Traditions of Man - Divorce and Remarriage

[john_ennis]

It’s hard to respond to the concept that Christ forgives sins we’re not sorry for. I think the two of you took Eden’s valid points personally.

You responded with platitudes, whereas she made points with evidence and logic.

Do you really intend to say that if I or anyone engages in adultery, continuously and without intention of ceasing, Christ is constantly forgiving me?

Please answer specifically this question.

Peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

sandusky:

You are a moralist. For that, Christ condemned the Pharisees.

Look who’s getting off topic! What are you trying to deflect?

The church lady returns.

Eden you have said nothing coherent about my reasoning from Mt 18, and 1 Cor 7. All you can do is resort to sarcasm. IMHO, you are ill-equipped to discuss this topic, as your sole reason for raising it is to make Holy Mother Church look good, and every other church look bad. You should examine your motives. :tsktsk:

Ah, you prove my point!

Your caricature of others speaks to your lack of understanding; but what else can one do who has no real religious experience other than that of sitting in a pew, and setting up hypothetical theological conundrums that issue from a lack of scriptural understanding?

Sandusky, what’s going on?

You criticize what you see as moralism by being a moralist; you call someone “church lady,” then accuse her of caricaturizing!

How bout we try to continue a sincere pursuit of truth, and not read each other’s hearts?

Peace.
John

 

[Kirane]

Eden:

The definition of annulment is not divorce. …Most importantly, do you really believe that your argument that Catholics are “just as bad” is a valid answer for why “bible only” faiths have unbiblical traditions like divorce and remarriage?

First of all, it is just a play on words. What one Church calls divorce another calls annulment after civil divorce has been granted. the end effect is the same. For example, First the couple goes through a marraige ceremony. They live a while as husband and wife, and perhaps have one or several children. Then all of a sudden the husband finds himself a new younger mistress. The husband wants to divorce his wife, marry the younger lady, and still be able to receive Holy Communion (in the case of a Catholic). In the case of the Protestant, he gets his divorce and remains in his church after that. In the case of the Catholic, the couple first gets a civil divorce, and then the couple apply for an annulment of a marriage which no one had ever questioned before the husband was unfaithful to the marriage. In the case of the Catholic, the great majority of the time, the annulment is granted, and the marriage is broken, and each one is free to remarry. The end effect is exactly the same as in the Protestant case. You are not fooling anyone by changing the name from divorce to annulment. This is sheer poppycock to say there is a dime’s worth of difference between the end result in either Church.
Secondly, I never said that divorce was justified. My point is this: if you are so much against divorce, why don’t you try to clean up the annulment and broken family situation in the Roman Catholic Church instead of pointing fingers at other Churches and claiming how much superior is the annulment theory to the divorce theory. The family is broken up in either case. To a five year old child, what difference would it make if the family unit were broken up by a divorce or by an annulment? The child suffers exactly the same pain in both cases. It is only a matter of words, empty words that mean nothing to children from broken marriages and broken families. By the way, the number of these broken families has exploded enormously in the Roman Catholic Church, more so than in any other Church in the world today.

 

[Kirane]

john ennis:

It’s hard to respond to the concept that Christ forgives sins we’re not sorry for. .

Well is it a sin for a couple to get an annulment? I don;t think so. What is the sin that they have to confess? Meanwhile, the children suffer and the parents are free to receive the Sacraments while remaining in the good graces of the Church after the annulment has been granted. This difers enormously from the case of the Eastern Orthodox Chuirch which recognises a divorce, but insists that the separation and failed marriage are sinful and must be confessed just like any other sin.

 

[blackbelt]

john ennis:

It’s hard to respond to the concept that Christ forgives sins we’re not sorry for. I think the two of you took Eden’s valid points personally.

You responded with platitudes, whereas she made points with evidence and logic.

Do you really intend to say that if I or anyone engages in adultery, continuously and without intention of ceasing, Christ is constantly forgiving me?

Please answer specifically this question.

Peace.
John

Of course im not saying that, what I am saying is if a person is in there 2nd marrage for what ever reason and they repent and come To Christ then they are forgiven But RC stills sees it as an adultirous marrage unless the get an anulment this i disagree with, now if someone wants to use forgivness as an excuse to live an adultress life style God will know there true hearts not men.

