds for an annulment? How does the fact that spouses fight with each other prove that their marriage never happened?
- Status