Protestant Pastors Who Marry and Divorce (And Remarry!)

[PLeeD]

Not to mention that giving an “exception clause” for adultery seems absurd–all a spouse needs to do in order to convince himself he can divorce his wife “validly” is to cheat on her.

That argument is as wacky now as it was the first time you used it.

You say you are catholic. The catechism recognizes the difference between the guilty and innocent parties to a divorce. Why can’t you recognize the difference?

 

[PRmerger]

From the catechism:

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

There are times where one partner to a marriage is innocent of the dissolution of the (civil) marriage.

Indeed. (My correction added in bold). I have not stated that both spouses who divorce are equally culpable.

I have only been maintaining that there is nothing in Scripture which states that the innocent party is free to re-marry but the guilty one is not.

As pnewton demonstrated, there is indeed Scriptural reference to the innocent party, yet curiously, nothing is mentioned about this innocent party being free to re-marry.

Do you have a verse that indicates this?

Jesus allows for an exception. Jesus doesn’t say anything about annulments, he says a man can divorce his wife if the circumstance is her having commited “porneia”. I think you have no solid basis to say that adultery is not included under the heading of “porneia”.

Are you familiar with the Greek word for “adultery”? * moichatai*.

 

[PRmerger]

That argument is as wacky now as it was the first time you used it.

Exactly!! How :whacky: is it that Jesus would give an exception clause for adultery??

You say you are catholic. The catechism recognizes the difference between the guilty and innocent parties to a divorce. Why can’t you recognize the difference?

Right. There is indeed a difference. I have never stated anything contrary to this, only that there is NO MENTION IN SCRIPTURE that the innocent party can re-marry. And the guilty party cannot.

 

[pnewton]

You say you are catholic. The catechism recognizes the difference between the guilty and innocent parties to a divorce. Why can’t you recognize the difference?

It is recognized that the innocent party might need civil recourse to separation, not that the innocent party may remarry. An annulment never considers innocence or guilt of either party. It is the marriage itself, and the marriage only, upon which a decision is given.

We can argue this to the cows come home, the fact is that the Catholic position is clear, while the Protestant position my vary, depending on the one interpreting the passage. It is also clear to me that since there is no overall person with authority to interpret Scripture for others among Protestants, there is clearly no legitimate ground to criticize the Catholic Church for not agreeing with one person’s own interpretation of Scripture. Catholic must likewise understand that differences like this are inevitable from a Sola Scriptura point of view. Therefore, there simply is not cause for being unpset at one another over what is, in the long run, a petty and unavoidable difference.

 

[pnewton]

Are you familiar with the Greek word for “adultery”? moichatai.

In English, adultery occurs after marriage, fornication occurs before. Also, the word pornea encompasses a variety of sexual sin, including incest and unchastity.

If anyone really wants to understand the Catholic point of view, here are two good articles.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0610btb.asp

 

[1234]

Indeed. (My correction added in bold). I have not stated that both spouses who divorce are equally culpable.

I have only been maintaining that there is nothing in Scripture which states that the innocent party is free to re-marry but the guilty one is not.

As pnewton demonstrated, there is indeed Scriptural reference to the innocent party, yet curiously, nothing is mentioned about this innocent party being free to re-marry.

Do you have a verse that indicates this?

Are you familiar with the Greek word for “adultery”? * moichatai*.

…was Jesus speaking *Greek *when he spoke about marriage? He was speaking Aramaic. What did he actually say? What was the meaning of the words he used? We’ll never know. The NT was written in Greek. Were those quoting Jesus, from a distance of many years, equally conversant in Greek as in Aramaic? Probably not.

 

[PRmerger]

In English, adultery occurs after marriage, fornication occurs before. Also, the word pornea encompasses a variety of sexual sin, including incest and unchastity.

Yes. And, I might add that when fornication occurs before marriage it certainly “paves the road” so to speak for adultery to occur afterwards.

One wise priest would counsel his pre-Cana couples that were engaging in pre-marital sexual relations: “There is one thing you are absolutely certain now regarding your partner–he/she has demonstrated that he/she is willing to engage in sexual behavior outside the realm of marriage” That is, the partners know that each of them is willing to engage in extra-marital (not just pre-marital) sex–i.e. adultery.

 

[PRmerger]

…was Jesus speaking *Greek *when he spoke about marriage? He was speaking Aramaic. What did he actually say? What was the meaning of the words he used? We’ll never know. The NT was written in Greek. Were those quoting Jesus, from a distance of many years, equally conversant in Greek as in Aramaic? Probably not.

This was already addressed by me in post #178, 1234.

 

[pnewton]

…was Jesus speaking *Greek *when he spoke about marriage? He was speaking Aramaic. What did he actually say? What was the meaning of the words he used? We’ll never know. The NT was written in Greek. Were those quoting Jesus, from a distance of many years, equally conversant in Greek as in Aramaic? Probably not.

This is yet another reason why interpretations of Scripture will always vary, and the wisdom in establishing an authoritative interpreter. However, I acknowledge your point, but would point out that the Scripture uses both words. in the same passage. It is logical to assume that two different words (not just two different forms of the same word) mean two different thoughts. Thus an adultery exclusion seems unlikely to me. Otherwise, the inspired writter would have used the word for adultery, which he knew enough to use in the very next clause.

 

[Dokimas]

Doki, stop with the sarcasm. It is the protest of the weak.

Me thinks you misunderstood.

