Validity of evangelical marriages

[cameron_lansing]

Sure: New Testement. Christ said a divorce is only permissible when adultery is involved. The Apostle Paul, in his writings, also said that. He also added in cases of abandonment. There is no indication that “going into marriage with the intent of not having children”, for instance is grounds to invalidate a marriage. Cheating or abandonment- those are the only two reasons the majority of non Catholic churches allow for remarriage after civil divorce.

I’m really not here to debate anullment. I’m just telling you that the road runs both ways.

We do not accept the translation of adultery for the term porneia in the text, and that has been well discussed on anyone of a number of sites. Nor do we see abandonment in the scriptures as a justification for remarriage, apart from the Pauline privilege treated in First Corinthians, and there we apply that as a matter of divine law.

The issue, of course, is that of apostolic authority established by Christ. We believe that it is possessed in the Catholic Church, and not in reform communities which lack the office of bishop in apostolic succession and united in the Petrine ministry of the successor of Peter. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be Catholic. Consequently, we do not defer to the effects of civil law in the regulation of remarriage.

But I think we do hear what you intend to say and do thank you for saying it.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I’m not talking about remarriage, but first marriages.

I just can’t believe the Church would not assume validity in these cases, of people who become evangelicals and never rejoin the Catholic Church.

I mean, if this is the case, then half of my family is in invalid marriages. Lifelong, faithful spouses raising children.

Or is validity not really an issue, because they are not seeking remarriage and not seeking to be part of the Church?

If these marriages are invalid, are we bound to find out whether our evangelical friends were ever Catholic, and boycott their weddings if so?

The Church can make any rule that it pleases for those that it considers Catholic. If the NBA decided tomorrow that they were going to do away with the three-point shot then they are perfectly within their rights. You likely wouldn’t care one way or another unless you had decided to play along with the NBA. It is the same way with Catholicism, you don’t care one way or another what the Church teaches unless you’re a faithful Catholic. The issue simply doesn’t affect their marriage unless you decide to play along.

As a Catholic you can attend the wedding/reception of a family member in order to keep the peace but you must be careful about giving the impression you support the marriage.

 

[manualman]

Just food for thought: As a Reformed believer, I (and my denomination) do not consider any Catholic marriages to be valid where one or both of the parties received an annulment for any reasons except adultry or abandonment. So, it works both ways.

This is a point that should be remembered.

The Catholic Church does not make decisions based on the fact that it might or might not make someone “feel bad.” The guidance we have is Scripture and Tradition. The Church has always taught that Jesus was very purposeful in what he said about marriage. Notice that he didn’t use the word “marriage” nor did he speak of wedding vows. He said (paraphrase from memory) “What God has joined, let no man cast asunder.” If all he meant was that all couples who professed vows were joined for life he would have said that more clearly. Instead he chose language that made it necessary to determine just who God had joined and whom He had not.

From the very earliest of days, the Church took that mission quite seriously and still does today, which is why we have mariage tribunals. If something prevented one or both parties from making a free will consent to God joining the two, God ALWAYS respects our free will. Not because he HAS to, but because it is His way.

The above poster’s faith tradition assumes Jesus meant anybody who stood up and said vows togetheris married. That’s quite an assumption, but fair enough, they can write their own interpretation since they are honest enough to note that they aren’t catholic. Converts from catholicism to such faiths don’t likely care much what the Catholic Church says about their marriage anymore. Those of us with such relatives need to pray for them. Sacraments are ordinary means of Grace, but aren’t handcuffs on God. He’s GOD you realize…

 

[agapewolf]

The issue simply doesn’t affect their marriage unless you decide to play along.

Disagree. It does INDEED effect the marriage… because if we look at the bigger picture, it is what the truth of the situation is, not what they want to believe.

If a couple is invalidly married, there is no grace from the sacrament. It is objectively adultery, (or extra/pre marital sex) even if they don’t believe it so. It still has the same spiritual, physical, and psychological consequences whether they believe it or not. (Their culpability may not be there- that is for God to judge), but it still does indeed affect the marriage.

