I was so TOTALLY wrong!

• • 183 Comments

(NOTE: FOR SOME REASON, THE LAST COMMENTS ARE NOT SHOWING UP IN FIREFOX, BUT ARE IN IE.)

About the Roman Catholic church and divorce and remarriage!

The more I learn, the more I realize that (as Moonshadow pointed out), the dogma/doctrine of annulment runs in the opposite direction. We can examine this dogma (or is it doctrine?) against Scripture. We know that that Scripture is my final authority (and considered here as the only infallible rule of faith and conduct). In examining traditions/dogma/doctrine of other denominations/religions I examine against Scripture to see if "it's in there".
From what I understand, getting an annulment means that you have to:

  1. make different "categories" of marriage (sacramental vs. "not") - which I don't find in the Bible. The website I linked to referred to "true marriage", meaning that some marriages are not true, a concept that I cannot find in the Bible.
  2. make a case before the church that your marriage before God never existed.

Having entered into a marriage contract (which is in the Bible and is considered "marriage"), you are married. Or (according to the Roman Catholic church) maybe not.

If you find yourself in a "not a marriage" (for lack of a better term) it's because of

  • psychological reasons
  • misrepresentation or fraud
  • Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex)
  • Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)
  • Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)
  • Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)
  • Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.
  • Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.
  • Illegal "Form of Marriage" (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)
  • One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.

Which of these is actually Scriptural? As one who believes that Scripture is the final and only infallible source of faith and conduct, we can examine each of these reasons against Scripture to see if they are Scripturally sound.

The first thing to look for is any place in the Bible where a marriage is labeled "not a marriage" before God. I don't find one.

  • Christ, while talking to the woman at the well, said that she had had several husbands - were these all annulled? Jesus considered them valid marriages, or He would have said something different. But He didn't, He called them marriages.
  • Consider Onan, who married Tamar in a Leverite marriage and didn't fulfill his end of the bargain. The Bible never tells us that it was not a valid marriage.
  • Because it's the law of our land (in the USA), bigamy and incest would have the marriage not be valid to start with (without the judgment of the church). No annulment should be needed, because it was an illegal marriage. Inthe Bible, Jacob married his first cousins and the marriage was never considered anything but a marriage. In the New Testament, living with your father's wife was condemned and church leaders are prohibited from plural marriages.
  • Canon Law; Scripture doesn't give a form for marriage (meaning that it must be done in a church and/or by clergy). In the Old Testament, the Law said that if a woman in captured in war, a man shaves her head, waits a period of time and then has sex with her. I suppose you could call that a "form", but it also contradicts the Roman Catholic exception for "duress" - at least for the woman). There was no ceremony in a church.
  • question: if a man becomes impotent, can the wife get an annulment?

The New Testament gives us two reasons for a Biblical divorce. In the Bible, we are never told that there must be additional paperwork by the "church" in order to remarry. In the Bible, a Biblical divorce comes with the right to remarry.

The Roman Catholic Church considers a marriage valid when:

  • It is celebrated in a ceremony according to church law
  • both parties are free to marry each other
  • each party intends from the beginning of the marriage to accept God's plan for married life, as taught by the church
  • each party has the physical and psychological ability to live out the consent and commitment initially given to the marriage.

Again, let's examine this against Scripture. The Bible never tells us that a "valid" marriage must be celebrated in a ceremony.

That both parties are free is a Biblical concept.

Intentions don't appear to matter (again consider Onan) and (other than the ability to consumate the marriage) physical or psychological reasons don't appear in the Bible.

My conclusion is:

If you are divorced for Biblical reasons, the divorce is Biblical and the marriage DID exist. A person is free to remarry. You don't need an annulment.

If you are divorced for unbiblical reasons, there is still hope an forgiveness (read this). But the marriage still existed and you still don't need an annulment.

(One thing, though...I know a woman who married a man in prison and that was never consumated. Even according to our court system, that was called an annulment by the law.

  • NOTE: Any debate on this post MUST be on a Biblical basis. We can examine the doctrine of annulment against Scripture or we can not discuss it.
Share Button

183 thoughts on “I was so TOTALLY wrong!”

  1. I don't know if you were totally wrong, you just missed the rather large loophole (annulment).

    According to the Catholic Catechism:

    Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. (ccc 1650)

    So if you get remarried after a divorce, you are denied the eucharist. Since the taking of the eucharist at least once a year is required for salvation, that's a pretty rough sentence.

    Hence the need for a loophole, especially in today's society.

