Protestant marriages, Catholic marriages?

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I think you have understood me to be saying the opposite of what I meant.

What I am saying is that many of the Protestants who are using their churches to marry so many times, or take marriage lightly, are either ignoring or paying lip service to the actual teachings of their churches. Just like the Catholics who do the same things. A Protestant who does that is not a good model to show what Protestants believe about marriage, any more than the Catholic who gives false reasons to receive an annulment is and then remarries in a Catholic Church. In both cases they are trying to “fool” the authorities - the tribunal, their pastor, God.

As far as your question, numerous posts have answered it.

Many Protestants do not feel that the verse, “What God has joined let no man put asunder” cannot be understood alone. [SIGN]They point out that Christ also explicitly gives cases where divorce is permissible. [/SIGN]From this they conclude the Catholic position that divorce is never allowed is incorrect.

Could you please show that verse to me. Thanks. While I can agree with you that many Catholic’s along with protestants do not obey the word of GOd, that still means the CHurch really has to be the one to set them straight. Catholic’s and Protestatants.

Trust me I agree with you 100% there are as many Catholic sinners as protestants. That is why we NEED the sacrament of Confession.

But Jesus said, he actually commented on divorece and said no. He said those who refuse to hear the word and obey are harden of hearts. Which means they refuse to obey the word of God. I am sure he was talking to Catholics and Protestants. But how do you get that to mean Jesus said divorce is acceptable? Thank-you for your reply and look forward to you answer. And thank-you for making yourself clearer.

 

[Bluegoat]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Could you please show that verse to me. Thanks. While I can agree with you that many Catholic’s along with protestants do not obey the word of GOd, that still means the CHurch really has to be the one to set them straight. Catholic’s and Protestatants.

Trust me I agree with you 100% there are as many Catholic sinners as protestants. That is why we NEED the sacrament of Confession.

But Jesus said, he actually commented on divorece and said no. He said those who refuse to hear the word and obey are harden of hearts. Which means they refuse to obey the word of God. I am sure he was talking to Catholics and Protestants. But how do you get that to mean Jesus said divorce is acceptable? Thank-you for your reply and look forward to you answer. And thank-you for making yourself clearer.

The verse is from Mathew 5:32… The KJV reads thus (the bolding, which is the important part for our purposes, is mine):

*31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. *

Some also feel that Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 is also saying that when a believer’s unbelieving spouse is not willing to be married any longer, the believer is free.

*12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. *

 

[adamjthompson]

How can Protestant Church’s accept divorce when God does not accept it. ANd how can you go to a Protestant church and hear what God has joined together let no man separate. Then time after time let it happen.

I don’t know. Can’t help you - you’ll have to ask someone who accepts divorce for their reasons.

 

[Reuben_J]

Bluegoat:

The verse is from Mathew 5:32… The KJV reads thus (the bolding, which is the important part for our purposes, is mine):

31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Reading just Mt5:32 on advice about divorce is insufficient and seems like an excuse for you Protestants to divorce. A full teaching on divorce should be read together with Mt 19 (KJV)
3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

**8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. **

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Divorce was allowed by Moses because of the hardness of hearts (unteachable). It was never like that from the beginning. For “that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: **and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”. **

That was very clear is it not? It was Moses who allowed divorce not God. Well, it is up to Christians today - whose word you want to follow, Jesus or Moses or those that were done in the OT?

They were not allowed to commit adultery but nothing was said about lust. Only when Jesus came it became an abhorent. And lust is a sin today. You cannot make an exception on divorce if really you are following the teaching of the Lord. The moral is - what God has joint together let do not man put asunder. That commandment has not been abrogated by Jesus!

 

[Reuben_J]

Jesus was only explaining to the Pharisees why divorce was practiced among the Jews not whether it was allowed. He made it clear it was not allowed and he gave reason as to why it was not allowed (let no man should put asunder).

Today you want to perpetuate what those hard of hearts did and not obeying what Jesus actually taught.

This is what happen when we water down the message of the Bible to make it easy to swallow.

(And goodness, why is that Luther tore so many pages away from the Bible too. Sorry, Catholic does not apologies for the hard truth of God’s word. Yes, it may be difficult for human to follow because we are human, but God also give us his grace so that we can follow and obey his word to the letters. He will not subject us to what we cannot do and follow. It is humans who are taking the easy way out).

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The verse is from Mathew 5:32… The KJV reads thus (the bolding, which is the important part for our purposes, is mine):

*31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32But [SIGN]I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication*, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [/SIGN]Some also feel that Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 is also saying that when a believer’s unbelieving spouse is not willing to be married any longer, the believer is free.