 

[Dokimas]

My post was written so as not to offend, but it poses a very serious question – the Bible is a Catholic book, Dokimas. The Church is the author of the NT and the only God-given interpreter.

Peace, Jim Dandy

I wasn’t offended. I was teasing you. Sorry you misunderstood. Didn’t you notice the smile?

BTW we seem to disagree on your point above: the Bible belongs to God and is for all His children, none of whom has a ‘corner’ on It.

 

[PRmerger]

Me thinks you misunderstood.

I’m pretty sure I didn’t. Sarcasm is when you mean the opposite of what you say, and it’s clear to the reader that you mean the opposite.

So, unless you really were complimenting the poster for trying to get a jab at you–and I don’t think any intelligent person is going to buy that–then, it was sarcasm.

I’m sure you think you got a good jab in there. Nice try.

 

[PRmerger]

BTW we seem to disagree on your point above: the Bible belongs to God and is for all His children, none of whom has a ‘corner’ on It.

Again, you are arguing against a CC that exists only in your imagination. No one has stated that Catholics have the “corner” on the Bible. We are only proclaiming that which history affirms: Catholics discerned the Scriptures, codified it, protected and preserved it, and gave it to Christianity.

Each and every time you open a page of Scripture, you ought to say a prayer of thanks to the Church which authorized its spread.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I wasn’t offended. I was teasing you. Sorry you misunderstood. Didn’t you notice the smile?

BTW we seem to disagree on your point above: the Bible belongs to God and is for all His children, none of whom has a ‘corner’ on It.

Short history. When the Catholic Church was nearly 400 years old, she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, at the same councils, the Church canonized 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. She named her entire collection of sacred writings tá Biblia – the *‘Little Books’ *- the Bible.

The Church was the Agent of the Holy Spirit in writing the NT and compiling the Bible and is the only God-given interpreter. One criterion in selecting the contents of the NT was that any writing that did not comport with the teaching of the Church was rejected. So, any interpretation that differs from the teaching of the Church is wrong. The NT mirrors the teaching of the Catholic Church who wrote it. And the Church speaks for Christ. “He who hears you, hears me . . .” Luke 10:16.

Peace be with you, Dokimas.

 

[benedictus2]

Experiencing a marriage certainly helps, and in more ways than one. Pastors (and religious leaders of any variety) are frequently called upon to mentor and counsel members of the congregation, so if the pastor can take the men to one extent or another and his wife can be involved with the women in some capacity, that can work out pretty well.

So I suppose that rules our Jesus and Paul as competent people to speak about marriage much less counsel people about marriage.

 

[benedictus2]

The thing that continues to bother me is that Jesus made an exception (indicated by the word “except”) wherein certain actually-married people should divorce (in the “writ of divorce” sense of the word, I presume?) when the grounds have to do with “porneia.”

Porneia literally translated means fornication.

Fornication does not apply to married people, because in their case that would be adultery.

So when Jesus was making an exception He was probably talking about allowing divorce in case of a betrothal.

Pornea is not adultery. So Jesus was not allowing divorce at all.

If you go back to the Nativity narrative, Joseph being a just man was thinking of divorcing Mary because of a perceive unfaithfulness. They were not married the yet, they were only betrothed.

The way I tend to operate is that I usually want to go back to where it all began. And as you well know, the Catholic Church did not invent marriage. It predates the CC by quite a bit. So if I take it back to the beginning and find that God’s people have always looked at divorce as something that could actually end an actual marriage,

God’s stubborn and hard hearted people, yes. God’s own begotten Son, No.

 

[benedictus2]

You are “blowing off” the part where, in the same sentence, Jesus said “except for porneia”.

Because you misinterpret porneia.

Poneia does not mean adultery. It means fornication.

So if Jesus allows divorce in case of fornication or unchastity then he cannot be allowing marital divroce… The only possibility here then is divorce in case of unchastity i.e. when one is betrothed.

 

[benedictus2]

There are times where one partner to a marriage is innocent of the dissolution of the marriage. Jesus allows for an exception. Jesus doesn’t say anything about annulments, he says a man can divorce his wife if the circumstance is her having commited “porneia”. I think you have no solid basis to say that adultery is not included under the heading of “porneia”.

Yes she does.

In Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21-23 porneia is listed as a separate sin from adultery. Since adultery is already mentioned then porneia can’t possibly mean adultery.

 

[Dokimas]

I’m pretty sure I didn’t. Sarcasm is when you mean the opposite of what you say, and it’s clear to the reader that you mean the opposite.

So, unless you really were complimenting the poster for trying to get a jab at you–and I don’t think any intelligent person is going to buy that–then, it was sarcasm.

Actually I was teasing and noting the jab. I wasn’t being sarcastic.

 

[Dokimas]

Again, you are arguing against a CC that exists only in your imagination. No one has stated that Catholics have the “corner” on the Bible. We are only proclaiming that which history affirms: Catholics discerned the Scriptures, codified it, protected and preserved it, and gave it to Christianity.

Each and every time you open a page of Scripture, you ought to say a prayer of thanks to the Church which authorized its spread.

Seems to me you contradicted yourself.

And isn’t it you that likes to remind us that the CC compiled the Bible and it is becasue of it that we even have the Bible? Isn’t it you that tell us that the CC is 100% correct on doctrine and understanding (interpreting) the Bible?

If any or all are correct, then it’s not the CC of my imagination.