    However if we look again at David and Bathsheba - adultery, murder of her husband, then marriage and a son who was ultimately in the lineage of Jesus - it seems that God "approved" the marriage.

    Not that I am advocating that kind of behavior, but there does seem to be forgiveness on God's end (not denial of salvation) for entering into a less than ideal marriage situation.

    I am also confused that annulment makes it "all okay" with regards to sex outside of marriage (which is what you are left with after an annuled marriage most of the time). Doesn't sex outside of marriage fall under biblical fornication?

  2.

    Great article. Marriage is a bit complicated when one carefully considers it. Indeed, virtually every society has to work on the marriage state because of the the consequences of marriage in most instances - children.

    TrueMarriage.net

  3.

    Since the taking of the eucharist at least once a year is required for salvation, that’s a pretty rough sentence.

    Carrie, where exactly did you find this. Could you pleass supply a link?

  4.

    If you find yourself in a “not a marriage” (for lack of a better term) it’s because of...

    Ellen, where did you find those criteria. Could you please supply a link?

  6.

    Ellen, I checked that. I searched for the word "form" and I couldn't find it on the link you provided (as you stated illegal 'form of marriage').

    If you used one of the links on that page could you tell me which one you used, or tell me where to find your "form of marriage" on the link you supplied?

    You are using a Biblical constraint for this discussion. I believe that I would be within my rights to demand you use the Code of Canon Law for the actual Catholic annulment criteria (not pulled off of "some Catholic site"; not paraphrased by you).

  7.

    Carrie, where exactly did you find this.

    Atlantic said the Eucharist was required to be taken at least once a year.

    From the Catholic Catechism:

    1417 The Church warmly recommends that the faithful receive Holy Communion when they participate in the celebration of the Eucharist; she obliges them to do so at least once a year.

    1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.

  8.

    Tony: here ya go...

    Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ? 144, ? 1112, §1, ? 1116, and ? 1127, §§1-2.

    vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P40.HTM

    (demand?)

  9.

    Thanks Carrie.

    But there is this caveat:

    (3) In Danger of Death

    It is a principle repeatedly set forth in canon law that at the point of death all reservations cease and all necessary jurisdiction is supplied by the Church. "At the point of death", says the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. vii), "in danger of death", says the Ritual (tit. III, cap. i, n. 23), any priest can absolve from all sins and censures, even if he be without the ordinary faculties of confessors, or if he himself be excommunicated; he may do so even in presence of another priest properly authorized (Holy Office, 29 July, 1891). The Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis" expressly maintains this merciful concession, merely adding, for the case in which the moribund is restored to health, the obligation of having recourse to the Holy See, if he has been absolved from excommunication specially reserved to the pope, unless he prefers to ask absolution of a confessor provided with special faculties. This recourse, although identical with that of which we have just spoken for urgent cases, nevertheless differs from it on two points: it is not imposed for the absolution from excommunications simply reserved, and the short delay of a month is not counted from the time of receiving absolution, but from the time of recovery.

    If a person is in danger of death, the penalty can be lifted. The penalty is not punitive, but medicinal. It is placed to prompt the sinner to publicly conform with the doctrines of the Catholic Church (basically, to receive Communion, you must be in communion).

    It could be really bad luck to die before you either confess, or are absolved by last rites.

  11.

    Ellen, are you claiming excommunication is Biblical?

    And let me piggy back your other comment into a single one:

    Canon 1108 defines the required Form of a Catholic marriage. It does not list lack of Catholic form as an impedment in either Chapter II or Chapter III of the impediments section of the Canon.

  12.

    Tony, are you interested in whether or not a Roman Catholic doctrine is Biblical?

    What I believe is that you asked me where I got the information about form of marriage (according to the Roman Catholic church) and I obliged.

  13.

    Ellen: You asked me for a Biblical reference for removing the penalty of excommunication. By that question I'd assume that you considered excommunication as Biblical because I can't believe you would ask me for a Biblical reference for the removal of a non-Biblical penalty.

    That would be like asking me for a Biblical reference for getting a parking ticket "fixed". 🙂

  14.

    I believe in church discipline - that's in the Bible. I don't know the way that the Roman Catholic church applies it.

    Let's assume that the way the Roman Catholic church applies church discipline is Biblical. Can you show me a Biblical reason to remove church discipline, short of repentance? (and again, I'm operating under Biblical guidelines, not Rome's)

  15.

    I seemed to have lost my own comment.

    Tony: We're going off on a tangent...but I'll play.

    I believe that church discipline is Biblical, whether the way Rome applies it is another topic.

