Traditions of Man - Divorce and Remarriage

[Eden]

Kirane:

The position of the RCC on annulments is basically a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that the RCC is handing out divorces. This is clear from the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who apply for an annulment will get it, and in most cases it is on the basis of “defective consent”.

This is your opinion. One which I have already said I disagree.

You still have not answered the question as to how you justify divorce and remarriage in “bible only” Christian denominations.

If you would like to start a thread about annulments, please do.

I have answered this many more times than I needed to. It has been pointed out to you enough that this thread is about divorce and remarriage in “biblically-based” “bible-only” Christian denominations and how it is justified.

 

[blackbelt]

Kirane:

That’s where we differ. I think that children who are harmed by marital breakups should be listened to and heard.

I agaree 100%, not only are they harmed but they are torn apart to chouse which parent was at fault. And while Christian communities be it Rc or another denomination are playing politics with words Satan is having a feild day.

 

[Eden]

blackbelt:

Eden:

This has been addressed, Christian denominations do not allow for it except for adultery as Christ taught, the only difference between RC and other Christians is that Christians see it as a sin and RC goes around and says no the marriage never happened.

I do not agree with you that Christ meant “adultery” when he said “fornication”. The Greek word for fornication is “porneia” and the Greek word for adultery is “moicheia”.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

So, your response is that the “bible only” churches are basing their teachings on a poor translation from the Greek?

And are you also saying that all remarriages in these “bible only” churches come about after the first marriage ended in divorce due to adultery?

 

[blackbelt]

Eden:

blackbelt:

And are you also saying that all remarriages in these “bible only” churches come about after the first marriage ended in divorce due to adultery?

Of course im not saying that, for what ever the reason for the split up , the fact remains ist happing and at a lager rate than ever before.

Ok got to go pic up my daughter, i will respond latter.

 

[sandusky]

Kay Cee:

Okay, this didn’t quite answer the question. If a person is “put out of the church” due to divorce, what happens if he returns? What if, by then, his wife has remarried someone else? Is he then allowed to take another wife?

Kay Cee, I can tell you confidently, that once a person is put out, and obtains a divorce, they are never seen again by their own choice. That said, I can only offer a hypothetical and say that we would probably not perform a marriage in such a case, as we would have full knowledge of what transpired, and of all of the counseling admonitions given them in the past.
Kay Cee:

I obviously did not state my question well. You took it to mean adultery committed before a divorce. I meant it as after a divorce–let’s say in both cases a civil divorce was granted because of irreconcilable differences. Now here’s what I’m seeing in many Protestant churches: Two such divorced persons get married to each other. If we take seriously Jesus’ statement that if they remarry, they commit adultery, they are entering into an adulterous relationship, with the full blessing and sanction of their church. I hope I explained it well this time.

Each case must be looked at individually. This has happened. The key question is whether or not they were believers at the time of their divorce, ie., was their profession of faith a true profession of faith? If someone comes to us under these circumstances, be it as a new member of the church, or as a member of the church who now seeks to marry, their honesty in not hiding their past is important (Pro 28:13). If we are convinced that he or was only professing faith, and not truly regenerate, or that he or she was a flat out professing non-believer at the time of their divorce, we would allow the marriage. If we came to the conclusion that he or she was a believer, and understood what they had done as a believer at that time, we would not allow the marriage, at which point, he or she will usually go elsewhere to get married.
Kay Cee:

What really bothers me about this is that in such a situation, another person’s sin would be voiding a sacred vow I personally made to God, without my desire or consent. That vow is not just between me and my husband, it’s also between God and me. Nobody has the right to void a sacred vow I make to God but God. Sin is evil. How can evil void a sacred vow I made to God? If that’s the case, isn’t evil greater than sanctity?

Well, your problem in that is not with me, but with the Lord; He has allowed the concession in Mt 5, and Mt 19–a reiteration of Moses’ concession in Dt. 24.

There is no requirement that you must remarry, only that you can should you choose to do so.

Also, death can void your sacred vow as well without your desire and consent, and death is evil; murder can void your sacred vow without your desire and consent, and murder is evil. I see that as a quandary for you to consider.
Kay Cee:

I just put in the quote by Chesterton to illustrate my point. I’m very disturbed by someone standing before God and breaking one vow by making another.

