I have noticed this trend recently on these forums; Protestants aligning themselves with the Orthodox on issues like “papal authority” and now here you are aligning the two on “divorce”. I find that very interesting considering the Orthodox view Protestants as even less legitimate than the Catholic Church.
That’s because I don’t see too much difference with reference to the question of the spirit of the law. My view is the the Catholic theory on annulments, as it has been practiced after Vatican II (but not so much before Vatican II) is, in most cases where the grounds for the annulment are defect of consent, much the same as the Protestant theory on divorce, except that it is in diferent packaging. As such, if you say that the Protestant practice on divorce violates the letter of the law, then similarly one could argue that the Roman Catholic practice today in the USA of giving out annulments to just about anyone who applies for it, violates the spirit of the law.
I found this statistic: " 90% of all annulments in the world occur in the U.S."
I am happy to find out that you agree with me on this.
I hope in the future you will specifically refer to the American Catholic Church then. As they are only 6% of the world’s Catholics, it is inaccurate to refer to “the post-Vatican II Church” on this issue.
I think Christ said specifically that the divorce/remarriage was what amounted to adultery.
So is for better or for worse. Adultery certainly falls under the category “for worse.”Sickness is part of the vow.
I stated the reason. He is showing his divine nature by knowing local history and law that he wasn’t taught. It is very similar to when His adversaries asked Him about healing on the Sabbath. He then uses the moment to further teach that divorce is simply not allowed.
Another example of Protestant mis-interpretation. The history of Scripture is vital to being able to accurately interpret Scripture. The history of the specific towns are very relevant. They wouldn’t be noted otherwise. For example, the “good Samaritan” is noted because the town itself was generally lawless and its inhabitants quite sinful. Scripture, being divinely inspired, was relevant then, now and will be tomorrow. Knowing the context of Scripture gives a much more authentic interpretation. As some have said on this board, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Protestants have been taught this term “straightforward” by their individual pastors. It is used to justify an individual belief. If it were so straightforward, neighboring pastors would not disagree.
I would agree with you that this is an accurate interpretation of the Old Testament teaching. Moses was “merely” a prophet. His interaction with the Old Covenant was exactly this. Jesus however, is The Messiah. Nothing in His New Covenant allows us to stay in sinfulness.
Another example of Catholic caricature of Protestantism. Thankfully, at this point, I am amused by it.
Protestants have been taught this term “straightforward” by their individual pastors.]/quote]Another ill-informed, caricature.
LittleDeb:
Actually, Moses typifies Christ, and Christ’s concession regarding divorce on the grounds of adultery, provides a way out of sin for the innocent party. Oh the deep, deep love of Jesus!
How do you explain Christ’s withholding of faith from the Jews? Certainly you would agree it is sinful not to believe in the Son of God?
I am certain that is not what is meant; IMHO, your statement is ek eritheia.
Nice. But can you pass “The Baby Boomer” test?
Really? Cardinal John Henry Newman lived in the 19th century. I hardly think he would be familiar with “catchy advertising slogans”. Perhaps he was just ahead of his time.
If you agree that the American annulment process is flawed, it would involve the entire Catholic Church, because if someone obtained an annulment in the USA it is recognised as such in each and every Roman Catholic Church in the world, and that person would be free to remarry in any Roman Catholic Church in the entire world.
I don;t know all the details of how this was handled by the Eastern Churches in full communion with the Roman Church before 1054 AD.
Ill-informed caricature? I can give you at least three local pastors off the top of my head who have used this very same word to teach 3 different interpretations of Scriptural teaching on divorce. All three teach their version of “Biblical” yet none agree. Despite my somewhat rural location, I did not fall off the turnip truck as a Catholic. I attend many different services with friends to understand what they are taught. (In addition to Mass of course.) In a wedding at Calvary Chapel in San Diego, I was given this very same word, “straightforward” about Scripture interpretation on the definition of marriage. The Catholics in attendance weren’t the only one’s disagreeing.Another example of Catholic caricature of Protestantism. Thankfully, at this point, I am amused by it.
LittleDeb:
Another ill-informed, caricature.
Care to elaborate? As I’ve already mentioned, I don’t speak Greek.
I don’t know that the American annulment process is flawed. I have no way of accessing all of the tribunal records to determine if annulments were declared without valid reasons or if American Catholics tend not to fulfill the requirements for a marriage to be sacramental so we have more null marriages from the start. As I stated before, we as a culture do not take the sacredness of marriage very seriously and that may be reflected in the number of annulments here.
This website shows ek eritheias to mean “selfishly ambitious”:
No doubt someone in an abusive marriage should get out! But that doesn’t mean you are not divorced and are entitled to remarry. Jesus’ cross wasn’t too heavy to bear. Is not remarrying too heavy for someone in this situation to bear? When did entitlement become a part of Christianity? Christianity is founded on suffering.
Do you not recall that it is Christ Himself who said if one divorces and remarries, they are committing adultery? Is the burden of living the Christian life is too difficult for some people? And if the burden of picking up your cross and following Him is too difficult should we just start a new religion to make it easier?
Perhaps you should examine what God really wants you to do with your life, instead of telling Him what *you *want to do. But yes, your boyfriend is free to leave the Church if he is not happy with Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage. The Church cannot change what it is not free to change. The “deposit of faith” is not ours to alter.
I wonder if Jesus had anything valid to tell us since He never married. Does being married mean we can better know God’s truth? I didn’t know Christians must be married in order to understand and teach His truth. Bad news for St. Paul indeed.
You either believe the Bible is the Word of God or it’s not. You don’t think people in the pagan world had “a voice”? Christianity is now a democracy?