Protestant Pastors Who Marry and Divorce (And Remarry!)

[PRmerger]

If you’re looking for verses, look up where Jesus spoke on the issue; it seems obviouis He’s speaking to the innocent party and He seems to imply remarriage. Couple that with Paul’s writings, a very good case is made for remarriage for a very limited # of people.

“Innocent party” is NO WHERE mentioned in those verses, Doki.

That is simply adding to Scripture. If divorce and remarriage is allowed because of adultery, then the guilty party is free to re-marry as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Dokimas
People think wrongly all the time; that doesn’t take away from truth or in this case, what Jesus said.

If you’re looking for verses, look up where Jesus spoke on the issue; it seems obviouis He’s speaking to the innocent party and He** seems to imply** remarriage. Couple that with Paul’s writings, a very good case is made for remarriage for a very limited # of people.

I think we have to be very careful about reading into what Jesus “meant.” If you look at the homosexual threads, they take Jesus’ words to mean homosexual prositution was the sin. They claim that “committed loving unions” of homosexuals were culturally illicit.

This is a very trenchant point, especially in light of past discussions I’ve had with Doki in which he has rejected terms such as “suggests” or “implies” as it pertains to Scripture.

Originally posted by Dokimas
The Bible tells, not suggests, IMO. Where it seems to suggest must be where we aren’t clear and apply logic to try to understand.

Originally Posted by Dokimas
Suggest is a loaded word.

 

[pnewton]

“Innocent party” is NO WHERE mentioned in those verses, Doki.

Jesus in Mark’s Gospel admonishes the one who put their spouse away, not the spouse who was put away. Take this how you will, that is what is literal said. Saying that this does not apply to the “innocent party” is at least as exegetically correct as expanding the verse to both parties.

Suggests, implies, whatever, everyone who approaches Scripture on their own must evaluate the meaning. The Catholic Church has certainly never insisted on literalness in every scripture. Indeed, this problem is one of the logical reasons why an authoritative interpreter of Scripture is needed.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus in Mark’s Gospel admonishes the one who put their spouse away, not the spouse who was put away. Take this how you will, that is what is literal said. Saying that this does not apply to the “innocent party” is at least as exegetically correct as expanding the verse to both parties.

How so?

I see nothing in any verse of Scripture which decrees that the “innocent” party is allowed to remarry but that the adulterer (or the one who “puts away”) one cannot.

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10: 1-12[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[qui_est_ce]

Suggests, implies, whatever, everyone who approaches Scripture on their own must evaluate the meaning. The Catholic Church has certainly never insisted on literalness in every scripture. Indeed, this problem is one of the logical reasons why an authoritative interpreter of Scripture is needed.

The Eunuch in Acts admitted as much to Philip.

We’ve been studying Jeff Cavins’ Bible studies for the past couple of years. Now I know my NT very well. I also knew the OT fairly well. But the complementary nature of the OT completed in the NT is something I would have never figured out on my own. Even something as easy as the Passover and the Last Supper have been shed in a whole new light (Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper). EWTN is airing Scott Hahn’s Salve Regina right now. I am amazed at how important Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is to our understanding of God’s Covenant fulfilled in the NT.

 

[qui_est_ce]

How so?

I see nothing in any verse of Scripture which decrees that the “innocent” party is allowed to remarry but that the adulterer (or the one who “puts away”) one cannot.

Indeed. Matthew goes as far as to say the wrong-doer will cause the innocent one to sin.

[BIBLEDRB]matt 5:32[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[pnewton]

How so?

I used to love diagraming scriptured to get a better grasp on the meaning. If you look a the subject (the pronoun and associated modifiers), we have “whosever puts away his wife, etc.” That is the only person in that situation to whom the the verb “commits” applies. It does not grammatically apply to the wife in the sentence, only the “whosever.”

Again, I do not mean to defend the Protestant understanding here, but their interpretation is not illogical or without reason. It simply takes more than Scripture to understand this. Let us remember the original question in the first post. The idea was to understand the Protestant point of view. As far as the Catholic point of view, one can explain it, but ultimately a foundation of a proper view of the role of the Church is needed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Again, I do not mean to defend the Protestant understanding here, but their interpretation is not illogical or without reason. It simply takes more than Scripture to understand this. Let us remember the original question in the first post. The idea was to understand the Protestant point of view. As far as the Catholic point of view, one can explain it, but ultimately a foundation of a proper view of the role of the Church is needed.

Thank you. My natural inclination is to jump in and defend the Catholic POV. I did learn something of the Protestant view in this thread. I may not agree with it, but it helps understanding.

God bless.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you. My natural inclination is to jump in and defend the Catholic POV. I did learn something of the Protestant view in this thread. I may not agree with it, but it helps understanding.

God bless.

Yeah, what qui est ce said.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yeah, what qui est ce said.

Humility is a good thing! uch:

 

[Dokimas]

“Innocent party” is NO WHERE mentioned in those verses, Doki.

That is simply adding to Scripture. If divorce and remarriage is allowed because of adultery, then the guilty party is free to re-marry as well.

Notice the “”. I didn’t say it was there but surely implied as you read carefully, IMO.

Sure the guilty is free to continue sinning.

 

[Dokimas]

Indeed. Matthew goes as far as to say the wrong-doer will cause the innocent one to sin.

[BIBLEDRB]matt 5:32[/BIBLEDRB]

You missed ‘excepting for…’. That one word nullifies your point, IMO.

 

[PRmerger]

Notice the “”. I didn’t say it was there but surely implied as you read carefully, IMO.

Then, Doki, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t object to me, a Catholic, stating that Scripture suggests something, and then say that, well, Scripture suggests something.

