Sola Scriptura and Marriage

[Tomyris]

I’m asking where he gets his definition. Who has the authority to decide?

Off-topic.

This thread is a waste of time.

 

[bzkoss236]

Since Jesus didn’t specify polygamy, this is a supposition.

But a polygamist doesn’t divorce his first wife (that’s what makes him a polygamist). And this can also be taken to mean that he can have another wife, so long as he doesn’t divorce the first one.

In other words, Jesus doesn’t mention polygamy at all. You have to add it in to get that interpretation.

No, it means that he is still married to his first wife. If polygamy were allowed, he could divorce his first wife and have no issue marrying another (especially if he was still considered married to his first wife), meaning it wouldn’t be adultery. Adultery is having marital relations with someone who is not your wife. If divorce is strictly a legal matter, and if polygamy wasn’t condemned, there would be no issue with marrying another woman.

Some more scripture for you:
[BIBLEDRB]Romans 7:2-3[/BIBLEDRB]
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband is alive and consorts (aka. marries) another man, she is an adulteress. The same goes for the man (as can be seen in the previous verses I posted).

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 7:1-5[/BIBLEDRB]
A man should have his own wife (doesn’t say wives), and a woman her own husband (not husbands).

And later on about divorce again
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 7:10-11[/BIBLEDRB]

More singulars:
[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 5:28-33[/BIBLEDRB]

Condemning adulterers:
[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 13:4[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[dronald]

Just a side question for the sake of discussion:

Do Catholic’s have a set age that a man or a woman is allowed to get married? Also, a set age in which they may have intercourse?

 

[bzkoss236]

Just a side question for the sake of discussion:

Do Catholic’s have a set age that a man or a woman is allowed to get married? Also, a set age in which they may have intercourse?

No specific age, technically, to have intercourse, because one should be married before having intercourse, otherwise it is immoral.

As to the age which one is allowed to get married, I do believe that is up to the state, however, it is part of Canon Law that one must be physically able to have sex to get married, which would indicate that one need at least be in or past the pubescent stage in life. One must also be able to give willful consent in marrying, which is where the state’s age of consent comes in. So, in the U.S. one must be at least 18 to be married, unless parental consent is given (the adolescent must still be willing, they cannot be forced by their parents).

 

[JonNC]

Bz,
Hat’s off to you. While I provided that scripture describes a God pleasing marriage, you were specific.

Jon

First, in the NT, Jesus says that some things were permitted because of the hardness of people’s hearts (this would include polygamy). Which is why Jacob, David, and any others who had multiple wives (if they were in-fact wives and not just more like house servants) were not condemned at the time.

Second:

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 2:24[/BIBLEDRB]
One man, one woman, to become one flesh. Not one man, many women, or vice versa.

This is reiterated here, but with more context:
[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:2-12[/BIBLEDRB]
One is not permitted to divorce and remarry because that would be adultery (meaning that one is still married to the other). This can also be taken to mean that he cannot have another wife, because that too would be adultery.

These same verses are also mentioned in Matt 19:3-12.

There are probably more.

 

[steido01]

No specific age, technically, to have intercourse, because one should be married before having intercourse, otherwise it is immoral.

As to the age which one is allowed to get married, I do believe that is up to the state, however, it is part of Canon Law that one must be physically able to have sex to get married, which would indicate that one need at least be in or past the pubescent stage in life. One must also be able to give willful consent in marrying, which is where the state’s age of consent comes in. So, in the U.S. one must be at least 18 to be married, unless parental consent is given (the adolescent must still be willing, they cannot be forced by their parents).

Would you happen to know any specific Canons on the topic? My knowledge of Canon Law is certainly minimal (Hey, I’m Lutheran ), but I do recall some bits from when my Roman Catholic wife and I went through Pre-Cana. I googled for the phrase that came to mind, and Canon 1072 is the only one that really came up. Interestingly enough, it doesn’t note local authorities, but local customs:

Canon 1072 Pastors of souls are to see to it that they dissuade young people from entering marriage before the age customarily accepted in the region.

Interesting.

 

[dronald]

As to the age which one is allowed to get married, I do believe that is up to the state, however,

So the CC doesn’t have a set age? How can we know for sure if we’re allowed to get married if the Catholic Church doesn’t give us an exact age?

it is part of Canon Law that one must be physically able to have sex to get married,

Perhaps I read this part wrong, but you’re speaking of only age correct? People handicapped at the waist down who are physically unable to have sex can be married right?

which would indicate that one need at least be in or past the pubescent stage in life.

