What does Porneia mean?

[Augustine3]

Sorry I’m not sure what your point is? Please clarify.

 

[rcwitness]

My point was very direct to your question “how is a coerced marriage a type of porneia?”

Porneia is various sexual abuses. And context is therefore significant. In a marriage that violates someone’s free will, they actually do not truly wish to marry the other. How is that a Christian marriage? So the sexual union of that marriage is porneia. And the blameworthiness is certainly not equal between the two spouses.

 

[rcwitness]

Of course a person is bound to their spouse until death. But only by two Christians, who call on God by their relationship with Him (priesthood).

The “porneia” St Paul acknowledges in 1 Corinthians 7:2 is not marital sex, but if a man was not married and engaged in sexual activity with women. So he advises to marry rather than commit porneia.

 

[exnihilo]

A declaration of nullity is saying the marriage never happened. There are many reasons this could be. I assume putting away a wife for pornea would be different. It would be like the Pauline privilege, a divorce.

 

[rcwitness]

Christians who interpret Matthew’s use of porneia as adultery say that it means any sexual misconduct persisted and unrepented, and even including abandonment.

I dont see any evidence of that in Scripture.

 

[rcwitness]

Pauline priveledge does not have to do with porneia. It has to do with one spouse not being Christian. Only a Christian marriage can be binding by Jesus.

 

[ltwin]

Pauline priveledge does not have to do with porneia. It has to do with one spouse not being Christian. Only a Christian marriage can be binding by Jesus.

If a Catholic marries a non Christian and the non Christian leaves the marriage what situation does that leave the Catholic spouse in?

 

[rcwitness]

Free to marry, in the Lord. A dispensation is possible with another non-Christian.

 

[ltwin]

How is unbeliever defined? Baptism?

 

[rcwitness]

That is the evidence of a believer. A believer is defined as one who believes in Jesus.

One should not get married before getting Baptized, right? First things first?

 

[steve-b]

Im interested to hear some explanations from Protestants who believe and teach that Jesus gave adultery (and abandonment) as a reason to divorce and remarry.

In all the New Testament Scriptures, there is an absolute prohibition of Christian remarriage while both spouses are living. Matthew contains the highly debated “exception clause” which has goven rise to many Christians believing and teaching that Jesus was telling the Pharisees that adultery is a valid reason to divorce and remarry.

Matthew 5:32 from Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity,[a] makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Footnotes:

[a] unchastity: The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages that were not legally marriages because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Lev 18.6-16) or contracted with a Gentile. The phrase except on the ground of unchastity does not occur in the parallel passage in Lk 16.18. See also Mt 19.9 (Mk 10.11-12), and especially 1 Cor 7.10-11 which shows that the prohibition is unconditional.

 

[rcwitness]

Thanks. I actually like the more detailed footnote from the NAB. I posted that one in the second post of this thread.

 

[ltwin]

That is the evidence of a believer.

Infant baptism is evidence of belief? All the time?

One should not get married before getting Baptized, right? First things first?

Maybe in medieval Euorpe. If we’re talking about a pre-Christian or post-Christian society, the likelihood is that people will come to faith later in life, possibly after they’ve already been married and have started families.

Anyway, I don’t want to derail the thread. Was just curious how the Pauline privilege actually worked in Catholicism. Thanks.

 

[rcwitness]

If someone believes and is Baptized, and gets married in the Church, its generally considered a Sacrament. If something can be proven otherwise, which prevented a Sacrament, then that would be presumed to be null.

Well, when they become Christian, and remain as they are, they are assumed to enter their marriage into the Christian life too, no?

 

[ltwin]

Well, when they become Christian, and remain as they are, they are assumed to enter their marriage into the Christian life too, no?

I was just curious if the Catholic Church recognized the possibility that a baptized person could after a marriage live openly as a non-believer and if that would allow the believing spouse relief under the Pauline privilege. Hope that is clear.

 

[rcwitness]

I dont believe so. It has to do with the moment of vows. A believing, Baptized Christian willfully exchanging vows (the vows acknowledge Jesus) at that time enter into Matrimony as Christians.

I dont believe post apostacy dissolves the marriage.

 

[ltwin]

I dont believe post apostacy dissolves the marriage.

OK. Thanks for the answer.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

[a] unchastity: The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages that were not legally marriages because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Lev 18.6-16) or contracted with a Gentile. The phrase except on the ground of unchastity does not occur in the parallel passage in Lk 16.18. See also Mt 19.9 (Mk 10.11-12), and especially 1 Cor 7.10-11 which shows that the prohibition is unconditional.

As a scholar, I think this translates into scholar-speak as: “There are complicated reasons why the Catholic Church teaches that there are no exceptions that permit divorce. These complicated reasons have nothing to do with this passage, but this passage creates a tension with the Catholic approach. We will address that tension by acting like Greek scholars would say something they would never say. We will not give evidence for our assertion, but will trust the reader to believe us.”

Please understand that I am criticizing the footnote, not the Catholic teaching. I believe scholars have a duty to acknowledge ambiguity to be ambiguity, not to simplify things beyond the level of plausibility. I would be happy to be corrected by anyone who can substantiate the RSVCE interpretation of porneia.

 

[rcwitness]

So why would Matthew use an ambiguous term as Jesus’ answer to the dispute Pharisees had over Divorce?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So why would Matthew use an ambiguous term as Jesus’ answer to the dispute Pharisees had over Divorce?

This is simply not how scholarship works. One cannot determine that a word is unambiguous on a priori grounds that it is unlikely to be ambiguous. One must cite usages of the term. If you – or anyone else – can cite usages of this term which are in keeping with the RSVCE footnote, I will be happy to study them. But I cannot be convinced that porneia means what the footnote says without other usages to that effect.