Protestant marriages, Catholic marriages?

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

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, [SIGN]you cant assume your understanding is the correct one.[/SIGN]

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.

It is not my understanding its the words of Jesus Christ. How can you possibly assume that when Jesus said whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery.

Read mark 10;11-12. How do you think you can possibly get around those words. There is nothing to assume. Jesus said it point blank.

 

[Bluegoat]

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?

It’s not what they say, it’s what they do. They don’t go around making blatantly invalid logical arguments about scripture - they usually have pretty reasonable ones that follow the rules for logical validity. The CC may be quite right, but it is most certainly not for the reasons you have given.

What is under discussion specifically is a passage in Scripture about what Jesus is saying about divorce. He is saying something - the question is just what does it mean. This is what your argument looks like.

Does this passage in scripture allow for divorce? No, because scripture does not allow for divorce, therefor this passage cannot allow for it.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy. This particular fallacy is called begging the question, or arguing in a circle. Here is an example: “The Bible says that God exists and the Bible is always right because it was inspired by God, therefore God exists”.

 

[rinnie]

It’s not what they say, it’s what they do. They don’t go around making blatantly invalid logical arguments about scripture - they usually have pretty reasonable ones that follow the rules for logical validity. The CC may be quite right, but it is most certainly not for the reasons you have given.

What is under discussion specifically is a passage in Scripture about what Jesus is saying about divorce. He is saying something - the question is just what does it mean. This is what your argument looks like.

Does this passage in scripture allow for divorce? No, because scripture does not allow for divorce, therefor this passage cannot allow for it.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy. This particular fallacy is called begging the question, or arguing in a circle. Here is an example: “The Bible says that God exists and the Bible is always right because it was inspired by God, therefore God exists”.

Maybe to you. Why do you have to go to this extreme? What does the scripture say? It says no divorce which is stated and says if a man or women does divorce they commit adultery. ITs quite clear. What really is your point that you are trying to make here.

Do I believe that God exists because the bible tells me? No? I would believe in God without the bible the same as the Apostles did. By the oral teachings of Christ which consist of the Church. So do I rely only on the bible of course not. The CHurch is who interprets scripture by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

But do you go by the teaching’s of your Church? And what does your church teach, and does you Church accept the scripture in the bible?

But now instead going to all of this trouble why can’t you show me the scripture or early teachings of the Church that say yes you can divorce.

 

[Bluegoat]

And yes, I’ve done some looking, and the reason the CC does not see that passage as allowing divorce is that they do not consider that it actually refers to adultery or fornication. Rather, they feel Jesus is saying that if the marriage was made with a person with whome marriage would be illicit or unnatural (say, a relative) than divorce is allowed. THe modern Church would consider it an annulment since it would never have been a valid marriage.

So the argument would be whether their understanding the passage that way is correct. There seems to be no question that if it did say that it would be allowing divorce for adultery.

As for whether their understanding makes sense - the translation of the word itself seems quite plausible, but I would want to have a look at other views on the matter. But, I am not sure if it makes sense in that context as well as fornication does.

 

[rinnie]

And yes, I’ve done some looking, and the reason the CC does not see that passage as allowing divorce is that they do not consider that it actually refers to adultery or fornication. Rather, they feel Jesus is saying that if the marriage was made with a person with whome marriage would be illicit or unnatural (say, a relative) than divorce is allowed. THe modern Church would consider it an annulment since it would never have been a valid marriage.

So the argument would be whether their understanding the passage that way is correct. There seems to be no question that if it did say that it would be allowing divorce for adultery.

As for whether their understanding makes sense - the translation of the word itself seems quite plausible, but I would want to have a look at other views on the matter. But, I am not sure if it makes sense in that context as well as fornication does.

What in the world are you talking about:shrug: Do you even understand what you are saying because I sure don’t

Let me start this w hole thing over again. There are certain reasons that a marriage can be considered invalid.

