T
Thorns
Guest
Yes as a matter of fact, it appears Jesus was crystal clear. Yet, the Catholic Church ignores this simple statement. Why?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
It is not ignored, rather followed. Catechism has: 2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176
2383 The *separation *of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. 2384 *Divorce *is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
174 Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll.175 Cf. Mt 19:7-9.
176 CIC, can. 1141.
177 Cf. CIC, cann. 1151-1155.
178 St. Basil, Moralia 73,1
G 31,849-852.Haydock commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 5:32: “But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”
Excepting the cause of fornication. A divorce or separation as to bed and board, may be permitted for some weighty causes in Christian marriages; but even then, he that marrieth her that is dismissed, commits adultery. As to this, there is no exception. The bond of marriage is perpetual; and what God hath joined, no power on earth can separate. See again Matt. xix. 9. Wi. — The knot of marriage is so sacred a tie, that the separation of the parties cannot loosen it, it being not lawful for either of the parties to marry again upon a divorce. Aug. de bon. conjug. c. vii. B.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
Well, this is a little technical, but the fact is that the Church does recognize divorce. No one can obtain an annulment (in the US, anyway) until they have got a civil divorce or dissolution. In short, a civil divorce is a prerequisite for an annulment.
I
Incomplete
Guest
You do receive both an annulment and a divorce. The Church won’t start the annulment process until a couple has been divorced. The Church doesn’t say the marriage didn’t exist; it says a valid marriage didn’t exist. In other words, the marriage didn’t meet criteria to make it a valid marriage in the eyes of God (for example, if the couple was never open to having children, it was never a valid marriage). If they said no marriage of any kind had existed, they would essentially be saying that the couple who had thought they were married were actually living in a state of mortal sin because the marriage never existed.
P
ProVobis
Guest
A civil annulment is also possible. That may be granted if there was no consummation and/or if one wasn’t married in full consciousness (drunk, etc.). I’m not sure if an annulment by the Church is needed in this case.
I
Incomplete
Guest
Yes, that is a possibility. I don’t know if you would still need the Church to declare you marriage annulled or not, either, though I kind of suspect you might.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
But the Roman Catholic Church requires a married couple to divorce before proceeding with the annulment process.
V
Veridical16
Guest
Vico answered your question pretty well, I hope that helps in understanding Jesus’ and His Church.
Protestants now interpret that as Jesus saying “a wife or husband cheating” is an exception for allowing divorce…but if that were so? Why did it take King Henry the VIII, for that Christian understanding to become adopted???
The verse , " Let No man put asunder what God has joined together" ALSO points to the Catholic Church correctly understanding the hermeneutics of the Truer Greek Translation of “porneia” fornication …unlawful marriages.
For if Divorce was allowed due to mere infidelity? Then that means MAN*** IS*** CAPABLE OF BREAKING UP THE MARRIAGE through his own powers.
King Henry VIII’s life is now an inadvertent defense for the Indissolubility of Marriage. That people died, because of his difficulties in putting away his wife, because he understood the position of Christ well (In Defense of the Seven Sacraments by King Henry VIII), demonstrates, it is not as simple as* “except for unfaithfulness”*
One would think King Henry VIII would have falsely accused his wife of unfaithfulness. One would think one would have to just commit adultery to give the husband or wife cause for divorce??
The interpretation that “unfaithfulness” is valid cause for divorce is unreasonable for even if it were a one and done trespass by the spouse. We’d have to overlook Jesus emphasizing Repentance and striving our best to reconcile before it gets to the point where a wife or husband may have to separate or not live together anymore , but not divorce. (ex: unrepentant abusive husband /or wife )
C
chimo
Guest
You have to live in the Orthodox Church to know what I mean by those words of my post. I do not question the morals of which the Church of Rome goes by. In truth she has a great discipline for one to admire. What I was trying to say in my post is on certain matters she might be interpreted to give a certain action of sin as mortal when it was only venial in its nature. This does not mean the person who judges is not in accordance to what the Church teaches but sometimes a person may interpret an action or sin with too much judgment than it deserves. The point of my post was not the sin in question but rather the judgment of some person who may give the sin in question too much higher judgment than it deserves. As Christians as it is in human nature the question may be are we judging correctly. It was only a point of my post that in certain conditions from experiencing both Catholic and Orthodox Churches that the Orthodox do have a far less judgmental view on certain conditions of an action of sin than do the Catholic Church when they are forming their judgment. It was from experiencing this I find the Orthodox most helpful in determining some conditions that needed their (name removed by moderator)ut, listening to their judgment rather than to some Catholics who were interpreting the same action as more sinful than what the Orthodox would. I do not question the moral teachings of any Church. It is sometimes the interpretation of certain judgments that might needs correction.