    Assuming that (in any situation) the Roman Catholic church applies church discipline in a Biblical way, can you show me a Biblical reason for church discipline to be removed, short of repentence?

    Now - back to the anullment topic - and let's steer away from the unlikely caveat that you offered.

    According the canon law, does or does not the Roman Catholic church require taking communion at least once a year (outside of your caveat and any other that you might have up your sleeve)?

    In short, other than the "or if's", is Carrie correct?

    And, can you find a Biblical reference for requiring communion a minimun number of times?

  16.

    Let’s assume that the way the Roman Catholic church applies church discipline is Biblical. Can you show me a Biblical reason to remove church discipline, short of repentance? (and again, I’m operating under Biblical guidelines, not Rome’s)

    The ‘rite for emergencies’ includes the sacrament of penance, Apostolic Pardon, Lord’s Prayer, Communion as Viaticum, prayer before anointing, anointing, concluding prayer, blessing, sign of peace" (Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Catholic Encyclopedia, 572).

    Sure. The component of pennance requires repentance for the application of the sacrament. The apostolic pardon (removing excommunication) comes afterward.

    If you die with obstinant, unrepentant sin on your soul, all I can do is trust in Jesus' divine mercy.

    And "Viaticum" is Latin for "provisions for the journey". It is the last and special Holy Communion for you to take on your journey (hopefully home).

  17.

    The Biblical basis for "apostolic pardon" without repentence?

    I see a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, but not the Bible.

  18.

    The Biblical basis for “apostolic pardon” without repentence?

    Do you contend that an Apostolic penalty (denial of Roman Catholic sacraments) is Biblical?

  19.

    Geeze, Tony...

    I'm asking you to Biblically prove your doctrine of (I'm putting in quotes - like the "conservative" and "progressive" at the top of your blog, so that you know they're not sneer quotes - it's a specific term) "apostolic pardon" without repentence.

    You are the one that brought up both points and I'm asking you to Biblically defend (I know that it's really difficult for you) the doctrine of "apostolic pardon without repentence.

    That (specifically) is what we're talking about.

    If you can't defend it Biblically, just say so. You can either offer Scripture or keep baiting me into circles, which I don't feel like doing tonight.

    If you refuse to answer with Scripture, I'll assume that you cannot.

    Tony, you're getting very good at dodging and sending out wild geese.

    The post was about annulment and the fact that it isn't in Scripture, as well as the fact that a distinction between marriages is not in Scripture.

    You can keep baiting me; all it's doing is giving me hints that you cannot address the real issues Scripturally, so circles is all that will work.

    You can show me otherwise, but I'm asking that your next post defend annulment Scripturally, a distinction between sacramental (or not) marriages Scripturally or (rounding up the last goose) defending "apostolic pardon" without repentence Scripturally.

  20.

    Why are you assuming that an Apostolic Pardon is granted without repentence? Do you always think the worst of the Catholic Church? This is the mindset that I have a really difficult time dealing with.

    According to the church, a person who is properly disposed [emphesis, mine] who receives the Apostolic Pardon gains the complete pardon of all their sins. The Apostolic Pardon also has the effect of pardoning the person of all punishment due for their sins, and prepares the person for immediate entry into Heaven [Source]

    You always have to be properly disposed (repentent of one's sins) to be granted any kind of pardon, including absolution.

  21.

    Why are you assuming that an Apostolic Pardon is granted without repentence? Do you always think the worst of the Catholic Church?

    Why do you always assume the worst of me?

    Carrie said, "
    Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. (ccc 1650)

    You said, "But there is this caveat:

    (3) In Danger of Death

    So what is the caveat all about? Is there repentence or not? (and I admit I might have missed what the caveat is all about; I've been up to my eyeballs in interneurons.

    Be that as it may, I notice that there is no Scripture in your comment; as I said, If you refuse to answer with Scripture, I’ll assume that you cannot.

  23.

    Ellen,

    You are chasing geese and I feel partly responsible.

    Forget about the pardons - even with repentance I don't see how any of it is scriptural.

    There also appears to be no scriptural support for annulment and the loopholes upon loopholes does not hide that fact.

  24.

    geese...

    If there is Scripture in any of Tony's comments on this thread - I missed it.

    Yes - Tony appears to be using evasive tactics to get off the "Scriptural basis" question.

    I don't think he's been on the site since the last time I asked, so I'm not going to begin to assume that he's ignoring the question.

  25.

    If there is Scripture in any of Tony’s comments on this thread - I missed it.

    The words "and" and "the" are in his comments.

