Remarriage after divorce

[CaliLobo]

So to heck with the Truth. Lets just put behinds in the seats? The Islamic faith is growing even more so than the evangelical one. Perhaps we should adopt their marriage philosophies.

If you wish to join the “church growing the most”. Then Allah be with you.

You will be disconcerted to know that Islam discourages, but allows use of condoms, and allows for hysterectomy and the pill if there is a medical reason to do so. Islam also allows exceptions to the no-abortion rule; for example, a deformed baby can be aborted within 120 days, before when they believe the soul attaches.

Also, if polygamy is allowed, it follows that divorce and remarriage is allowed.

Source: islamiclearningmaterials.com

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You will be disconcerted to know that Islam discourages, but allows use of condoms, and allows for hysterectomy and the pill if there is a medical reason to do so. Islam also allows exceptions to the no-abortion rule; for example, a deformed baby can be aborted within 120 days, before when they believe the soul attaches.

Also, if polygamy is allowed, it follows that divorce and remarriage is allowed.

Source: islamiclearningmaterials.com

Yes, all of that is true. I think you missed the point.

 

[krby34]

Marriage is two covenants with God. A covenant made by a man to his wife with God. A covenant made by a woman to her husband with God. Notice where God is in these statements. A man and God do not make a covenant with the wife. A woman and God do not make a covenant to the husband. Each person of their own free will, with full awareness, openness to family, and freedom to offer a life long commitment make the covenant to the person they join with and to God. If God accepts the covenant commitment then the two are considered married. This is the key to this whole thing, each person has made their own covenant to another person and to God. A covenant is not a promise, it is not a contract, it is full giving over of oneself into the agreement. Nothing can be held back. There is no “my responsibility” and “your responsibility”, it becomes “our responsibility”. If one party fails to live up to their side of the agreement the whole agreement is not void. That is not the case with covenant. The two shall become one. So just like in trying to divide one person into two people results in death upon the person the same is true of the covenants of marriage. If the two are separated death results, either in physical death of one of the members or in spiritual death. (As God cannot die physically or spiritually that only leaves two possible persons!) If the one leaves the marriage to pursue their own end it leads them to death spiritually. The remaining one does not find them free of their covenant but is still bound unto death.

@ Peebo - This is the answer to your question as well. Remember God does not need us to believe in Him to exist or for Him to have authority over us. He is our creator if we choose to recognize it or not. Look at it like obeying the laws of the land. I can choose to not recognize the local authority or even deny that it is an authority but if it indeed does have the authority it can hold me liable to live within the laws of their authority. If I travel at whatever speed I choose because I do not recognize that a judge can call it speeding does not change the fact that police will cite me for it and if necessary chase me down and put me in custody. The same is true of two persons that are atheist, agnostic, pagan, etc. If they make promises to each other to join together for the purpose of uniting in family and working together to go through life together and God sees their commitment as rich and true sincere until death He can accept these vows to the level of covenant and therefore they too are married! So because of this reason even in the event that they later should separate and one or both of them convert to the Catholic faith an annulment should be sought out.

Notice nowhere in paragraph one is knowing God listed as a part of the evaluation of validity for the covenant. These points are free will, full awareness, open to family, and free to offer a life long commitment. It indeed will be tougher to defend the marriage covenant because God was not recognized as a party to the covenant and so therefore the full awareness can come into question. This is why often it is a much quicker decision by the tribunal recognizing the nullification of marriage in the civil union. The key thing is that we are a Church that recognizes God works in all thing, even those that we do not think He is a part of because we accidentally or even explicitly tried to leave Him out. That is why our first and only choice is to always defend the marriage, argue that it did exist until we can have sufficient evidence that it did not. So God may or may not have made the commitment of the two atheists a valid marriage but until evidence is placed before a proper authority to review we cannot know. That proper authority is God’s Church which Jesus Christ instituted for our care and instruction. It has put the tribunal of marriage for the diocese you live in as the proper place to review these things.

Also a small correction on one of your later comments. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. There are Easter Orthodox Rites that are. While Eastern Orthodox Churches have valid sacraments they are not in full communion with the Pope. In fact that is one of the many little things we differ on. They see him as a peer brother bishop not as Big brother bishop (i.e. Peter). It appears that there may be some differences on interpretation of marriage as well. The Eastern Orthodox Rites are a branch under a Prelate (appointed by the Pope) that can practice the liturgies of the Easter Rites as prescribed but have professed their loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, its magisterium, and its leader the Pope. More information is available on this within these very forums.

@ Jennifer_Chan - As said several times before me PLEASE go speak with your pastor! There is mercy in God’s Catholic Church. You marriage can be reviewed by the tribunal for little cost, a series of small payments or in extreme cases no cost if you are up front with your pastor.