IMHO, that is not a wise expenditure of energy. Some people will listen to sound counsel; my experience is that, sadly, most do not, thus we have the Lord’s concession.

 

[Eden]

blackbelt:

Eden:

Of course im not saying that, for what ever the reason for the split up , the fact remains ist happing and at a lager rate than ever before.

Ok got to go pic up my daughter, i will respond latter.

O.K. Divorce is happening at a larger rate across the board in our society. But the Church is supposed to guide us into all truth.

Why are these denominations encouraging the sin of divorce by allowing their members to remarry in the church? They are blessing a new union which is adulterous in the eyes of God.

How is this Christian teaching and how are these churches guiding their members “into all truth” as Jesus promised His Church would be when they are allowing - and worse! - blessing this?

 

[Kirane]

happygal:

Hm…why does believers have to choose either divorce or annulment to go separate way? Why wanted to reject gift given by God?. If both parties treat marriage as holy and continue to build their relationship between god and themselves, every problem in marriage can be work out in his name. Why wanted to upset God who give us gift

Isn’t our God can make the impossible turn possible??

This is indeed an excellent point that you are making and it shows the bankruptcy of the position of the RCC and their theory of annulments. If a married couple were truly honest with respect to their marriage vows, they would try to build the relationship between God and themselves, and they would not try to think up all sorts of trivial reasons as to why they had defective consent at the time of their marriage. Even if there were defective consent at the time of the wedding voes, a sincere copule would try to rectifiy the situation and not bail out of the marriage and get a divorce and later on an annulment.
Catholics want us to live in a fairy tale world, a world of Alice in Wonderland. They want us to believe that the marriage is wrectked an broken by the annulment process due to the fact that there was defective consent at the time of the exchange of wedding vows. This is of course ridicuolous. This question of defect of consent comes up only after they had problems living together and it would almost never arise in the cse of a couple that was happily married. So to say, as Catholics want you to beleive, that the annulment was due to defective consent at the time of exchange of the wedding vows is sheer nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the annulment (or breakup of the family unit) was initiated and caused by some problem that the couple had in living together, whether that problem be infidelity of one of the partners or incompatibility. After that problem had arisen, they consult with Church lawyers who try to figure out a face saving case for granting an annulment. And they have one thousand and one huge loopholes which will enable them to do this. So it is a sham. In many cases since Vatican II, it is nothing more nor less than the Roman Catholic Church granting a divorce but using the name annulment instead of the commonly used name of divorce.

 

[blackbelt]

Eden:

blackbelt:

O.K. Divorce is happening at a larger rate across the board in our society. But the Church is supposed to guide us into all truth.

Why are these denominations encouraging the sin of divorce by allowing their members to remarry in the church? They are blessing a new union which is adulterous in the eyes of God.

How is this Christian teaching and how are these churches guiding their members “into all truth” as Jesus promised His Church would be when they are allowing - and worse! - blessing this?

I dont know of any true christian church that encourages divorce, if a certin church does do so then i would question it also.

the ones that divorce and remarry must have biblcal grounds as outlined by Jesus, sam as RC after an annulment in reality is remarrage also can you see the acts are the same the names are diffrent.

 

[Kay_Cee]

sandusky:

Well, your problem in that is not with me, but with the Lord; He has allowed the concession in Mt 5, and Mt 19–a reiteration of Moses’ concession in Dt. 24.

There is no requirement that you must remarry, only that you can should you choose to do so.

Also, death can void your sacred vow as well without your desire and consent, and death is evil; murder can void your sacred vow without your desire and consent, and murder is evil. I see that as a quandary for you to consider…

No, it’s not the same thing at all. When I married, my sacred vow was already “until death do us part.” Therefore, death, even if it’s by murder, cannot void the vow. If my husband dies, I have fulfilled the vow completely. Divorce, however, does void the vow. I said, “till death do us part,” not “until adultery do us part.”

See the difference?

So that leaves me with the evil of adultery trumping the sacredness of the marriage vow.