 

[NoAvailableName]

The Church can make any rule that it pleases for those that it considers Catholic.

Very sad if true.

Matt 5 32

But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Well no one else translates the verse that way.

bible.cc/matthew/5-32.htm

 

[NoAvailableName]

Here are some more interesting links on Matt 5:32.

This has the original Greek:

bible-researcher.com/text-mat5.html

And from gotquestions.org/Catholic-annulment.html:

“The concept of an “unlawful marriage” in the NAB is translated as either “(marital) unfaithfulness,” “adultery,” or “fornication” in the every other major Bible translation. There does not seem to be any textual basis for the NAB’s choice of words, except to support the Catholic Church’s own doctrine.”

Really, I’m appalled by this. In the past, I thought Catholics just used very dubious interpretations of verses, but now it appears they are intentionally mistranslating to support their own agenda.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Here are some more interesting links on Matt 5:32.

This has the original Greek:

bible-researcher.com/text-mat5.html

And from gotquestions.org/Catholic-annulment.html:

“The concept of an “unlawful marriage” in the NAB is translated as either “(marital) unfaithfulness,” “adultery,” or “fornication” in the every other major Bible translation. There does not seem to be any textual basis for the NAB’s choice of words, except to support the Catholic Church’s own doctrine.”

Really, I’m appalled by this. In the past, I thought Catholics just used very dubious interpretations of verses, but now it appears they are intentionally mistranslating to support their own agenda.

We don’t believe that we do, As I say, this question is discussed all over the place. Having read the new Testament in its Greek for some 35 years now, and Hebrew for slightly less than that, I’m always unsettled at the liberties that various protestant translations have taken with the text. Since we understand that the scriptures arose from the Spirit working in the Church, we will read them in light of divinely inspired Tradition (for Catholics, just consult the Catechism on Divine Revelation for elaboration). A handy summary of the point (though not exhaustive) is available at defendingthebride.com/sc/marriage.html.
But again, it’s about apostolic authority entrusted to the Catholic Church by Christ.

 

[NoAvailableName]

According to these two links, Catholics used to translate it as “lewd conduct” instead of "(unless the marriage is unlawful) " until very recently.

americancatholic.org/messenger/nov2005/wiseman.asp#F2
apostjerome.org/articles/_article.php?article=100108

 

[cameron_lansing]

According to these two links, Catholics used to translate it as “lewd conduct” instead of "(unless the marriage is unlawful) " until very recently.

americancatholic.org/messenger/nov2005/wiseman.asp#F2
apostjerome.org/articles/_article.php?article=100108

The American Catholic site explains why this happened and why the current translation used in our English translations is to be preferred.
Thank you for posting it.
It also caused me to recall that adultery is mocheia in Greek. Had the inspired author meant to say adultery, he woold have used that word. However, he did not.
Although it is not my intention to offer a critique of protestantism, this does remain a difficult question in my opinion for those who belong to non Catholic communities.
The second site, like one of the others (gotquestions) you posted above, does not seem to come up. Perhaps, it is temporarily unavailable.

 

[mizznicole]

It is the same as people find it odd that “being a good person” is not enough to get to heaven.

Remember, God’s laws on marriage apply to all people, not just practicing Catholics.

I’m sorry, I still cannot reconcile myself to this.

My family members are active church members, go on mission trips, read the bible, pray, tithe, etc…live the evangelical Christian life.

They have been “married” to their only spouses faithfully for over 20 years and have raised children.

But I should think of their marriage as a sin?

 

[agapewolf]

I’m sorry, I still cannot reconcile myself to this.

My family members are active church members, go on mission trips, read the bible, pray, tithe, etc…live the evangelical Christian life.

They have been “married” to their only spouses faithfully for over 20 years and have raised children.

But I should think of their marriage as a sin?

Yes, objectively it is. Just because they don’t believe it is or deny that it is does not make that the reality.