The marriage bond is sealed by God himself. SO if the marriage bond has been estabished by God himself in such a way a marriage concluded and consummated between the baptised persons can never be dissolved. If two people have established this bond it is forever. That is the sacrament of marriage. Now what in the heck are you talking about. I don’t care what the reason is. If it was a valid marriage in the eyes of God and the Church it is a valid marriage. And nothing can void this marriage. I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

And yes, I’ve done some looking, and the reason the CC does not see that passage as allowing divorce is that they do not consider that it actually refers to adultery or fornication. Rather, they feel Jesus is saying that if the marriage was made with a person with whome [SIGN]marriage would be illicit or unnatural (say, a relative) than divorce is allowed. THe [/SIGN]modern Church would consider it an annulment since it would never have been a valid marriage.

So the argument would be whether their understanding the passage that way is correct. There seems to be no question that if it did say that it would be allowing divorce for adultery.

As for whether their understanding makes sense - the translation of the word itself seems quite plausible, but I would want to have a look at other views on the matter. But, I am not sure if it makes sense in that context as well as fornication does.

[SIGN][/SIGN] This is insane. THe RCC would never marry a relative alone allow divorce. If this is what you are saying. Please have mercy on me for my ignorance I just do not understand what you are talking about:blush:

 

[Bluegoat]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN][/SIGN] This is insane. THe RCC would never marry a relative alone allow divorce. If this is what you are saying. Please have mercy on me for my ignorance I just do not understand what you are talking about:blush:

The Catholic Church is saying that in that scriptural passage that Jesus is saying if somehow such a marriage occurred it would be ok to get a divorce (or annulment.)

Remember that the Church did not exist at the time Jesus was speaking. What he is talking about does not necessarily reflect anything the Church would allow now or even earlier in it’s history. When looking at Scriptural passages we must understnd them first in the context they occur in, not first in relation to how the Church thinks they apply now - otherwise you will often misunderstand not only the passage, but the Church teaching about it.

However, such marriages would not have been allowed buy the Jews Jesus was speaking to either- that is why he called them illicit or unnatural. Such things do happen sometimes though - perhaps it was done in an underhanded way, or two people later found out they were more closely related than they had realized. That is a very plausible scenario in Jesus time.

 

[Bluegoat]

What in the world are you talking about:shrug: Do you even understand what you are saying because I sure don’t

Let me start this w hole thing over again. There are certain reasons that a marriage can be considered invalid.

The marriage bond is sealed by God himself. SO if the marriage bond has been estabished by God himself in such a way a marriage concluded and consummated between the baptised persons can never be dissolved. If two people have established this bond it is forever. That is the sacrament of marriage. Now what in the heck are you talking about. I don’t care what the reason is. If it was a valid marriage in the eyes of God and the Church it is a valid marriage. And nothing can void this marriage. I have no clue what you are talking about.

The Catholic Church does not decide things on a whim. They have reasons for doing so. They have some fundamental beliefs, and the rest of the teachings of the Church follow logically from those things. One of the Church’s belief is that the Bible is a divinly inspired document that has authority.

If you want to understand why the Church believes what she does, you also need to look at their fundemental beliefs and what conclusions they draw from them. To understand why the CC does not allow divorce, you need to look at the reasoning they use based on the fiundementals. The teaching about divorce is not a fundemental, it was arrived at by the Church through a process of reasoning.

Luckily, it is possible to find out what that reasoning is through research, you don’t need to guess. They will tell you. As in all reasoning, there are rules. Arguments are governed, within the Church and without, by the laws of reason and logic. The Church always tries hard to make its reasons good ones that follow the rules of logic.(Mistakes in following these rules are called fallacies. There are all kinds of fallacies.)

Because there are rules, we can discuss whether they are being followed. Here, the discussion has been around the rules for divorce. There are a few ways that a person could argue against the way the Church treats this issue.

They could say the fundamental assumptions are wrong or not being understood correctly. In this case, that would mean showing that the CC was misreading scripture or misunderstanding tradition.

Or they could say the rules of logic were not being correctly applied.

You were failing to differentiate between the CCs fundamental beliefs, and the conclusions being drawn about them on this subject.