God is merciful! and so is His Church. However we do not presume upon His mercy but seek it in His church here on earth. Found within her priests and the ecclesiastical establishment of the magisterium.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Divorce isnt the issue sure, but it does say “and marries another…EXCEPT for sexual immorality, commits adultery”

It sounds like remarriage is permitted only if sexual immorality was involved.

It may sound like that to ears and eyes who approach this using the English words with an understanding based off that English translation–but the Church has been looking at this issue for two thousand years ever since Jesus uttered the original words.

As I’ve heard this word explained, it was used for unlawful marriages relating somehow to immorality. One example I heard was an incestuous marriage. For example a son is not bound to a marriage that he entered into with his mother. (bleh!) He’d be free to marry again since his first marriage was not right. Likewise, a woman who marries a polygamist who’s already married could meet this criteria–because that husband wasn’t free to marry, so divorce and later re-marriage by the woman to someone else would be permitted. That’s how the Church recognizes what Jesus meant. Using a modern example, a Catholic who marries outside of the Church and whose marriage is never recognized as a Sacramental marriage in the first place is not married in the eyes of the Church, so the annulment process is really much simpler. From the Catholic view point, something* is * immoral about a marriage where the Catholic member fails to marry as a Catholic, so in such situations, they are free to re-marry after divorce (as long as there is no other marriage history, as these things get even more complicated when both are on their second or third marriages.)

But in any case, the Church takes the words of Jesus very seriously, and I trust the Church to know more about what He intended to convey than I do. I don’t speak Greek and even though the Bible was written in Greek, Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. The Church was retelling and sharing the words of Jesus before the New Testament was written down. I trust the Church to correctly interpret what He said.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes. Don’t Catholics believe in a forgiving God that forgives past mistakes, when it comes to remarriage?..

Yes, we do! We believe in a loving, forgiving God! And yes, we believe past mistakes in marriage can be forgiven–SO, when two people who were Sacramentally married in the first place divorce, we believe that they should stand open armed and ready to forgive as God forgives. That’s what our loving and forgiving God does when we repent and return to Him. The offended spouse perhaps may even take the spouse back, (if there was abuse, a Catholic does not have to return to an abusive marriage.) We take seriously the words of Jesus, including the words, “Forgives us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Catholics need to forgive our spouses and ex-spouses because we often pray that God will forgive us as we forgive others!

The annulment process looks to determine if the marriage was a Sacrament. While people may make mistakes, we don’t think Sacraments are mistakes. If it’s a Sacramental marriage, the Catholics are held to live out their marriage vows., even if the other party doesn’t. If it was not a Sacramental marriage, the divorced couple are free to marry others within the Church. Many who have gone through the annulment process can tell you that it can be a time of healing of past wounds. Mercy, love and forgiveness–Yes!

Based on what you’ve written so far, it seems that you don’t think marriage means “until death do we part” so that understanding of marriage is flawed (from a Catholic perspective.) If you were to marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church and you later divorced, your misunderstanding of the permanent nature of marriage could examined and may be grounds for an annulment.

 

[gardenswithkids]

It may sound like that to ears and eyes who approach this using the English words with an understanding based off that English translation–but the Church has been looking at this issue for two thousand years ever since Jesus uttered the original words.

As I’ve heard this word explained, it was used for unlawful marriages relating somehow to immorality. One example I heard was an incestuous marriage. For example a son is not bound to a marriage that he entered into with his mother. (bleh!) He’d be free to marry again since his first marriage was not right. Likewise, a woman who marries a polygamist who’s already married could meet this criteria–because that husband wasn’t free to marry, so divorce and later re-marriage by the woman to someone else would be permitted. Using a modern example, a Catholic who marries outside of the Church and whose marriage is never recognized as a Sacramental marriage in the first place is not married in the eyes of the Church, so the annulment process is really much simpler. From the Catholic view point, something* is * immoral about a marriage where the Catholic member fails to marry as a Catholic, so in such situations, they are free to re-marry after divorce (as long as there is no other marriage history, as these things get even more complicated when both are on their second or third marriages.)

But in any case, the Church takes the words of Jesus very seriously, and I trust the Church to know more about what He intended to convey than I do. I don’t speak Greek and even though the Bible was written in Greek, Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. The Church was retelling and sharing the words of Jesus before the New Testament was written down. I trust the Church to correctly interpret what He said.

 

[CaliLobo]

Yes, we do! We believe in a loving, forgiving God! And yes, we believe past mistakes in marriage can be forgiven–SO, when two people who were Sacramentally married in the first place divorce, we believe that they should stand open armed and ready to forgive as God forgives. That’s what our loving and forgiving God does when we repent and return to Him. The offended spouse perhaps may even take the spouse back, (if there was abuse, a Catholic does not have to return to an abusive marriage.) We take seriously the words of Jesus, including the words, “Forgives us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Catholics need to forgive our spouses and ex-spouses because we often pray that God will forgive us as we forgive others!

