Traditions of Man - Divorce and Remarriage

[Eden]

For those who belong to Christian denominations that allow for the divorce and remarriage of its members, how do you justify this tradition of man when Jesus clearly taught that marriage is a sacrament and to divorce and remarry would be adultery?

Gen. 2:20-24 - we see that, from the beginning, husband and wife are joined together by God and become one body. A body cannot be dismembered and still live.

Mal. 2:16 - God says “I hate divorce.” These are strong words from our Lord. Divorce and remarriage violates the sacred marital covenant between a husband and a wife that has been ordained by God.

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus makes it clear that it is God who joins the husband and wife together, according to His will. What God joins together cannot be dissolved because God’s will is perfect and eternal.

Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18 - Jesus says that whoever divorces and remarries another commits adultery. This is an offense against the natural law.

Rom. 7:2-3 - again, Paul reiterates Jesus’ teaching that sacramental marriage followed by a divorce and remarriage is adultery. He who commits adultery destroys himself. (Prov. 6:23). Many Protestant denominations have rejected this teaching of Jesus and His Church.

1 Cor. 7:10-11 - once again, Paul gives Christ’s teaching that married couples cannot divorce and remarry. This violates God’s divine plan for the husband and wife.

Matt. 5:31-32 - the Lord permits divorce only for “porneia.” This Greek word generally means unlawful sexual intercourse due to either blood relations (also called incest) or nonsacramental unions. The Lord does not permit divorce for “moicheia” (adultery). It is also important to note that in these cases, a marriage never existed in the first place, so the Lord is not actually permitting divorce, but a dissolution of the unlawful union.

Eph. 5:22-32 - Paul says that the sacramental union of husband and wife is the image of Christ and the Church. Just as Christ the Bridegroom and His Bride the Church are inseparable, so are a husband and wife also inseparable. A civil divorce cannot dissolve a sacramental marriage (between two baptized people).

1 Cor. 7:12-15 - these verses set forth what the Church calls the “Pauline privilege” - two unbaptized people marry, and afterwards one of the people is baptized. If the unbaptized person decides to leave the marriage, the Christian is free to remarry (because the first marriage was not sacramental, and a union between a baptized and an unbaptized person can jeopardize the baptized person’s faith).

Ezra 10:1-14 - these verses support what the Church calls the “Petrine privilege” - a baptized person marries an unbaptized person. To save the baptized person’s faith from being jeopardized, the Pope may dissolve such a marriage pursuant to his binding and loosing authority. Rev. 19:9 - the marital union of man and woman reflect Christ’s union with the Church at the heavenly marriage supper. Just as Christ and the Church have become one flesh through the Eucharist and the union brings forth spiritual life for God’s children, a man and a woman become one flesh and their union brings forth physical life for the Church. This union is indissoluble.

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[jrabs]

I am confused…your profile says you are Catholic. If Canon Law recognizes annulments for certain situations, are you saying Canon Law is incorrect and you reject this?

 

[Eden]

jrabs:

I am confused…your profile says you are Catholic. If Canon Law recognizes annulments for certain situations, are you saying Canon Law is incorrect and you reject this?

An annulment is not a divorce, it is a recognition that a valid marriage never took place.

 

[jrabs]

Eden:

An annulment is not a divorce, it is a recognition that a valid marriage never took place.

But an annulment can only be granted after a divorce. Cannot have one with the other.

 

[jrabs]

Maybe your post is too broad. Did you mean to remarry without annulments?

 

[Eden]

jrabs:

But an annulment can only be granted after a divorce. Cannot have one with the other.

You are talking about a civil divorce which would be a “legal” divorce. The Church does not grant divorces.

 

[Eden]

jrabs:

Maybe your post is too broad. Did you mean to remarry without annulments?

No. Like I said, the Church does not grant divorces only annulments.

 

[jrabs]

Eden:

No. Like I said, the Church does not grant divorces only annulments.

So your question is still confusing. I am a Christian ( Catholic). I am divorced. However, I can also remarry because I have been granted an annulment.