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

Well is it a sin for a couple to get an annulment? I don;t think so. What is the sin that they have to confess? Meanwhile, the children suffer and the parents are free to receive the Sacraments while remaining in the good graces of the Church after the annulment has been granted. This difers enormously from the case of the Eastern Orthodox Chuirch which recognises a divorce, but insists that the separation and failed marriage are sinful and must be confessed just like any other sin.

I have no idea what you mean “the children suffer”.

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

First of all, it is just a play on words.

You say it is a play on words because your own church’s position on divorce makes you uncomfortable. It’s easier to attack the idea of an annulment than it is to answer the hard questions about why other Christian faiths do not follow God’s Word on divorce and remarriage.

 

[Eden]

sandusky:

Your caricature of others speaks to your lack of understanding; but what else can one do who has no real religious experience other than that of sitting in a pew, and setting up hypothetical theological conundrums that issue from a lack of scriptural understanding?

Sandusky, I see from your responses that your church tells you living the Christian life is supposed to be easy. “If it’s uncomfortable or difficult, let’s find the easy way out.” You ask me to examine my motives and I will tell you that my motives are to illustrate that any faith that tells you you can divorce and remarry and remain in God’s graces is lying to you. If you believe your faith is “biblically-based” you need to ask the hard questions about your church’s motives - like retaining members - instead of attacking the messenger.

 

[NiceFundamental]

Eden:

You say it is a play on words because your own church’s position on divorce makes you uncomfortable. It’s easier to attack the idea of an annulment than it is to answer the hard questions about why other Christian faiths do not follow God’s Word on divorce and remarriage.

OK, let me try this angle. From a Catholic perspective (my presumption), marriages are not “real” marriages outside the Catholic Church. Therefore, people are not really getting remarried at all. Since the one “prior” was not real. Hence, no “remarriage” taking place.

Any takers…

 

[Eden]

NiceFundamental:

OK, let me try this angle. From a Catholic perspective (my presumption), marriages are not “real” marriages outside the Catholic Church. Therefore, people are not really getting remarried at all. Since the one “prior” was not real. Hence, no “remarriage” taking place.

Any takers…

Let’s stay on track here. This “angle” is another distraction from the fact that “biblically based” churches aren’t so biblically based on this issue. I would assume in your own church that your marriage is considered “real”, so why does your church allow divorce and remarriage?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Eden:

Let’s stay on track here. This “angle” is another distraction from the fact that “biblically based” churches aren’t so biblically based on this issue. I would assume in your own church that your marriage is considered “real”, so why does your church allow divorce and remarriage?

It seems to me that you’re dodging a very good point, given the logic that you’re using. If the Catholic Church is the one, true church, why does it allow for annulment… which is practically a church-sanctioned divorce in the U.S. (a rose, by any other name)? If Protestant churches aren’t real churches, why would you worry about how they handle marriages and divorces, since they haven’t been witnessed by the one true Church anyway?

These are valid points in the argument; if you’re going to point out the speck in another’s eye, be sure to notice the log in your own.

Divorce is certainly a sin in my discernment of the faith. So are annulments. Getting an annulment and pretending that there is no marriage when there are children in the family is downright immoral.

O+

 

[Eden]

O.S. Luke:

It seems to me that you’re dodging a very good point, given the logic that you’re using. If the Catholic Church is the one, true church, why does it allow for annulment… which is practically a church-sanctioned divorce in the U.S. (a rose, by any other name)? If Protestant churches aren’t real churches, why would you worry about how they handle marriages and divorces, since they haven’t been witnessed by the one true Church anyway?

These are valid points in the argument; if you’re going to point out the speck in another’s eye, be sure to notice the log in your own.

Divorce is certainly a sin in my discernment of the faith. So are annulments. Getting an annulment and pretending that there is no marriage when there are children in the family is downright immoral.

O+

I have already stated that I am not concerned specifically about whether or not the marriages are “real”. My first post states exactly what I am asking, “How can a church claim to be biblically-based when it clearly contradicts scripture on its teaching about divorce and remarriage?”