If someone is baptized in the Catholic faith, they are signed up, “in the book” so to speak, and have a Catholic “bubble” if you will. That bubble protects them but also holds them accountable. They are bound by Catholic canon law, and if they choose to deny, leave, or whatever, that doesn’t make their present situation a good thing. It doesn’t change the fact that they are still bound to have correct form and matter in their sacraments. It is impossible with this Catholic name they were given at baptism for a marriage to take place unless done with the correct form and matter (or dispensations).

 

[puzzleannie]

But I should think of their marriage as a sin?

you are not obligated to think of it in any way unless you have some responsibility for their salvation, ie, one of these people is your child. Unless and until they ask you, don’t offer an opinion, but if they do solicit your opinion, you may state your understanding of Catholic teaching as stated here, without saying whether or not you agree with it. If they ask for help in returning to the Church or regularizing their situation, refer them to a priest. Otherwise it is not your call, or mine, or the responsibility of anyone on this forum to pronounce on the validity of their marriage. We can state general teachings here but we simply cannot impose judgment on people long distance.

 

[Bluegoat]

If someone is baptized in the Catholic faith, they are signed up, “in the book” so to speak, and have a Catholic “bubble” if you will. That bubble protects them but also holds them accountable. They are bound by Catholic canon law, and if they choose to deny, leave, or whatever, that doesn’t make their present situation a good thing.

It seems to me that this is the real difficulty, rather than the Catholic theological position on marriage.

(Notwithstanding - if the people in question are really motivated by trying to follow God’s will in all things, it may well not matter what the objective state of their marriage is. Are we really in any position to attempt to judge such a thing?))

But is it in fact reasonable to hold anyone baptized in the Catholic Church to Catholic discipline, no matter what happened in the person’s life after that? From a Catholic perspective, anyone who is baptized validly is “really” Catholic, even if he comes from another faith tradition. Yet sensibly, such a person is not expected to be bound by Catholic rules. But even someone baptized in the Catholic Church may have no real Catholic education, or it may be inadequate. In any case, there is no engagement of the will, and while that is not a problem from a sacramental POV, I am not sure that logic applies equally to the discipline of Catholicism.

 

[manualman]

Well don’t quit there. If you MUST evaluate your relatives (which is mighty debatable), go all the way. While their marriage is not sacramental according to the norms of the church established by Christ, their own understanding of Christ’s will is different and they aren’t culpable for what they have been taught erroneously. This doesn’t mean it isn’t a shame and they aren’t missing out on anything by leaving the Church, mind you.

As I mentioned before, sacraments are the ordinary conduits of Grace, but God has ways of rescuing folks that go beyond the ordinary. Trust your family to Him, pray that they return to the fullness of the faith and leave it at that. Let God be God and you be you.

 

[agapewolf]

It seems to me that this is the real difficulty, rather than the Catholic theological position on marriage.

(Notwithstanding - if the people in question are really motivated by trying to follow God’s will in all things, it may well not matter what the objective state of their marriage is. Are we really in any position to attempt to judge such a thing?))

But is it in fact reasonable to hold anyone baptized in the Catholic Church to Catholic discipline, no matter what happened in the person’s life after that? From a Catholic perspective, anyone who is baptized validly is “really” Catholic, even if he comes from another faith tradition. Yet sensibly, such a person is not expected to be bound by Catholic rules. But even someone baptized in the Catholic Church may have no real Catholic education, or it may be inadequate. In any case, there is no engagement of the will, and while that is not a problem from a sacramental POV, I am not sure that logic applies equally to the discipline of Catholicism.

First, I never stated anything about judging a person. That is a completely separate issue up to God.

Reasonable? Again, that is God’s decision. If a person is a practicing Christian and finds that he was baptized a Catholic, isn’t there an intellectual honesty that calls for someone to look into the faith that they were baptized? To what degree and culpability is again up to God’s judgement.

But the fact remains that there is objective truth, and objective reality. The sacramental grace of a valid marriage would not exist, but perhaps in God’s mercy he would extend other graces to well-meaning and honest practicing Christians for a peaceful life of discerning His will.

 

[NoAvailableName]

The American Catholic site explains why this happened and why the current translation used in our English translations is to be preferred.
Thank you for posting it.