    I can find those words in Scripture.

  26.

    The words “and” and “the” are in his comments.

    I can find those words in Scripture.

    "Love" is also in Scripture. have you found that one?

  27.

    Ellen, the caveat applied to the discussion I was having with Carrie regarding the harsh penalty applied to divorced people who remarry without benefit of a declaration of nullity.

    Those who are in a state of sin (living in an adulterous relationship) can always stop living in adultery, repent, confess and be obsolved. The excommunication is lifted at that point.

    When you and Carrie pummel me, it would probably help if you would stick to punching one spot, and she would stick to another. I can keep both conversations straight.

    You didn't ask me if an Apostolic Pardon required repentence, and I'm assuming you didn't look it up. Why would you make a broad assumption that Apostolic Pardon is counter Biblical without at least asking.

    Also, I don't live on this weblog. This is a small and very insignificant part of my daily activities. It may surprise you to know that I spend more time in prayer than interacting with Protestants.

  28.

    Scriptural basis for Apostolic penalty and pardon:

    John 20:21-23 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

  29.

    You didn’t ask me if an Apostolic Pardon required repentence, and I’m assuming you didn’t look it up.

    You're assuming wrong. that's why a caveat is a caveat, which is what I misunderstood.

    (this is meant to be a funny) “Love” is also in Scripture. have you found that one?

    Yes - but not in any of your comments in this thread... 😉 (end of funny)

    Scriptural basis for Apostolic penalty and pardon:

    Jesus was talking to the twelve, right?

    Ok...end of goose chases...

    Scripture, Tony.

    I’m asking that your next post defend annulment Scripturally, a distinction between sacramental (or not) marriages Scripturally or (rounding up the last goose) defending “apostolic pardon” without repentence Scripturally.

  30. Jesus was talking to the twelve, right?

    No, actually the 11 (Judas was dead)

    Acts 1:12-14 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk[b] from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

    After Jesus ascended, the 11 picked a replacement for Judas. Did Matthias have the authority granted to the 11 by Jesus? Did he intend it to go to the 12?

    ---

    The Biblical basis for annulment is Mark 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

    The declaration of nullity is the determination "did God join this"? Or does your church consider any two people who say they are married as being married? This is what you seem to be implying by saying that a church is not needed for a marriage. Does your church have any requirements for married couples? Do they need to be baptized?

  31.

    Okay...I had my chronology wrong.

    Mark 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

    Is that a command or a statement?

    In the same chapter, Jesus said, "and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak."

    Jesus didn't say that man cannot separate, He was giving a command - and (in other accounts/Books) giving an exception for sexual sin.

    Tony, it is very obvious that you do not have a Biblical basis for the doctrine that some married people are married in the eyes of God and some are not.

    If you do not have that, then the basis for annulment (the marriage that you are or were in never existed) is moot, since all marriages are marriages in the eyes of God.

    ?Or does your church consider any two people who say they are married as being married?

    I keep asking - what does the Bible say?

    This is what you seem to be implying by saying that a church is not needed for a marriage.

    Are you saying that my sister isn't married because she was married in a courthouse by a judge?

    What minister married Priscilla and Acquilla?

    Where does it say in the Bible that a marriage must be done in a church (or by a minister) to be a "real" marriage (but then again, you have to Biblically prove a difference in "marriages", which you have failed to do.

    Does your church have any requirements for married couples? Do they need to be baptized?

    Only Biblical ones.

    But we're still trying to pry out a Biblical reasoning for a distinction between "this one is probably a marriage in the eyes of God, but we thought this one was, but it never really existed" kind of marriages.

  32.

    Okay…I had my chronology wrong.

    Did Matthias have the same authority which Jesus bestowed on the 11?

    ?Or does your church consider any two people who say they are married as being married?

    I keep asking - what does the Bible say?

    Answer the question. Does your church have requirements for couples to be married. Do they need to be baptized?

    Are you saying that my sister isn’t married because she was married in a courthouse by a judge?

    I don't know. Was she drugged? Was she coerced? Was she defrauded? Was she old enough to get married? Was she forced under threat of violence? Did she fear for her life if she didn't get married? Was either of them still married to someone else?

    Actually "I don't know" is the correct answer without having all the information at my disposal.

    What minister married Priscilla and Acquilla?

    Where does it say in the Bible that a marriage must be done in a church (or by a minister) to be a “real” marriage (but then again, you have to Biblically prove a difference in “marriages”, which you have failed to do.

    I never said that it had to. You must have me confused with someone else.

    Only Biblical ones.