I’m making the assumption that those churches believe their marriage to be “real” and I want to know how a biblically-based church justifies teachings that are unbiblical.

So far the only answers have been that annulments are really just divorces in disguise (which would be another thread) - in other words “So what? The Catholic Church is just as bad!” Is that really a quality answer when we are talking about the Word of God?

I would suggest you research annulments more thoroughly before you claim that getting an annulment when one has children is immoral - or at least start another thread.

As I’ve stated before the only answers have been along the lines of “Your Church is just as bad” or “Jesus is loving and forgiving”. Neither of these responses answers why a biblically-based church would contradict scriptures with its teachings on divorce and remarriage.

 

[Kay_Cee]

sandusky:

As far as my church, the merits, or demerits if you will, of each case is dealt with individually. If both parties remarry, what should be done, further divorce, and reunion with the original spouse? That inflicts more damage.There is only so much we helpless and hapless humans can do. Makes one thankful for God and His unfettered forgiveness.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments, and I am very glad to see that divorce is not taken lightly in your denomination.

But my question wasn’t answered. Perhaps I didn’t state it well. If one party becomes a disbeliever (say through desertion of his marital vows), is he then allowed to remarry in the church? Is this allowed only if he becomes a believer again?

That is what Jesus says, and eventually both parties will sign the papers. Again, we are dealing with sinners, and some sinners make a mess of their lives. Ultimately they will give an account to God.

But if your denomination allows remarriage after divorce, doesn’t it seem like it’s condoning adultery? I’m having a hard time not seeing it that way.

I can only speak for my church, and those who are of like mind.

On the basis of the passages I’ve cited, the church does its best to counsel accordingly. For the church to recommend a divorce certain scriptural criteria must be met. Advising divorce is the last counsel; it is a serious matter.

This is a good, real-life lesson in the sinfulness of man. Too often these topics are treated as hypotheticals within the absolute statements of scripture.

However, the truth is, if a sinner will not listen, then he will not listen, and at that point, all that can be done is to follow the teaching of Mt 18, put the unrepentant party out of the church, and after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, move on.

I have seen some serious marital problems. Men who are physically and verbally abusive, and women who are as well. Personally, when there is physical abuse, the abused is advised to get out, and the church reports the abuse to the civil authorities.

Every conceivable problem that occurs within society at large will be seen within the visible church. That’s life in a fallen world.

I agree that women should not stay with abusive husbands, but living separately and getting remarried are two different issues. Let me explain where I’m coming from.

When I married my husband, I vowed to God and man that I would be married to him for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, till death do us part. Now I take making a vow to God very seriously, akin to being on the witness stand and swearing to God to tell the whole truth.

If the marriage gets worse–let’s say my husband slaps me around, then leaves me for another woman–he certainly would have broken his vow to God and to me. But I don’t see how his sinfulness gives me license to break my vow to God. If, when we married, I had made a vow solely to my husband (for example, if we had gotten married by a justice of the peace), breaking a vow made just to a man isn’t so serious. But that’s not what happened. I made a vow to God. If I then say, “Well, it got worse, so even though I vowed to God I would be married for worse, I no longer have to forsake all others” seems to me hypocritical.

As G.K. Chesterton said in *The Superstition of Divorce, *“But the broad-minded are extremely bitter because a Christian who wishes to have several wives when his own promise bound him to one, is not allowed to violate his vow at the same altar at which he made it.”

Can you at least see where I’m coming from?

 

[blackbelt]

If anyone can post scripture that annulments are bibical I would love to see it

 

[john_ennis]

blackbelt:

If anyone can post scripture that annulments are bibical I would love to see it

Do you really mean to say there’s no such thing as an invalid marriage, simply because the word “annulment” isn’t in Scripture?

If I lie about my identity, and marry a woman under deceptive conditions, wouldn’t you agree that this means we were never validly married, and that she has every right to consider herself not under the divorce/remarriage situation discussed in Matthew?