V
Vico
Guest
Civil divorce is not always a moral offense. The Catechism is clear:
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law.*** It claims to break the contract***, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. …
T
Thorns
Guest
But it’s not a matter of man separating what God has joined, it is God separating what God has joined. Jesus did say, as I quoted in my earlier post, “unless she was unfaithful…” It is quite clear.
T
Thorns
Guest
Again, it would not be a matter of man breaking up marriage in the case of unfaithfullness, it would be a matter of God breaking up the marriage.
The passage that I quoted of what Jesus said some posts back did not say “separation”, He was specifically talking about “divorce” and He did say “Whoever marries another, unless they were unfaithfull, commits adultery.” So not only is Jesus not talking about separation, He is actually talking about divorce and re-marriage and His words are crystal clear, simple, and straight forward. How do you come to any other conclusions?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
He does NOT say’ unless they were unfaithful.
He says unless the MARRIAGE ITSELF was UNLAWFUL.
have you forgotten that in the time of Jesus, Jews did divorce and remarry? It was THOSE MARRIAGES MADE AFTER DIVORCE which WERE UNLAWFUL.
Crystal clear indeed, and perfectly Catholic.
T
Thorns
Guest
Sorry, but the different wording in different Bible versions do not say that, they say…
Unless the she was unfaithful
Unless there was fornication
Unless she commits adultery
Again, how do you come to any other conclusions about what Jesus said when it’s so straight forward?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Because my conclusions are correct, that’s why.
Fornication: Because the person, if previously unmarried to another, who marries a man–or woman–who is divorced from another is fornicating.
Adultery: Because the person who is divorced from another person, and remarries without a decree of nullity, is committing adultery. . .
therefore, unfaithful.
Honestly, I cannot see how you cannot clearly see that the Church’s teaching is so straightforward and clearly expressed by Jesusin exactly this way:
Have you forgotten Christ’s words were right after He told the Jewish people that divorce was not part of God’s law? That one could not separate what God had joined asunder?
Tell me how your ‘interpretation’ makes sense when put in the context of Christ’s words.
Christ did not say, "Oh a man and a woman are joined for life (remember, this is part of marriage vows) unless later on one of them cheats. Because of course, even though marriage is for better or worse, ‘cheating’ is different. "
He had already noted that men and women had been given laws allowing exactly this kind of divorce for the reason of ‘unfaithfulness’ and then subsequent remarriage, but noted that this was not what God had declared or designed for marriage.
So, if Jesus had gone on to say that “marriage is for keeps, except if there is cheating”. . .then why would He have had to speak up at all? The ‘cheating’ 'exception was exactly what was going on in that present-law Jewish divorce law. .Jesus would have had no reason to condemn it, if God were going to uphold it!
V
Vico
Guest
Here is something on that topic (Mt 5:32) from the Church, by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:The unchastity clauses have been the object of fierce debate among exegetes from the beginning. Many take the view that they refer not to exceptions to the indissolubility of marriage, but to invalid marital unions. Clearly, however, the Church cannot build its doctrine and practice on controversial exegetical hypotheses. She must adhere to the clear teaching of Christ. Saint Paul presents the prohibition on divorce as the express will of Christ: “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor 7:10-11). At the same time he permits, on his own authority, that a non-Christian may separate from a partner who has become Christian. In this case, the Christian is “not bound” to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:12-16). On the basis of this passage, the Church has come to recognize that only a marriage between a baptized man and a baptized woman is a sacrament in the true sense, and only in this instance does unconditional indissolubility apply. The marriage of the unbaptized is indeed ordered to indissolubility, but can under certain circumstances – for the sake of a higher good – be dissolved (privilegium Paulinum). Here, then, we are not dealing with an exception to our Lord’s teaching. The indissolubility of sacramental marriage, that is to say, marriage that takes place within the mystery of Christ, remains assured.
Of greater significance for the biblical basis of the sacramental view of marriage is the Letter to the Ephesians, where we read: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her” (*Eph * 5:25). And shortly afterwards, the Apostle adds: “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:31-32). Christian marriage is an effective sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church. Because it designates and communicates the grace of this covenant, marriage between the baptized is a sacrament.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/muller/rc_con_cfaith_20131023_divorziati-risposati-sacramenti_en.html
- Status