Sure the guilty is free to continue sinning.

Huh? The adulterer is free to continue committing adultery?

 

[PRmerger]

You missed ‘excepting for…’. That one word nullifies your point, IMO.

“he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”

Thus, if you marry a woman was was cuckolded, you commit adultery. And, logically, she commits adultery, too.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I just wanted to open a friendly discussion about what you guys think about a leader of a church getting married. Obviously it is widely known that Catholic priests generally do not marry (and certainly do not divorce or remarry). For a long time I thought this seemed unfair (the getting married part, not the divorcing part). I thought, how could a priest counsel married men and women if he has never experienced this? Surely a married priest could understand his congregation better.

Then I met a very kind and knowledgeable United Methodist Pastor who was not only married, divorced, and remarried but also a woman. I respect this woman, and I have attended many of her church services. She does well with her work, and I do not doubt her faith. However, it is hard for me to see her as role model. I do not know the reasons for her divorce, and I know the Methodists do not view divorce in the same way as Catholics. However, I personally believe marriage is a contract between two people to love each other unconditionally and remain together until death. If you don’t think you can do this, you shouldn’t get married in the first place. I understand that people get divorced every day, and there are many good reasons. However, I believe that if you love someone when you are married, you can work things out in almost every situation.

So I guess the question is, should someone who has been divorced and remarried be a Pastor? To me a pastor or a priest is a man or woman of God, someone who is to lead a pure life and set an example for the congregation, the people who look up to them.

I have to interject clarity for the sake of my separated brethen, particularly my family. Pulpit Minister or Preacher are not the same thing as Pastor necessarily where we come from. I’ve known only 2 cases where this is the case. One is my BIL and another a former preacher/pastor from New Braunfuls, TX. In our previous faith, there were generally “elders” that we also call pastors or bishops. In our faith it was generally believed and taught that no one can divorce and remarry unless infedelity took place. Then the party that was unfaithful was expected to remain single the rest of their life. None of them were allowed to be leaders in the church. That meant the office of elder, deacon and preacher were off limits to them.

Once I left a small congregation because I discovered one of the elders was divorced and remarried. Well, unless the previous wife was dead he had no business being an elder and for the sake of our family’s salvation I moved to a different congregation. It’s that serious of an issue. However, I do know of stories where this has happened and to me and my wife it is very scandalous and very sinful. I can not get past that impediment. I believe this is one of the many reasons the Church chose the discipline of celibacy. There were too many scandals similar to this, men were torn between their marriage and the needs of the parish. Further, financial support for the family was also and issue. Celibate men could say mass daily because of continence requirements as well. There was a time period that priests were expected to abstain from the marriage act (sex).

Having grown up in a predominantly large Protestant families, my wife and I both appreciate celibacy in ways you’ll never know if you’ve never been in a church with married clergy. In order to be an elder or deacon in our previous church marriage for life is expected. In fact, children are also a requirement. So, if you’ve ever known a Church of Christ elder, you’d know someone like my FIL or BIL. I hoped to become an elder one day. But my wife and I kept changing because nothing ever worked until we became Catholic together with our children. We’ve been at the same parish for over 4 years now and that is amazing compared to what we kept experiencing. Even the scandals, bickering, etc. behind the scenes haven’t discouraged us to the point of leaving. This is because of the faithful celibate priests running our parish. I would not be so comfortable dealing with a preachers wife in the situations we’ve found ourselves in our parish. People are people where ever you go.

 

[cooterhein]

Are any Catholics going to address the “except for porneia” phrase?

“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of [porneia], makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Quick paraphrase: No divorce or remarriage unless. I just want to make sure we all saw the exception, which is indicated by the word “except.” It lets you know that those who divorce and remarry do not commit adultery if the exception is relevant to them.

 

[Masaru]

I’m neither Catholic nor Christian, but I don’t listen to instruction any woman gives about Christian faith. Not in a friendly debate or otherwise. The reason?
1 Timothy 2:

8: I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Because she’s not following her own religion, that’s why. And if that’s the case, then why would I take her advice (or heed her admonishments) about matters of faith?

Still, this is coming from a Nichiren Buddhist and ex-Christian, so take that with a grain of salt—but I am fairly familiar with the Bible.

PbloPicasso:

People are people where ever you go.

Very true, regardless of creed.

 

[Dokimas]

Then, Doki, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t object to me, a Catholic, stating that Scripture suggests something, and then say that, well, Scripture suggests something.

Huh? The adulterer is free to continue committing adultery?

I don’t object to you believing what you want to believe. Seems the other way around. That’s not what I was doing. I was sharing what and why I believe as I do.

How are you going to stop a sinner from sinning, kill him or her? Free is a relative term; I did not mean it to imply God will not judge but that until the sinner dies, without repentance and obedience, the sinner will sin, thus is free to sin. I prefer to be free from sin, not to sin.

 

[Dokimas]

“he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”

Thus, if you marry a woman was was cuckolded, you commit adultery. And, logically, she commits adultery, too.

Haven’t you brought into the picture a third person not yet in our discussion?

BTW, Jesus said that if a man lusts after a woman, he’s commited adultry in his heart. I dare say that include 99.9999% of us men. The heart is desperately wicked, who can know it. Thanks be to God for the Precious Blood of Jesus.

 

[Reuben_J]

Are any Catholics going to address the “except for porneia” phrase?

“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of [porneia], makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Quick paraphrase: No divorce or remarriage unless. I just want to make sure we all saw the exception, which is indicated by the word “except.” It lets you know that those who divorce and remarry do not commit adultery if the exception is relevant to them.

Probably you miss it but it was already done in post #58.