*12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. *

Please do not tell me that you see this as Jesus saying it is okay to divorce your husband and wife and commit adultery. Jesus said plain and clear that if a husband leaves his wife and sleeps with another he is commiting adultery and vice-versa. So how could you possibly commit adultery if you are not married. So please do not tell me that you believe that Jesus allowed mortal sin.

Is this the teaching of your Church?

 

[rinnie]

I don’t know. Can’t help you - you’ll have to ask someone who accepts divorce for their reasons.

Thank-you Adam that is wonderful to hear that your Church also does not accept divorce:thumbsup:

 

[rinnie]

Reading just Mt5:32 on advice about divorce is insufficient and seems like an excuse for you Protestants to divorce. A full teaching on divorce should be read together with Mt 19 (KJV)
3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

**8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. **

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Divorce was allowed by Moses because of the hardness of hearts (unteachable). It was never like that from the beginning. For “that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”.

That was very clear is it not? It was Moses who allowed divorce not God. Well, it is up to Christians today - whose word you want to follow, Jesus or Moses or those that were done in the OT?

They were not allowed to commit adultery but nothing was said about lust. Only when Jesus came it became an abhorent. And lust is a sin today. You cannot make an exception on divorce if really you are following the teaching of the Lord. The moral is - what God has joint together let do not man put asunder. That commandment has not been abrogated by Jesus!

Exactly Reuben Jesus was questioned about this and told them, Moses was pushed into this but it is not so. He said plain and clear its adultery and not acceptable.

 

[Bluegoat]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Please do not tell me that you see this as Jesus saying it is okay to divorce your husband and wife and commit adultery. Jesus said plain and clear that if a husband leaves his wife and sleeps with another he is commiting adultery and vice-versa. So how could you possibly commit adultery if you are not married. So please do not tell me that you believe that Jesus allowed mortal sin.

Is this the teaching of your Church?

Um, “saving for the cause of fornication” means, “except for fornication.” It means that you should not diviorce, if you do you are commiting adultery, unless you divorce because of fornication (in many translations “unfaithfulness”.)

What in the world do you think “saving for the cause of fornication” means?

I find it very weird - I have no problem if people want to make an argument that it needs to be understood a certian way - that is not the same as actually ignorning what it says, which so far everyone here has done.

 

[Reuben_J]

Um, “saving for the cause of fornication” means, “except for fornication.” It means that you should not diviorce, if you do you are commiting adultery, unless you divorce because of fornication (in many translations “unfaithfulness”.)

What in the world do you think “saving for the cause of fornication” means?

That was what Moses did. Jesus spoke about what Moses did. It was in the same breath when he said it is wrong to divorce because you cannot divide what God unite. He moved on to say Moses allowed it because you are unteachable but it was in the case of fornication only.

Theology wise there is no exception for divorce because it divides what God unites. He did not validate Moses law but rather rescinded it by saying that it was not so in the beginning … .

Jesus is merciful, loving and forgiving but one thing he did not is to compromise on sin. And divorce is disallowed simply because it IS against what marriage is meant for – it should not be put asunder. Never. Ever.

It would be a retrogression for Jesus to allow divorce and this never characterizes his teaching. Not only that you shall not kill but you should not even gossip for it kill the character. Not only you should not commit adultery but you should not even think about it! Not only you should not strike back but turn the other cheek to your assailant.

Christians who are faithful to the teaching of Jesus would do well to be able to see the spirit of his teaching and not to find ‘loophole’ so that they do not have to follow it. The Catholic Church is faithful to it and there is no other way to go about it – there should be no divorce simply because divorce is disallowed.

Jesus, and later Paul put a nail on this – if you cannot take up the responsibility of marriage then it is better for you to stay single.

I find it very weird - I have no problem if people want to make an argument that it needs to be understood a certian way - that is not the same as actually ignorning what it says, which so far everyone here has done.

There is no ignoring anything here. We cannot help it if some people refuse to acknowledge the thrust and the message of the Lord.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The verse is from Mathew 5:32… The KJV reads thus (the bolding, which is the important part for our purposes, is mine):

*31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication*, causeth her to commit adultery:[SIGN] and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [/SIGN]
Some also feel that Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 is also saying that when a believer’s unbelieving spouse is not willing to be married any longer, the believer is free.

*12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. *

Lets break it down to those words bluegoat. Pure and simple whoever marry’s her that is divorced is commited adultery. And this is from the KJV also not even the Catholic bible.