I think this boils down to interpretation of Matthew and “porneia.” I think I understand where you are coming from, given your interpretation. I disagree with it (because, for one thing, it allows evil to void a sacred vow). I think interpretation of “porneia” is a subject for another thread, which I will leave to those more conversant in Greek than I am–although I will read such a thread.

I must say I am glad your denomination takes marriage vows much more seriously than most Protestant churches seem to. I also think you answered the OP’s question (although I disagree with your answer) which is more than I can say about posters who keep insisting on going off the subject.

Thank you for your time and effort in answering my questions.

 

[sandusky]

Kay Cee:

No, it’s not the same thing at all. When I married, my sacred vow was already “until death do us part.” Therefore, death, even if it’s by murder, cannot void the vow. If my husband dies, I have fulfilled the vow completely. Divorce, however, does void the vow. I said, “till death do us part,” not “until adultery do us part.”

See the difference?

I understand that; my point was aimed at your statement concerning your “consent” in the matter. You did not consent to your partner’s behavior, nor did you consent to the murderer’s actions, nor did you consent to the diseases course.

It is the idea that you have control over such things to which I was pointing.
Kay Cee:

I think this boils down to interpretation of Matthew and “porneia.” I think I understand where you are coming from, given your interpretation. I disagree with it (because, for one thing, it allows evil to void a sacred vow). I think interpretation of “porneia” is a subject for another thread, which I will leave to those more conversant in Greek than I am–although I will read such a thread.

That is a waste of time. The definition of any N.T. Greek Lexicon shows the meaning of the word porneia, as evidenced by the OP’s own post in which the OP offers the following quote:

"CATHOLIC: Most Protestant versions of the Bible translate the Greek word porneia with the terms you mentioned. Porneia can mean any kind of sexual immorality. The specific word for “adultery” used in 5:32 and 19:9 is moichaomai when it says, “he commits adultery.” Your interpretation requires that porneia and moichaomai are synonyms, but I don’t think that is the case."

He defines porneia as ”Any kind of sexual immorality.” Adultery fits the definition he gives.

The weakness of his position is hinted at by his statement, “Your interpretation requires that porneia and moichaomai are synonyms.” They are synonyms, by his own statement, “any kind of sexual immorality,” and, more importantly by the lexicon.

The reverse is true: it is his position that requires that they not be synonymous, but they are.

 

[Kirane]

Eden:

It has been pointed out to you enough that this thread is about divorce and remarriage …

Divorce and remarriage in the RCC is accomplished by the annulment process. The effect of the wrecking of the family unit is exactly the same, whatever you call it. You are just putting different packaging on the same action which results in a family breakup in either case. So it is really irrelevant whether you call it annulment or divorce.

 

[happygal]

blackbelt:

Eden:

I dont know of any true christian church that encourages divorce, if a certin church does do so then i would question it also.

the ones that divorce and remarry must have biblcal grounds as outlined by Jesus, sam as RC after an annulment in reality is remarrage also can you see the acts are the same the names are diffrent.

Not only christianity, no other religion will encourage divorce.

 

[Coder]

Eden, your point is good that the Catholic Church considers that marriage is for life and this is Biblical.

People refer to annullments but an annullment is a declaration that a marriage never existed.

When the Catholic Church finds that a valid marriage exists, there is no possiblity of remarriage. Yet, as you point out Protestant Churches generally have no such practice and do not follow the Bible in this regard.

So indeed, you have an excellent example of why the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ and that the Church does indeed follow Scripture.

The Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus. Those of us who seek eternal life in union with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, must not take this lightly. Truly it is joyous to find God and His Church!

 

[happygal]

Coder:

Eden, your point is good that the Catholic Church considers that marriage is for life and this is biblical.

People refer to annullments but an annullment is a declaration that a marriage never existed.

When the Catholic Church finds that a valid marriage exists, there is no possiblity of remarriage. Yet, as you point out Protestant Churches have no such rule and do not follow the bible in this regard.

So indeed, you have an excellent example of why the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ and that the Church does indeed follow Scripture.

The Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus. Those who seek eternal life in union with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, must not take this lightly.

Brother and sister, why think of ending a beautiful gift if we have faith in God and believing him can make the impossible turn possible!!! Divorce or annulment still work out the same of individual going their separate eye. We do have our own explanation given from our practises. But thinking this way, to the see of non-believer, is still a fail marriage. The thing is how to survive and be an overcomer in marriage problem.