I don’t intend to get into a discussion on the history of marriage in the CC with you - I have discussed this with you in a thread before and you don’t seem very interested in actually understanding it. In fact, I don’t think at the moment this thread is getting anywhere, so unless someone new wants to add something useful, I think I am done.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]The Catholic Church is saying that in that scriptural passage that Jesus is saying if somehow such a marriage occurred it would be ok to get a divorce (or annulment.) [/SIGN]
Remember that the Church did not exist at the time Jesus was speaking. What he is talking about does not necessarily reflect anything the Church would allow now or even earlier in it’s history. When looking at Scriptural passages we must understnd them first in the context they occur in, not first in relation to how the Church thinks they apply now - otherwise you will often misunderstand not only the passage, but the Church teaching about it.

However, such marriages would not have been allowed buy the Jews Jesus was speaking to either- that is why he called them illicit or unnatural. Such things do happen sometimes though - perhaps it was done in an underhanded way, or two people later found out they were more closely related than they had realized. That is a very plausible scenario in Jesus time.

[SIGN][/SIGN]
Bluegoat no. Jesus is not saying that. Jesus is saying there is no reason for a divorce. What can I do or say or show you that a divorce and annulment are two different things.

Bluegoat a annulment means no marriage ever existed.

A divorce means to dissolve or break up a marriage.

I am at my ends wit to help you to understand this.

 

[Dettingen]

Here’s my opinion, FWIW:

There’s two kinds of marriage, even though most people think there’s only one.

First kind: Marriage is a covenant blessed by God. It happens when the two people make their promises together and God blesses the union. Most of the time there’s a ceremony in which these promises are made in ritual form. So, for me, my marriage truly began when my husband and I pledged our love and commitment to one another. The wedding, which took place several months later, was merely a public celebration of the earlier commitment.

Second kind: Marriage is also a legal relationship governing the disposition of property and certain legal rights. So married couples get to have spousal employment benefits, they are taxed differently, they have certain inheritance rights, they can’t be forced to give testimony in a court of law against one another.

Consequently, my DH and I are married both in faith and by law. Marriage in law can be broken by divorce. Marriage in faith is permanent.

So, IMO, my mother could sever herself legally from my father, but her second marriage was, IMO, illegitimate in religion.

Even though I’m a Protestant, I do agree with Catholic belief regarding annulments, except I think they’re given out too often.

So far as I know, no Protestant congregation approves divorce. Hopefully they do minister to the broken hearted who obtained legal divorce. In contrast to the Catholic church which witholds (correct me if I’m wrong) certain blessings from divorced people. My stepfather wanted to take a formal leadership role in the congregation, but the committee said no, because of my mother’s previous (legal) marriage. He was broken hearted and never attended church again. They should have found a better way to uphold their rejection of divorce without rejecting him.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Church as hospital for sinners, not museum for saints.

That sort of thing.

Pax,

Dettingen

 

[rinnie]

Bluegoat answer me this, does your Church accept divorce?

 

[happilycatholic]

Here’s my opinion, FWIW:

There’s two kinds of marriage, even though most people think there’s only one.

First kind: Marriage is a covenant blessed by God. It happens when the two people make their promises together and God blesses the union. Most of the time there’s a ceremony in which these promises are made in ritual form. So, for me, my marriage truly began when my husband and I pledged our love and commitment to one another. The wedding, which took place several months later, was merely a public celebration of the earlier commitment.

Second kind: Marriage is also a legal relationship governing the disposition of property and certain legal rights. So married couples get to have spousal employment benefits, they are taxed differently, they have certain inheritance rights, they can’t be forced to give testimony in a court of law against one another.

Consequently, my DH and I are married both in faith and by law. Marriage in law can be broken by divorce. Marriage in faith is permanent.

So, IMO, my mother could sever herself legally from my father, but her second marriage was, IMO, illegitimate in religion.

Even though I’m a Protestant, I do agree with Catholic belief regarding annulments, except I think they’re given out too often.