So 12?

One must also be able to give willful consent in marrying, which is where the state’s age of consent comes in. So, in the U.S. one must be at least 18 to be married, unless parental consent is given (the adolescent must still be willing, they cannot be forced by their parents).

Again, this is all the state. Is Church practice directed by the state or the Church? I’m asking for Catholic teachings, not American teachings.

 

[Alizarin]

Perhaps I read this part wrong, but you’re speaking of only age correct? People handicapped at the waist down who are physically unable to have sex can be married right?

Interesting question, because Joseph and Mary (in Catholic teaching) had a virginal marriage, right? So why does ability – or lack thereof – to consummate marriage come into play at all?

 

[bzkoss236]

So the CC doesn’t have a set age? How can we know for sure if we’re allowed to get married if the Catholic Church doesn’t give us an exact age?

Perhaps I read this part wrong, but you’re speaking of only age correct? People handicapped at the waist down who are physically unable to have sex can be married right?

So 12?

Again, this is all the state. Is Church practice directed by the state or the Church? I’m asking for Catholic teachings, not American teachings.

As steido posted, Canon 1072 says “Pastors of souls are to see to it that they dissuade young people from entering marriage before the age customarily accepted in the region.”

So, the customary age of consent, which can vary (in the U.S. it is 18). If you are merely asking for the lower age limit, then at whatever age a person is capable of having marital relations (as I stated before).

And as I understand it, impotence (the inability to have sexual relations) is an impediment to marriage. A couple getting married must be able to consummate the marriage. So, unless there is reason to believe that the impotence can be reversed/fixed, I don’t think they would be allowed to get married.

 

[bzkoss236]

Interesting question, because Joseph and Mary (in Catholic teaching) had a virginal marriage, right? So why does ability – or lack thereof – to consummate marriage come into play at all?

Mary and Joseph were capable of consummating the marriage, they just didn’t. Presumably because Mary’s real spouse was the Holy Spirit (the person by which she conceived). The Church doesn’t say that you HAVE to consummate, just that you need to be capable of doing so.

 

[dronald]

As steido posted, Canon 1072 says “Pastors of souls are to see to it that they dissuade young people from entering marriage before the age customarily accepted in the region.”

You see, this is the issue I have with the original posed questions. Essentially, the OP is asking how Protestants can constitute marriage, and yet even the Catholic Church passes it onto mans hands instead of creating a strict law themselves. Why can’t Protestants do the same thing Catholics are doing?

So, the customary age of consent, which can vary (in the U.S. it is 18). If you are merely asking for the lower age limit, then at whatever age a person is capable of having marital relations (as I stated before).

But isn’t the idea that a girl should have sex at 11/12 outdated no matter what country says it’s okay?

And as I understand it, impotence (the inability to have sexual relations) is an impediment to marriage. A couple getting married must be able to consummate the marriage. So, unless there is reason to believe that the impotence can be reversed/fixed, I don’t think they would be allowed to get married.

This is news to me.

 

[Alizarin]

Mary and Joseph were capable of consummating the marriage, they just didn’t. Presumably because Mary’s real spouse was the Holy Spirit (the person by which she conceived). The Church doesn’t say that you HAVE to consummate, just that you need to be capable of doing so.

Yeah… I just can’t see the sense in that position. What’s the reasoning behind requiring the capability, but then letting you ignore it if you want to?

 

[bzkoss236]

You see, this is the issue I have with the original posed questions. Essentially, the OP is asking how Protestants can constitute marriage, and yet even the Catholic Church passes it onto mans hands instead of creating a strict law themselves. Why can’t Protestants do the same thing Catholics are doing?

That’s because the age when someone is mentally ready for marriage is different from when they are physically able to be married. Their physical readiness is determined by biology. Their mental readiness is determined by the culture in which they live. It would not make sense to allow someone to get married if they were not really ready for marriage.

But isn’t the idea that a girl should have sex at 11/12 outdated no matter what country says it’s okay?

First, I never said anything about when a girl, or even a guy, SHOULD have sex. I only mentioned when they are capable (physically able) of having sex.
And no, it is outdated in our culture because the mental readiness of someone for marriage is that of someone after high school aged. In other cultures, where there is less to learn about how to live daily life (such in less undeveloped regions like in the forests and remote islands) people are ready at a younger age for married life.