 

[Coder]

happygal:

Brother and sister, why think of ending a beautiful gift if we have faith in God and believing him can make the impossible turn possible!!! Divorce or annulment still work out the same of individual going their separate eye. We do have our own explanation given from our practises. But thinking this way, to the see of non-believer, is still a fail marriage. The thing is how to survive and be an overcomer in marriage problem.

Your point that marriages in general should be worked out is good but still the Catholic Church more fully stands for the permanence of marriage.

Suppose someone commits the sin of extreme drunkenness and wakes up in the morning to find out they got married and they were so drunk they didn’t even know it.

The Church would say the marriage never existed because the person did not enter the marriage with full faculties and consent.

No one would ever say they need to keep this marriage together and work it out

That’s the annullment case.

For a couple that was married fo 10 years and and their marriage was found to be valid and including being entered of full consent and free will, the Catholic Church will state that the couple is bound in union for life. However, Protestant Churches will remarry the people.

That’s the difference - we’re Biblical and apostolic.

 

[happygal]

Coder:

Your point that marriages in general should be worked out is good but still the Catholic Church more fully stands for the permanence of marriage.

Suppose someone commits the sin of extreme drunkenness and wakes up in the morning to find out they got married and they were so drunk they didn’t even know it.

The Church would say the marriage never existed because the person did not enter the marriage with full faculties and consent.

No one would ever say they need to keep this marriage together and work it out

That’s the annullment case.

For a couple that was married fo 10 years and and their marriage was found to be valid and including being entered of full consent and free will, the Catholic Church will state that the couple is bound in union for life. However, Protestant Churches will remarry the people.

That’s the difference - we’re Biblical and apostolic.

Huh, so how would someone get drunk and got married?? who’s the witness?? or who actually conceal their marriage??? I don’t understand. Yup i agree this will not a valid marriage, so annulment is the remedy, then is also same goes for a divorce officially. Since is not a correct marriage conceal in the first place.

As for the remarry case, i don’t quite understand, why is that a purpose since they are not separated!!! I’m not sure about the protestant practise in US. In my country our protestant churches do not have such practises. Also at my place here once you file for a divorce officially, you are consider single again…even if you did not get any annulment from your Church, so to determine your marital status still comes from the official not the churches. So the catholic and protestant pple here would simply go straight for official divorce and close the case…

Most important thing is whether who is biblical and apostolic, one needs to know the purpose of marriage and not thinking about annulment/divorce. That is simple, else we are human and tends to abuse the true meaning of marriage,

 

[Coder]

The Catholic Church stands more firmly for the permanence of marriage and therefore represents Jesus Christ.

 

[happygal]

Coder:

The Catholic Church stands more firmly for the permanence of marriage and therefore represents Jesus Christ.

Yup i respect that…Amen…

So everyone should cherish the gift given by god. My thinking is very simple…God will only give me the best, is up to me whether i wanted to reject his gift anot.

Thus one need to encourage those who are facing with marriage problem to be strong in faith, if possible give help to them in overcome their problem that tainted the marriage…pray for blessing to be given to them!!! This is what christian believer ought to do!!! Hooray

 

[Kirane]

Coder:

For a couple that was married fo 10 years and and their marriage was found to be valid and including being entered of full consent and free will, the Catholic Church will state that the couple is bound in union for life. However, Protestant Churches will remarry the people.

That’s the difference - we’re Biblical and apostolic.

Not much of a difference when you consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of Catholics who apply for an annulment are granted it. In some cases, it amounts to about more than 95 percent of those who apply for the annulment are granted it. the results of divorce or annulment are exactly the same: a wrecked family. There is no difference in the real world. You are applying a different word and a slightly different procedure to the process of wrecking a family bond and in the process hurting the children of the wrecked family. But in the annulment case, you give the blessings of the Roman Catholic Church to this wrecking of family life.

 

[Kirane]

happygal:

Yup i respect that…

I respected that with reference to the situation in Catholicism before Vatican II. However, after Vatican II, just about any Catholic can get their marriage broken and obtain the results of a wrecked family by the annulment process of the Roman Catholic Church.