So far as I know, no Protestant congregation approves divorce. Hopefully they do minister to the broken hearted who obtained legal divorce. In contrast to the Catholic church which witholds (correct me if I’m wrong) certain blessings from divorced people. My stepfather wanted to take a formal leadership role in the congregation, but the committee said no, because of my mother’s previous (legal) marriage. He was broken hearted and never attended church again. They should have found a better way to uphold their rejection of divorce without rejecting him.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Church as hospital for sinners, not museum for saints.

That sort of thing.

Pax,

Dettingen

Hi Dettingen:

Beautiful post. There is one thing that I have an opposition to. This part:

*"…except I think they’re given out too often."
*
Catholics are responsible for this errancy as well, maybe more.

I have heard the comment on the Church ‘giving out annulments’ all to often. As if they are candy.

Catholics, above all, should not say this. Annulment is evidence of human error. If there are many annulments granted (not ‘given’) then there is much human error.

Why do I think there are many annulments granted? Because I believe there are a lot of people in this world who don’t take the time to know their intended spouse and do not know the difference between ‘like’ and ‘love’. I think there are others who do not understand the concept of commitment.

Then you have outright disobedience.

If we force these folks to stay married then we are forcing them to stay in marriages that are not blessed in the first place. This places the marriage in the same state and probably without the possibility of either party ever have a valid marriage blessed by the Holy Spirit. This also places an undo burden on a person’s salvation. If a person is in a marriage that is not blessed, then that person may be in danger of falling into apostasy.

In any case, these are not the errors of the Church. If we see more people at the feet of Jesus asking for forgiveness are we to assume Jesus is not doing His job?

I don’t think so.

Blessings,

HC

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Here’s my opinion, FWIW:

There’s two kinds of marriage, even though most people think there’s only one.

First kind: Marriage is a covenant blessed by God. It happens when the two people make their promises together and God blesses the union. Most of the time there’s a ceremony in which these promises are made in ritual form. So, for me, my marriage truly began when my husband and I pledged our love and commitment to one another. The wedding, which took place several months later, was merely a public celebration of the earlier commitment.

Second kind: Marriage is also a legal relationship governing the disposition of property and certain legal rights. So married couples get to have spousal employment benefits, they are taxed differently, they have certain inheritance rights, they can’t be forced to give testimony in a court of law against one another.

Consequently, my DH and I are married both in faith and by law. Marriage in law can be broken by divorce. Marriage in faith is permanent.

So, IMO, my mother could sever herself legally from my father, but her second marriage was, IMO, illegitimate in religion.

Even though I’m a Protestant, I[SIGN] do agree with Catholic belief regarding annulments, except I think they’re given out too often.[/SIGN]
So far as I know, no Protestant congregation approves divorce. Hopefully they do minister to the broken hearted who obtained legal divorce. In contrast to the Catholic church which witholds (correct me if I’m wrong) certain blessings from divorced people. My stepfather wanted to take a formal leadership role in the congregation, but the committee said no, because of my mother’s previous (legal) marriage. He was broken hearted and never attended church again. They should have found a better way to uphold their rejection of divorce without rejecting him.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Church as hospital for sinners, not museum for saints.

That sort of thing.

Pax,

Dettingen

Thank-you for you response Dett. But remember one thing. You and I do not have to answer to God for that annulment the Priest and the people who went for it do. And also this Dett, you were not a part of that decision. Now you must remember there was something of great importance that the Priest heard or Bishop or whoever that felt by the Power of the HS this was the right call. We do not have the right to question that decision. We can only pray for all that are involved in that situation.

Its a private thing, do you see what I mean? SO if we do not hear all of the facts how could we ever feel we could render a decision?

 

[Dettingen]

Happilycatholic, thank you for correcting me. You are absolutely right, if there are too many annulments it is the fault of fallible human beings, not God.

And Rinnie, thank you for reminding me that I have no right to judge the righteousness of other people’s actions. Though I strive against it, I do persist in pointing out specks without attending to my own beams! A most human, most regrettable offence.

Pax,

Dettingen

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Happilycatholic, thank you for correcting me. You are absolutely right, if there are too many annulments it is the fault of fallible human beings, not God.