Are you addressing this question to non-Catholics? Maybe I am confused because I read Christian but see Catholics included in the mix…as we are Christians too.

 

[Eden]

jrabs:

So your question is still confusing. I am a Christian ( Catholic). I am divorced. However, I can also remarry because I have been granted an annulment.

Are you addressing this question to non-Catholics? Maybe I am confused because I read Christian but see Catholics included in the mix…as we are Christians too.

I think this is an emotional issue for you, so you have set about to attack my thread. If you read the first post, you will see that I am asking the following:

For those who belong to Christian denominations that allow for the divorce and remarriage of its members, how do you justify this tradition of man when Jesus clearly taught that marriage is a sacrament and to divorce and remarry would be adultery?

The Catholic Church is not a “denomination” which “allows for divorce and remarriage”. The Church does not recognize civil divorce and does not grant divorce so I am clearly not talking about annulment and remarriage.

I am asking those who belong to “biblically based” denominations which allow for divorce and remarriage how they justify this teaching that contradicts the bible.

 

[jrabs]

Eden:

I think this is an emotional issue for you, so you have set about to attack my thread.
.

What? :whacky: Attacking your thread? I was simply asking you to define your question a bit more because if it did not pertain to me, and was really for non-Catholics, then I was going to bow out.

Sheesh.
And who seems to be touchy?

 

[Eden]

jrabs:

What? :whacky: Attacking your thread? I was simply asking you to define your question a bit more because if it did not pertain to me, and was really for non-Catholics, then I was going to bow out.

Sheesh.
And who seems to be touchy?

My apologies. I thought that the fact that the thread was directed at non-Catholic Christians was clear from the first post. But it must have been confusing as you were clearly confused. Thanks for helping clarify. I’m sure anyone else reading this now will be clear to whom the thread is directed.

 

[jrabs]

Eden:

My apologies. I thought that the fact that the thread was directed at non-Catholic Christians was clear from the first post. But it must have been confusing as you were clearly confused. Thanks for helping clarify. I’m sure anyone else reading this now will be clear to whom the thread is directed.

Thanks. I honestly had no intention of derailing your thread. Now I’ll peacefully bid and let others step in.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

As a former baptist

No Christian church likes divorce, but it is a fact of life.

My former church offered services to help couples rebound after a divorce.

The Catholic Church which has the authority chooses to give annulements which cost money, traditionally the Church is suppossed to find fault in a marriage to claim there was no sacrament in the first place, but I know of many examples where the church at the local level sometimes more liberal than the vatican would like it to be grants more than they should.

 

[Eden]

Texan in DC:

As a former baptist

No Christian church likes divorce, but it is a fact of life.

My former church offered services to help couples rebound after a divorce.

The Catholic Church which has the authority chooses to give annulements which cost money, traditionally the Church is suppossed to find fault in a marriage to claim there was no sacrament in the first place, but I know of many examples where the church at the local level sometimes more liberal than the vatican would like it to be grants more than they should.

My question is why do other churches recognize divorce and allow or support remarriage when such a teaching is clearly not “bible based”.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

An annulment is not a divorce, it is a recognition that a valid marriage never took place.

This is, too me, one very suspicious following. So, with that same thought what if every other non-Catholic denomination came up with their own “annulment”? Then they too could remarry.

This whole “annulment” thing seems spurious (I just learnt that word). Catholics can “remarry” because a “recognized and valid marriage is proven not to have taken place.”(My quote)

What if some denominations decided to have a tribunal to determine, after sexual intercourse outside wedlock took place, if all the elements were there or not for it to be a “recognized and in-proper” sexual act? I am being facetious to illustrate a point. But come on, once a marriage took place it happened. You cannot undo it.

Catholic teachings say it can and thus a “loop hole” for remarriage.

I would say the Bible teaches two causes where divorce is permitted:

1. Fornication by the spouse.
2. An “unbelieving” spouse leaves.

I see these as two biblically allowable circumstances for divorce.

Now, if these two are biblically allowed, are they allowed to remarry?

I do not see in the Bible where the legitimately divorced spouse cannot marry a non-divorced individual? I think most verse talk about marrying a divorced person. (So the divorced person who marries a non-divorced person, is not committing adultery?)