This is news to me.

Really?
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 7:3-5[/BIBLEDRB]
EDIT: Apparently the DR translates it as ‘debt’, but others translate it as ‘marital duty’ or ‘marital relations’.

If they are not capable of sex, then how can they fulfill this duty of marriage?

It is one thing if you are capable when you get married and a bad accident happens later that disallows you to have sex, and another to know from the get-go that you will not be able to give of yourself from the start.

 

[bzkoss236]

Yeah… I just can’t see the sense in that position. What’s the reasoning behind requiring the capability, but then letting you ignore it if you want to?

Because it is far less likely that someone will have a Josephite marriage. And if one does intend on remaining a virgin in their marriage, that is not to say that things might change later on. (See the verses in my previous post from 1 Cor to see why).

 

[Alizarin]

Because it is far less likely that someone will have a Josephite marriage. And if one does intend on remaining a virgin in their marriage, that is not to say that things might change later on. (See the verses in my previous post from 1 Cor to see why).

Okay, but just as a Josephite marriage could change later, it could also stay the same – childless. So procreation can’t be at the root of marriage so far as I can see. In fact, under thses circumstances, I can’t even see it as basic building block of marriage :frighten:. Help me out here…

 

[bzkoss236]

Okay, but just as a Josephite marriage could change later, it could also stay the same – childless. So procreation can’t be at the root of marriage so far as I can see. In fact, under thses circumstances, I can’t even see it as basic building block of marriage :frighten:. Help me out here…

The Church doesn’t say that a marriage has to produce children. It is only required that the parents be open to life, meaning that they won’t prevent the conception of children when they have sex, if they have sex.

Marriage is designed as the loving unity of a man and a woman under God for the benefit of each other (each other being the man and woman). Sex is one expression of this love, meaning that it is not mandatory for spouses to have sex, just as it is not mandatory that they hold hands. However, if one spouse offers an expression of love, in whatever natural fashion (including sex, kissing, verbal cue), the other spouse has the obligation to be receptive of that love, which may entail reciprocation (as would be in the case of sex).

 

[benjohnson]

And the book, chapter and verse of my post can be found here:

1 Corinthians 1:19

 

[dronald]

That’s because the age when someone is mentally ready for marriage is different from when they are physically able to be married. Their physical readiness is determined by biology. Their mental readiness is determined by the culture in which they live. It would not make sense to allow someone to get married if they were not really ready for marriage.

First, I never said anything about when a girl, or even a guy, SHOULD have sex. I only mentioned when they are capable (physically able) of having sex.
And no, it is outdated in our culture because the mental readiness of someone for marriage is that of someone after high school aged. In other cultures, where there is less to learn about how to live daily life (such in less undeveloped regions like in the forests and remote islands) people are ready at a younger age for married life.

And all these things you are mentioning is determined by culture. All these things are determined logically and not by God, which myself and the CC both agree on. So if this is the case, why does this discussion even exist?

If both Catholic’s and Protestant’s have come to an agreement that the CC and Protestants are to deem who is worthy of marriage based on culture, then the questions posed in the beginning are moot.

Really?
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 7:3-5[/BIBLEDRB]
EDIT: Apparently the DR translates it as ‘debt’, but others translate it as ‘marital duty’ or ‘marital relations’.

If they are not capable of sex, then how can they fulfill this duty of marriage?

It is one thing if you are capable when you get married and a bad accident happens later that disallows you to have sex, and another to know from the get-go that you will not be able to give of yourself from the start.

I disagree with you for several reasons, but I won’t go into them now. I think many Catholic’s would say it’s okay for a handicapped person to marry, and I think society believes it as well. I think if I get into an accident and I can’t have sex with my girlfriend in the future, we should still be able to marry and spend our lives together.

 

[Alizarin]

the other spouse has the obligation to be receptive of that love, which may entail reciprocation (as would be in the case of sex).

Can a person be obligated to receive love? Doesn’t the obligation negate free will, which in turn would be a negation of love, since love depends on the response being given freely?

 

[dronald]

Can a person be obligated to receive love? Doesn’t the obligation negate free will, which in turn would be a negation of love, since love depends on the response being given freely?

Also; love, sex and affection are different things. You can be in love and show affection without sex. Therefore, you can marry, be in love and show affection and not be able to have sex.