And Rinnie, thank you for reminding me that I have no right to judge the righteousness of other people’s actions. Though I strive against it, [SIGN]I do persist in pointing out specks without attending to my own beams! A most human, most regrettable offence[/SIGN].

Pax,

Dettingen

That’s what we all hope to acomplish Dett. We can only pray for the Priests. And for all People. We are all human and all sin and can only pray for God to have mercy on us all. And if we pray for mercy on eachother hopefully God will have mercy on us.

 

[happilycatholic]

Happilycatholic, thank you for correcting me. You are absolutely right, if there are too many annulments it is the fault of fallible human beings, not God.

And Rinnie, thank you for reminding me that I have no right to judge the righteousness of other people’s actions. Though I strive against it, I do persist in pointing out specks without attending to my own beams! A most human, most regrettable offence.

Pax,

Dettingen

Awe, sometimes it just takes a different perspective. Your comments were passionate and out of love.

Blessings,

HC

 

[Bluegoat]

[SIGN][/SIGN]
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Bluegoat no. Jesus is not saying that. Jesus is saying there is no reason for a divorce. What can I do or say or show you that a divorce and annulment are two different things.

Bluegoat a annulment means no marriage ever existed.

A divorce means to dissolve or break up a marriage.

I am at my ends wit to help you to understand this.

No, not always. This is perhaps part of the problem you are having - you think language is always being used in the same way.

The word annulment and the word divorce were not always used the way they are now by the Church. At one time people often used the words interchangeably, and in fact that often happens even now, so you have to be very careful to try to understand what people mean, not just look at the words and think they mean what you would mean. (Or what you think the Church means.) You need to look at the context.

I have explained this I think with some care but I will try again. According to the Catholic Church (not me), what Jusus is saying is that if these certain circumstances occur (an unnatural marriage), the marriage does not need to continue - they are not bound. He does not use the word divorce or annulment. He does not discuss the difference. He does not say the marriage never existed. That is what the text says in and of itself. What he is talking about the Catholic Church would call an annulment, as would many others. But others would simply call it a divorce. It is still the same circumstance, either way.

The Church developed its understanding of marriage, just like all its other theology, over time. Much of it today is far far more detailed, and uses very specialized technical language, that did not really exist when Jesus was teaching. Based on what Jesus said, and other factors, the CC developed it’s currant understanding of marriage, divorce, annulment, and what they mean.

Even as recently as this century, there has been development in the teaching of the Catholic Church - many cases which would not have been allowed to annul in 1940 are allowed to annul now. Do you think the reality of those marriages were somehow different - of course not. It is the Church’s understanding that has changed.

As for my Church - my answer might depend on just what part of it you mean, it is not organized politically like the Catholic Church, more like the Orthodox. It has some differences in theology about marriage. In general, for ecxample, it allows would consider a civil marriage to be binding even for it’s own members, whereas for Catholics a civil marriage is only binding for non-Catholics.

In many cases up until recently, Anglicans were not really able to divorce. That is a bit of a generalization but accurate without getting into the gory details. They could annul, as in the case of Henry the Eighth and Catherine.

As well, people did of course divorce in civil life for a variety, but they were not allowed to get remarried in the Anglican church.

In the first half of the 20th century, in some parts of the Anglican Communion, remarriage was allowed with the special permission of the Bishop. That is what stands today in most places, however in places like Canada and the US that permission is pretty much a given except perhaps in unusual circumstances. In other places in the world, it is much more difficult to obtain. I am not sure what the most up-to-date document gives as the circumstances the Bishop is meant to consider in his decision. I shall have to look into that, such things are not always available on the internet alas. But the degree to which documents put out by the body which represents all members of the Anglican Communion are binding is not always great.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

No, not always. This is perhaps part of the problem you are having - you think language is always being used in the same way.

The word annulment and the word divorce were not always used the way they are now by the Church. At one time people often used the words interchangeably, and in fact that often happens even now, so you have to be very careful to try to understand what people mean, not just look at the words and think they mean what you would mean. (Or what you think the Church means.) You need to look at the context.