So how do you make THOSE words go away. Does it not bother you how you have to go to such extreme to have Jesus say something he didn’t. How you can get that some see this as Paul saying that if one spouse wants out, the other is off the hook is beyond me.

Especially when right under that if the wife is a believer and marrys a umbeliever let him not put her under which means divorce.

And then under that write if the wife believes and husband does not let her not leave him.

I mean for goodness sakes. Your own scripture says NOT LEAVE HIM. AND NOT PUT HER AWAY. How in the world do you get its okay to leave him or put her away from that scripture?

All Jesus is saying is that if one leaves and the other stays true to the vows and does not accept another until the other passes the one that stays true and honors that vow is not responsible for what the other does. Which is what the church also teaches. That is why we can get a legal separation because we did nothing wrong, but we cannot remarry until the other passes because in the eyes of the Church it was a true marriage. So we never commited adultery because we lived alone and did not accept another.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Um, “saving for the cause of fornication” means, “except for fornication.” [SIGN] It means that you should not diviorce, if you do you are commiting adultery, unless you divorce because of fornication (in many [/SIGN]translations “unfaithfulness”.)

What in the world do you think “saving for the cause of fornication” means?

I find it very weird - I have no problem if people want to make an argument that it needs to be understood a certian way - that is not the same as actually ignorning what it says, which so far everyone here has done.

What So are you saying that God is saying if the one spouse cheats he is commiting adultery. But if the other commits adultery because the other one did first its all good?

 

[Bluegoat]

The exception is in the part of the sentence where direction is being given on how to do things now. The Mosaic law allowed divorce under many other circumstances. In the passage, Christ comments on what was allowed and rejects it. He then goes on to state his position.

It’s as if I said,

“In the past we did not allow women to go to university. This is clearly wrong. Now I say, we must allow women to go to university, except when they do not meet the requirements, because women are just as capable as men.” It is always possible to put an exception to one’s general statement.

A subordinate clause like that doesn’t refer back to the previous topic, that is just a totally bizarre idea. It can only be justified by an a priori assumption about the meaning of the rest of the statement as being necessarily exclusive of such an exception. And even then it would be a very strange construction.

On another note, it isn’t the Orthodox reading, and their practice is the older, which to my mind makes the Catholic reading even more suspect.

I also can’t imagine that is the real reason the Catholic Church does not interpret it that way, it is far too poor an explanation. Their treatment of scripture is never that I have seen so completely foolish.

 

[Saved_Lady]

I am of the Baptist faith, and I believe, according to the Holy Bible, that the only way God will accept divorce is if one of the couple commit fornication. (Matthew 19:1-9) and (Deuteronomy 24:1-1)

 

[Saved_Lady]

That was what Moses did. Jesus spoke about what Moses did. It was in the same breath when he said it is wrong to divorce because you cannot divide what God unite. He moved on to say Moses allowed it because you are unteachable but it was in the case of fornication only.

Theology wise there is no exception for divorce because it divides what God unites. He did not validate Moses law but rather rescinded it by saying that it was not so in the beginning … .

Jesus is merciful, loving and forgiving but one thing he did not is to compromise on sin. And divorce is disallowed simply because it IS against what marriage is meant for – it should not be put asunder. Never. Ever.

It would be a retrogression for Jesus to allow divorce and this never characterizes his teaching. Not only that you shall not kill but you should not even gossip for it kill the character. Not only you should not commit adultery but you should not even think about it! Not only you should not strike back but turn the other cheek to your assailant.

Christians who are faithful to the teaching of Jesus would do well to be able to see the spirit of his teaching and not to find ‘loophole’ so that they do not have to follow it. The Catholic Church is faithful to it and there is no other way to go about it – there should be no divorce simply because divorce is disallowed.

Jesus, and later Paul put a nail on this – if you cannot take up the responsibility of marriage then it is better for you to stay single.

There is no ignoring anything here. We cannot help it if some people refuse to acknowledge the thrust and the message of the Lord.

Am I to understand that you believe that God has united everyone that has ever been married? Some marriages are not of God, my personal belief.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The exception is in the part of the sentence where direction is being given on how to do things now. The Mosaic law allowed divorce under many other circumstances. In the passage, [SIGN]Christ comments on what was allowed and rejects it. He then goes on to state his position.[/SIGN]
It’s as if I said,

“In the past we did not allow women to go to university. This is clearly wrong. Now I say, we must allow women to go to university, except when they do not meet the requirements, because women are just as capable as men.” It is always possible to put an exception to one’s general statement.