The annulment process looks to determine if the marriage was a Sacrament. While people may make mistakes, we don’t think Sacraments are mistakes. If it’s a Sacramental marriage, the Catholics are held to live out their marriage vows., even if the other party doesn’t. If it was not a Sacramental marriage, the divorced couple are free to marry others within the Church. Many who have gone through the annulment process can tell you that it can be a time of healing of past wounds. Mercy, love and forgiveness–Yes!

Based on what you’ve written so far, it seems that you don’t think marriage means “until death do we part” so that understanding of marriage is flawed (from a Catholic perspective.) If you were to marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church and you later divorced, your misunderstanding of the permanent nature of marriage could examined and may be grounds for an annulment.

Thank you for your thoughtful insight.

gardenswithkids:

It may sound like that to ears and eyes who approach this using the English words with an understanding based off that English translation–but the Church has been looking at this issue for two thousand years ever since Jesus uttered the original words

Let’s look at translations other than the ESV. (The ESV is the most popular among Protestants today. It replaced the NIV, which was popular but read too juvenile and sacrificed much of the depth of the KJV).

Let’s look at the King James Version:
And 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.

And the New Living Translation (Some believe the NLT more accurately reflects the KJV. It was used as an alternative to the NIV until the ESV gained popularity):
And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.

And the Message (Used by Evangelical pastors to give a contemporary flair to their sermons, and by those who want to read a very contemporary style. It is also used to evangelize younger adults who are disenchanted with traditional church methods):
I’m holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery.

So is it as simple as blaming Henry VIII for this alleged mistranslation? Protestants have continued to translate the Bible and still have not reached the same conclusion about Matthew 19:9 as the Catholics.

If there is a complex Greek word here that cannot be fully translated into English, the Protestants would have known by now. I’ve heard so many sermons where pastors talk about “the Greek and Hebrew.” It almost becomes an excuse not to fully understand the Bible.

This is a major issue. If we can find a way to explain the discrepancy, it would help both sides.

 

[CaliLobo]

Furthermore, if we concede the Bible is not that clear on the issue, then is Tradition is the only reason why Catholics believe what they believe regarding remarriage after divorce?

 

[heidi_storage]

See this page about the meaning of porneia:

biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm

Seems more like “fornication” or “sexual immorality” than unlawfulness to me.

 

[Xantippe]

Furthermore, if we concede the Bible is not that clear on the issue, then is Tradition is the only reason why Catholics believe what they believe regarding remarriage after divorce?

“Only” tradition is kind of a big deal, especially for Catholics.

It’s “only” tradition that Christians have historically worshiped on Sunday.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s also “only tradition” to celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25.

 

[CaliLobo]

It’s also “only tradition” to celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25.

I understand, and that is why Seventh Day Adventists worship on Saturday, and some in the US are reexamining the meaning of December 25.

Anyone want to help answer why there is a discrepancy between the Protestant and Catholic Bibles in Matthew 19:9?

 

[heidi_storage]

It’s also “only tradition” to celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25.

And not a religiously important tradition, either, I think. It’d be a bit odd to celebrate Jesus’s birth in, I dunno, early September (which is probably closer to his actual “birthday” than is December 25th), but I don’t think it would be sinful.

But then, I don’t regard church tradition as having the equal authoritativeness of the Bible–which I suppose is a different argument, and I don’t want to hijack the thread.

I will say this: God guarantees none of us happiness in this life, and He does not owe it to us. We as believers owe it to one another to carry each other’s burdens as best we can, and to show love, mercy, and compassion, but God can (and does) permit some lousy things to happen to those who love Him. I’m not even talking about Job, here, who got a happy ending, but about people like Jeremiah who had a horrible time of it throughout their lives and may have ended them very painfully. Sin and sorrow permeate this world, and until the kingdom fully comes “on Earth as it is in Heaven,” we won’t be freed from its consequences.

 

[Bibbit]

See this page about the meaning of porneia:

biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm

Seems more like “fornication” or “sexual immorality” than unlawfulness to me.

This is interesting. Your own link has something you didn’t mention. Here’s what the link has (emphasis mine):4202 porneía (the root of the English terms “pornography, pornographic”; cf. 4205 /pórnos) which is derived from pernaō, “to sell off”) – properly, a selling off (surrendering) of sexual purity; promiscuity of any (every) type.

[See also the contrasting term, http://biblehub.com/greek/3430.htm”]3430 /moixeía (“marital unfaithfulness”).]
In other words, if Jesus had meant infidelity He would have used moixeia.