I have explained this I think with some care but I will try again. According to the Catholic Church (not me), what Jusus is saying is that if these certain circumstances [SIGN]octhe marriage does not need to continue - they are not bocur (an [/SIGN]unnatural marriage), und. He does not use the word divorce or annulment. He does not discuss the difference. He does not say the marriage never existed. That is what the text says in and of itself. What he is talking about the Catholic Church would call an annulment, as would many others. But others would simply call it a divorce. It is still the same circumstance, either way.

The Church developed its understanding of marriage, just like all its other theology, over time. Much of it today is far far more detailed, and uses very specialized technical language, that did not really exist when Jesus was teaching. Based on what Jesus said, and other factors, the CC developed it’s currant understanding of marriage, divorce, annulment, and what they mean.

Even as recently as this century, there has been development in the teaching of the Catholic Church - many cases which would not have been allowed to annul in 1940 are allowed to annul now. Do you think the reality of those marriages were somehow different - of course not. It is the Church’s understanding that has changed.

As for my Church - my answer might depend on just what part of it you mean, it is not organized politically like the Catholic Church, more like the Orthodox. It has some differences in theology about marriage. In general, for ecxample, it allows would consider a civil marriage to be binding even for it’s own members, whereas for Catholics a civil marriage is only binding for non-Catholics.

In many cases up until recently, Anglicans were not really able to divorce. That is a bit of a generalization but accurate without getting into the gory details. They could annul, as in the case of Henry the Eighth and Catherine.

As well, people did of course divorce in civil life for a variety, but they were not allowed to get remarried in the Anglican church.

In the first half of the 20th century, in some parts of the Anglican Communion, remarriage was allowed with the special permission of the Bishop. That is what stands today in most places, however in places like Canada and the US that permission is pretty much a given except perhaps in unusual circumstances. In other places in the world, it is much more difficult to obtain. I am not sure what the most up-to-date document gives as the circumstances the Bishop is meant to consider in his decision. I shall have to look into that, such things are not always available on the internet alas. But the degree to which documents put out by the body which represents all members of the Anglican Communion are binding is not always great.

You are missing the whole point again. There was no marriage to be bound to, there was no marriage to continue, There was no marriage in the eyes of God. If the Church considered it a marriage it is held bound. That is what I cannot get across to you. You keep dancing around trying to blame the Church etc. If it was no a marriage in the eyes of God is does not exist.

If it was a marriage at ONE TIME and did exist, but for some reason the people do not want to carry on they cannot divorce in the eyes of the Church without commiting adultery and if they do cannot marry in the Church.

THere is a big difference between divorce and annulmemt. Why do you not get this. In many Many protestant Churchs a divorce is enough they do not need to prove annulmemt. Do you understand now?

 

[Bluegoat]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

You are missing the whole point again. There was no marriage to be bound to, there was no marriage to continue, There was no marriage in the eyes of God. If the Church considered it a marriage it is held bound. That is what I cannot get across to you. You keep dancing around trying to blame the Church etc. If it was no a marriage in the eyes of God is does not exist.

If it was a marriage at ONE TIME and did exist, but for some reason the people do not want to carry on they cannot divorce in the eyes of the Church without commiting adultery and if they do cannot marry in the Church.

THere is a big difference between divorce and annulmemt. Why do you not get this. In many Many protestant Churchs a divorce is enough they do not need to prove annulmemt. Do you understand now?

Rinnie, everyone has understood the difference, both from a Catholic point of view and a Protestant one, and the differences and similarities between them. OTOH, you still seem a bit foggy about it.

I think maybe you just need to accept that.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, everyone has understood the difference, both from a Catholic point of view and a Protestant one, and the differences and similarities between them. OTOH, you still seem a bit foggy about it.

I think maybe you just need to accept that.

Maybe it is me bluegoat and maybe you can show me the similarities between a divorce and annulment.

A annulment means there was never a marriage.

A divorce means the ending of a marriage.

Maybe you can show me what a marriage that never existed in the eyes of God and one that existed in the eyes of God are the same. Because you are right I am quite foggy here.