And, of course, the foundation of your question is illegitimate–you imply that annulments ought to be authorized by Scripture. Scripture itself, however, doesn’t suggest that everything ought to be authorized by Scripture.

Peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

O.S. Luke:

It seems to me that you’re dodging a very good point, given the logic that you’re using. If the Catholic Church is the one, true church, why does it allow for annulment… which is practically a church-sanctioned divorce in the U.S. (a rose, by any other name)? If Protestant churches aren’t real churches, why would you worry about how they handle marriages and divorces, since they haven’t been witnessed by the one true Church anyway?

These are valid points in the argument; if you’re going to point out the speck in another’s eye, be sure to notice the log in your own.

Divorce is certainly a sin in my discernment of the faith. So are annulments. Getting an annulment and pretending that there is no marriage when there are children in the family is downright immoral.

O+

It may very well be that some annulments are improperly declared, and in fact are divorces. I personally don’t know. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that the Catholic Church’s teaching on this matter is in accordance with Christ’s declaration in Matthew: if there is a valid marriage, men cannot dissolve it by divorce.
The Church teaches that an annulment is only supposed to be a declaration that a marriage was never valid. Surely you would agree that there are such situations–and that the ending of such situations is not a divorce.
So, the teaching is correct. The fact that it may be violated in individual cases does not call into question the validity of Church doctrine.

Peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

blackbelt:

Of course im not saying that, what I am saying is if a person is in there 2nd marrage for what ever reason and they repent and come To Christ then they are forgiven But RC stills sees it as an adultirous marrage unless the get an anulment this i disagree with, now if someone wants to use forgivness as an excuse to live an adultress life style God will know there true hearts not men.

But Christ never said that the relationship somehow ceases to be adulterous after some amount of time. How can we?

The person doesn’t really get an annulment, by the way. If the marriage was in fact never valid, this can be declared after an investigation.
Whether this process is abused is another matter. The church teaching, though, is consistent with Scripture.

Peace.
John

 

[Eden]

blackbelt:

If anyone can post scripture that annulments are bibical I would love to see it

Since we again go back to the topic of annulments, I take it that means you concede that the biblically-based churches that allow divorce and remarriage are teaching a tradition of men that is in direct contradiction to scriptures.

So, we move once again to annulments which was not the topic of the thread:

An annulment is a recognition that the the union never satisfied the objective requirements of law. For reasons centered in one or both parties, the attempt at entering the life-long union the Church calls marriage was null from the outset.

You are looking for evidence in scripture for instances in which something that seemed like a valid marriage on the outside was in fact null from the beginning?

I’ve given those examples in scripture already in this thread but here are some examples:

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 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.

Those are some examples in scripture in which we find marriages that have taken place, later declared null from the start. This is the scriptural basis for annulments which declare a marriage null from the start.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think to have this conversation is to talk about marriage in general. For one… why should the Church need a piece of paper from the state to pronounce someone married? And why, if the Catholic Church does grant an annulment, must you still get a legal divorce?

In the U.S., regardless of whether you get a divorce or an annulment, you’re still going to have to get a divorce to be legal. Why has the Church capitulated on this matter?

To my knowledge, no church - Catholic or Protestant - “grants” a divorce. As far as remarriage - that’s a different story.

As far as getting "re"married in my tradition, it is usually done only after due counsel of both parties with extensive counsel - in essence/practice, it is an “annulment” of a previous marriage. As a pastor, I’m not a Marrying Sam - and I don’t always agree to preside over such weddings. I suspect my theology and practice regarding marriage and remarriage is as stringent as the Catholic Church’s criteria for annulments.

Annulment… divorce. In practice, which is where the rubber hits the road, they are indistinguishable… at least in the U.S., where individualism, consumerism, and cafeteria theology thrives.

O+

 

[blackbelt]

john ennis:

But Christ never said that the relationship somehow ceases to be adulterous after some amount of time. How can we?

The person doesn’t really get an annulment, by the way. If the marriage was in fact never valid, this can be declared after an investigation.
Whether this process is abused is another matter. The church teaching, though, is consistent with Scripture.

Peace.
John

but nither did Christ say go back to your 1st husband or stop having sexual relations with your 2nd