Anyway, or, I see the only exception being I Corr 7:15. I will quote from my new NET Bible:

“But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place.” Now, I would think that other translations can be interpreted the same way (I have I think 10 versions now).anyway.

It goes on to say, "In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound.” Now I know there are many interpretations. Here is what the notes say in the NET.

Interpreters differ over the implication of the statement the brother or sister is not bound. One view is that the believer is “not bound to continue the marriage,” i.e., not so slavishly tied to the instruction about not divorcing (cf. vv. 10-11) that he or she refuses to face reality when the unbelieving spouse is unwilling to continue the relationship. In this view divorce is allowable under these circumstances, but not remarriage (v. 11 still applies: remain unmarried or be reconciled). The other view is that the believer is “not bound in regard to marriage,” i.e., free to remain single or to remarry. The argument for this view is the conceptual parallel with vv. 39-40, where a wife is said to be “bound” (a different word in Greek, but the same concept) as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is “free” to marry as she wishes, only in the Lord. If the parallel holds, then not bound in v. 15 also means “free to marry another.”

bible.org/netbible/index.htm

bible.org/netbible/index.htm

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

An annulment is not a divorce, it is a recognition that a valid marriage never took place.

Why is there not “process” to determine is a murder was “valid”? People “murder”, however perhaps one was not a “valid” murder?

Again, just trying to illustrate a point and my tone is not of mocking or attack. I look forward to your response.

If there were such a process, wouldn’t it seem odd?

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

Why is there not “process” to determine is a murder was “valid”? People “murder”, however perhaps one was not a “valid” murder?

Again, just trying to illustrate a point and my tone is not of mocking or attack. I look forward to your response.

If there were such a process, wouldn’t it seem odd?

I don’t understand the comparison. You are comparing the Sacrament of Marriage with committing murder. I don’t see the comparison.

A valid marriage could be said to not have taken place if one of the people in the marriage entered under false pretenses.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

A valid marriage could be said to not have taken place if one of the people in the marriage entered under false pretenses.

That would be a teaching of the Catholic church. Did the marriage take place? Of course it did. The church just comes up with rational to say it was not “legit” therefore not a real sacrament.

If my investment specialist lied to me about an investment…and I invested…and lost all my money. Regardless of the false pretenses,…it all happeded and it was real. Valid or not, as determined by the Catholic church is where I see a loop hole.

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

I would say the Bible teaches two causes where divorce is permitted:

1) Fornication by the spouse.

2) An “unbelieving” spouse leaves.

1. It says in the Bible God hates divorce. Mal. 2:16

Matt. 5:31-32 - the Lord permits divorce only for “porneia.” This Greek word generally means unlawful sexual intercourse due to either blood relations (also called incest) or nonsacramental unions. The Lord does not permit divorce for “moicheia” (adultery). It is also important to note that in these cases, a marriage never existed in the first place, so the Lord is not actually permitting divorce,* but a dissolution of the unlawful union*.

1. 1 Cor. 7:12-15 - these verses set forth what the Church calls the “Pauline privilege” - two unbaptized people marry, and afterwards one of the people is baptized. If the unbaptized person decides to leave the marriage, the Christian is free to remarry (because the first marriage was not sacramental, and a union between a baptized and an unbaptized person can jeopardize the baptized person’s faith).

These are two teachings in the Bible where a marriage can be declared invalid (annulment), not a divorce.

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

That would be a teaching of the Catholic church. Did the marriage take place? Of course it did. The church just comes up with rational to say it was not “legit” therefore not a real sacrament.

If my investment specialist lied to me about an investment…and I invested…and lost all my money. Regardless of the false pretenses,…it all happeded and it was real. Valid or not, as determined by the Catholic church is where I see a loop hole.

If a marriage was not sacramentally valid, it was never a real marriage. What are you talking about investment and money for? I don’t see the relationship to the Sacrament of Marriage.

Annulments are biblical, divorce is not.

If your church allows divorce and remarriage, how do you justify it biblically?