A subordinate clause like that doesn’t refer back to the previous topic, that is just a totally bizarre idea. It can only be justified by an a priori assumption about the meaning of the rest of the statement as being necessarily exclusive of such an exception. And even then it would be a very strange construction.

On another note, it isn’t the Orthodox reading, and their practice is the older, which to my mind makes the Catholic reading even more suspect.

I also can’t imagine that is the real reason the Catholic Church does not interpret it that way, it is far too poor an explanation. Their treatment of scripture is never that I have seen so completely foolish.

Exactly. Jesus rejects that law. Jesus said Moses law was a political law it did not fullfil Gods Law.

He said Moses permitted it not commanded it. because of hardness of your hearts. Because you fathers could not bear the more excellent way.

Deut 24:1
Matt 5:31
mark 10:2
luke 16:18

Jesus told us quite clear in all of that scripture what the Law of God was and is.

Jesus gave the authentic interpretation of this law. He said quite clear Moses by REASON of the Hardenss of your heart permitted you to put away your wives but IT WAS NOT SO IN THE BEGINNING.

So the bottom line is if you want to follow the Law of God you will do as he says. If you also go by the law of moses because of hardness of your heart you also do not obey Gods law.

 

[Bluegoat]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Exactly. Jesus rejects that law. Jesus said Moses law was a political law it did not fullfil Gods Law.

He said Moses permitted it not commanded it. because of hardness of your hearts. Because you fathers could not bear the more excellent way.

Deut 24:1
Matt 5:31
mark 10:2
luke 16:18

Jesus told us quite clear in all of that scripture what the Law of God was and is.

Jesus gave the authentic interpretation of this law. He said quite clear Moses by REASON of the Hardenss of your heart permitted you to put away your wives but IT WAS NOT SO IN THE BEGINNING.

So the bottom line is if you want to follow the Law of God you will do as he says. If you also go by the law of moses because of hardness of your heart you also do not obey Gods law.

THis is totally incomprehensible. Please rephrase.

 

[rinnie]

THis is totally incomprehensible. Please rephrase.

What part of hardness of hearts do you not understand? How can I say this any different. Moses granted them a decree by law because they would not accept the word of God. But that was not Gods plan from the beginning and it did not change Gods plan.

Moses could not change the word of God and he didn’t. They pushed him into making it legal by political law but not Gods law.

Just like today if that helps you at all. According to the law of the State you can obtain an abortion. But God said no and will never accept it. So just because it is not allowed by God does not mean that people disobey him and do it anyway.

But just how it was a sin 2000 years ago and was forbidden and can be obtained today it is still forbidden by God. Just like Abortion is forbidden and divorce was does not mean that people will still do it and say the law says I can. But Political law is not Gods law.

 

[Bluegoat]

What part of hardness of hearts do you not understand? How can I say this any different. Moses granted them a decree by law because they would not accept the word of God. But that was not Gods plan from the beginning and it did not change Gods plan.

Moses could not change the word of God and he didn’t. They pushed him into making it legal by political law but not Gods law.

Just like today if that helps you at all. According to the law of the State you can obtain an abortion. But God said no and will never accept it. So just because it is not allowed by God does not mean that people disobey him and do it anyway.

But just how it was a sin 2000 years ago and was forbidden and can be obtained today it is still forbidden by God. Just like Abortion is forbidden and divorce was does not mean that people will still do it and say the law says I can. But Political law is not Gods law.

But you are assuming the substance of the argument - that Jesus could not have been saying that there was any possibility for divorce. Since that is what we are discussing, specifically in relation to this passage of scripture, you cant assume your understanding is the correct one.

If you want to take the CC understanding as a matter of faith, by all means do so. But don’t try to make an argument by that method. The CC doesn’t.

 

[rinnie]

But you are assuming the substance of the argument - that Jesus could not have been saying that there was any possibility for divorce. Since that is what we are discussing, specifically in relation to this passage of scripture, you cant assume your understanding is the correct one.

If you want to take the CC understanding as a matter of faith, by all means do so. But don’t try to make an argument by that method. The CC doesn’t.

What part of my understanding are you saying the CC does not agree with? Jesus did say there is no possibility for divorce.

Read Mark Jesus tells you plain as day from the beginning of creation God made them male and female for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. Therefore what God has joined together no HUMAN BEING MUST SEPARATE.

If they does not say divorce is forbidden what does it say?