Here are a couple of quotes from CA articles on their site:The word “adultery” is not what Jesus said, although many Bible translations use this word. If Jesus intended to say adultery, he would have used the word moicheia, meaning “adultery,” but instead he used the word porneia, meaning illicit or invalid.

---

One clarification: Jesus appears to be making an exception when he implies that divorce and remarriage could be permissible when the cause of the divorce is “unchastity” (Matt. 19:9). However, the word used for “unchastity” is the Greek word porneia, which can be accurately translated as “unlawful lust,” such as “incest” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1984). In such cases, the original marriage would not have been valid and the bond never effected, so no adultery would occur with a second marriage. Here we see the scriptural roots for annulment, which does not end a marriage but discerns that a valid marriage, for specific reasons, never took place.
It seems to me that if God said married people become one, and nobody is to pull them apart, it would follow that divorce would be wrong, and that He would be contradicting Himself if he allowed man to then pull it apart.

 

[PaulinVA]

Furthermore, if we concede the Bible is not that clear on the issue, then is Tradition is the only reason why Catholics believe what they believe regarding remarriage after divorce?

Bishop Stacy Sauls of the Episcopal Church said this at General Convention in 2009 about gay marriage, but he used divorce as the example. They know exactly what Jesus said and don’t care.

“36 yrs ago our church responded to secular culture by allowing divorced persons to be remarried even though it contradicted what we believed the teaching of the bible and of Jesus, We did so even though it contradicted our understanding of sexual ethics at the time. … Our gays and lesbians are asking nothing more than grace and mercy. I know for a fact that the vast majority of Anglicans around the world enjoy the same pastoral exception we do—that divorced persons may marry. It is true in Canterbury and in Nigeria. I agree that scripture is our final concern. The one that concerns me is that the scribes and Pharisees tie heavy burdens for others to bear but are not willing to lift a finger to help them. It is time to lift the hypocrisy”

 

[JimG]

Jesus’ teachinhig about divorce and remarriage has always been a hard teaching to accept. Even Jesus’ own disciples practically rebelled at it. “Why marry, then?” was their question.

My aunt had a very short first marriage, only a few months before the husband abandoned her and was never heard from again. She applied for an annulment and was denied. (This was at a time when annulments were not easy to obtain.) She met a fine man some time later and married him. That marriage lasted many years, until death.

She continued going to her parish church, not receiving communion, but was an active parishioner. (I tried to convince her once to appeal the first decision, since the tribunals seemed to have become more lenient. She refused, saying she would not second guess the first decision.) Late in life, her 2nd husband became impotent. She went to confession and started receiving communion again. She remained a valued parishioner until her own death.

Coincidentally, the most recent issue of First Things has a short article about divorce and remarriage. It can be found at this link.

 

[thewanderer]

Furthermore, if we concede the Bible is not that clear on the issue, then is Tradition is the only reason why Catholics believe what they believe regarding remarriage after divorce?

How about the fact that we make a solemn vow to the other person until death do us part? It really is that simple. Either marriage is until death or its not. If it isn’t until death then someone should change the wording of the vows to reflect reality.

 

[MJJean]

How about the fact that we make a solemn vow to the other person until death do us part? It really is that simple. Either marriage is until death or its not. If it isn’t until death then someone should change the wording of the vows to reflect reality.

Not everyone makes a solemn vow when marrying. A lot of people use the traditional vows because it’s tradition, but believe them to be merely for ceremonial purposes. In modern times most people go into marriage thinking it may last a lifetime and even hoping it does, but believing that they can divorce if their feelings or circumstances change. And, really, is that so surprising? Because we grow up watching marriage-divorce-remarriage socially and civilly divorcing leaves one free to remarry legally how are we supposed to think marriage truly is for life? All the evidence around us says otherwise even in the churches.

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that at the time I married, most people contemplating marriage, especially Catholics, knew from the outset that once the vows were pronounced, there was no going back. The two were united for life. That’s the whole meaning of the marriage vows. It was a guarantee of permanence, and a guarantee of stability for their children.

Now, I doubt that people even give it that much thought. Do they really mean “till death do us part” when they say it, or do they mean “till the love of one or both of us grows cold.”? They no longer believe that it is their responsibility to ensure that love does not grow cold.

 

[JimG]

It would be remarkable if Jesus actually intended to make adultery an exception allowing for divorce. It would essentially provide a “get out of marriage free” card. I can see a dissatisfied spouse considering: “Well, in order to get a divorce, I’ll have to commit adultery, so that’s what I’ll do.” Or both spouses saying, “Okay, if we want to get divorced, one of us is going to have to commit adultery. Let’s flip a coin.”

Did Jesus Allow Divorce?