I disagree - even the Catholic site explicitly states that porneia means "unlawful sexual conduct”. Yet the Catholic church dissolves marriages for many other reasons.

The second site, like one of the others (gotquestions) you posted above, does not seem to come up. Perhaps, it is temporarily unavailable.

Here are all the links again.

gotquestions.org/Catholic-annulment.html
americancatholic.org/messenger/nov2005/wiseman.asp#F2
bible-researcher.com/text-mat5.html
apostjerome.org/articles/_article.php?article=100108

 

[manualman]

I disagree - even the Catholic site explicitly states that porneia means "unlawful sexual conduct”. Yet the Catholic church dissolves marriages for many other reasons.

Incorrect. A declaration of nullity does not dissolve a marriage. It is an emotionally deattached evaluation that the two parties had never been “joined by God” in the first place. Your assumption here boils down to a claim that whenever a man and woman stand in front of a preacher and say “I do” they are “joined by God.” This is an assumption that you really should examine. I’m not sure what your particular protestant theology is on free will, but God places the same free will conditions on the graces of marriage as He does on all his other graces: you must choose to accept it.

Catholicism says that marriage, like all moral choices in life, requires that both parties make a genuine free will consent to the marriage for it to be sacramental (i.e. God has joined them together). Sad as it is, the fact is that a whole lot of immature and unready people attempt marriage and fail. The Annulment process separates out those who never freely consented in the first place from those who later changed their minds and want out. It isn’t a perfect or infallible system and nobody claims it to be. It’s just the best shot people have at figuring out where they stand after life turns messy.

Don’t put words in the mouth of Jesus that aren’t there.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I disagree - even the Catholic site explicitly states that porneia means "unlawful sexual conduct”. Yet the Catholic church dissolves marriages for many other reasons.

   "I disagree - even the Catholic site explicitly states that porneia means ‘unlawful sexual conduct’."

  Of course it would. Jesus is, after all, responding to a question about sexual conduct and the law of God.

  Porneia is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew word, zahah, the illicit and forbidden relationships in Leviticus that we recognize as impediments of blood and relationship. It is used in the Septuagint Old Testament and in the koine of the New Testament. Paul even addresses this in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 regarding the porneia of the man living with his father's wife.

  Again mocheia is the word for adultery. It is not the same as porneia. In Matthew 15:19, both terms are used. If one sufficed for the other, that would not have been necessary. So there is an express distinction. Where the Hebrew text in the Old Testament reads naaph (adultery), the Septuagint renders mocheia. Had Jesus meant to provide an exclusion in Matthew for adultery  (missing in other gospels in the parallel places), mocheia and not porneia would have been used.

  "Yet the Catholic church dissolves marriages for many other reasons."

  You do not seem to be aware of what the Catholic Church means by the term dissolution, and I recommend that you become acquainted with that notion and what is meant by nullity of marriage before proceeding in the discussion. 

  Otherwise, your comments would run the risk of appearing to arise from a lack of proper knowledge and be subject to facile dismissal. It is always better to dispute theological issues from a basis of knowledge of what a particular Church or ecclesial community believes. Whether a non Catholic is advised to dispute Catholic doctrine on a Catholic website is a matter of personal judgment. For my part at least, I would not attempt to correct the views of non Catholic Christians on their website. I am merely interesting in explaining our beliefs and doctrine.  But if there is to be such dispute, at least may it be informed dispute.

  Nevertheless, it continues to seem to me that the teaching of Jesus remains so revolutionary that few but the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which again is the central issue, are inclined to take it seriously. I find it illustrative that the notion of adultery justifying divorce (and even if it does, there does not seem to be provision by Jesus for any subsequent remarriage in the Matthean texts) really took up currency because of the reformation.

But then again, it was a question of marriage (Henry’s desire to be rid of a wife) that seemed to underlie the division of the Catholic Church. After that non Catholic Christians pretty much acquiesced to the norms of the culture about marriage and divorce. Yet it is hard to tell because of the variety of non Catholic Christian groups and the lack of a central authority which safeguards the Sacred Tradition committed to the Church by Christ and expressed in her scriptures by virtue of Divine Inspiration.