    Then give me a couple of examples. How about three.

  33.

    Answer the question.

    You seem to have my blog confused with yours.

    I think that we are done, since you obviously cannot answer the most basic question and the one that I have asked most often, and the one that is most perinent to the post.

    I’m asking that your next post defend annulment Scripturally, a distinction between sacramental (or not) marriages Scripturally

    Here is a more simple question. You may answer with a simple "yes" or "no"

    Can you defind these doctrines Biblically?

  34.

    Tony, in the "short rules" of my blog (link is in the sidebar):

    Don’t expext answers to leading questions. However, don’t let questions “pile up”.

    I’m asking that your next post defend annulment Scripturally, a distinction between sacramental (or not) marriages Scripturally or (rounding up the last goose) defending “apostolic pardon” without repentence Scripturally.

    I’m asking that your next post defend annulment Scripturally, a distinction between sacramental (or not) marriages Scripturally

    But we’re still trying to pry out a Biblical reasoning for a distinction between “this one is probably a marriage in the eyes of God, but we thought this one was, but it never really existed” kind of marriages.

    I’m asking that your next post defend annulment Scripturally, a distinction between sacramental (or not) marriages Scripturally

    Maybe five's a charm?

  36.

    I’m asking that your next post defend annulment Scripturally, a distinction between sacramental (or not) marriages Scripturally or (rounding up the last goose)

    The Biblical basis for annulment is Mark 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

    The declaration of nullity is the determination “did God join this”?

    Asked and answered, counselor.

    Now I'm going to ask a couple of questions, and you can choose not to answer them, and continue to badger me if you wish.

    Did Matthias have the same authority to loose sins and hold them bound as the rest of the 11?

    Give me three Biblical requirements for marriage in your church.

    If it's getting uncomfortable for you, I'll understand. That small whispering sound you're starting to hear is the Holy Spirit.

  37.

    If it’s getting uncomfortable for you, I’ll understand. That small whispering sound you’re starting to hear is the Holy Spirit.

    Gee, Tony...I was sleeping. I'm sorry. It was the first solid night's sleep I've had in months.

    Tony, you're hatred for us "SamIAm's" is showing - you might want to notice that for all of the accusations flying around toward Carrie and I - the actual words "I HATE THOSE..." came from you.

    I think that the whispering you hear is the silence of where the other half of your answer should be -

    Where is the Biblical basis for some marriages being marriages and other marriages not being marriages? Where do you find the Biblical distinction?

    (and there is a solid Biblical reason to be able to state that the "let man not" is a command that can be broken, not a statement that is always true.

    (Remember, God divorced)

  38.

    Kind of bites when the geese won't play.

    I've done a bit of research into what God requires in order to enter into a marriage, I'll probably do a post on that next - we can debate your geese then.

    Until then, the post was about the Biblical basis for annulment and the requirement for a Biblical distinction between marriage and "not a marriage" (maybe eight's a charm).

    But my commenting is going to be light today (so please, no more comments about the "whisper of the Holy Spirit" - I work at 7:30, dr. appt at 3:30, lecture exam of anatomy and physiology at 5:30, lab at 7:30. So Tony, I need to have a light day of commenting without snide comments. Please?

  39.

    So Tony, I need to have a light day of commenting without snide comments. Please?

    I'll try, but this fallen soul has a difficult time with that sometimes. I have a tendency to respond in kind, and I know I shouldn't.

    I'll try to stick to your rules, but with Scripture relying on Tradition, and Tradition relying on Scripture (with Scripture and Tradition being the two "wings" of the Word of God), I have to work with one wing tied behind my back.

    The only thing I have left is to point out to you the deficiency of Sripture only (as in the case of Matthias, and whether he posessed the authority to bind and loose sins as the 11).

  40.

    Tony: The Sufficiency of the Written Word

    Since I accept God (and His Word) as my final authority, and since I clearly stated in the original post: NOTE: Any debate on this post MUST be on a Biblical basis. We can examine the doctrine of "a marriage is a marriage unless it is not" against Scripture or we can not discuss it. , I think we can move on to the next post.

    It only took us twenty comments to get to the fact that a distinction between marriages (between Sacramental or not) cannot be defended Scripturally.

    What I am hearing is that (according to Elena) asking for evidence of a direct personal accusation is contentious, but making a false accusation is not...and asking for a Biblical foundation for annulment (and making the statement that I don't believe it is snide.

  41. phd4jesus

    Tony, now I am beginning to undestand. The catholic bible adds the words "unless the marriage is unlawful" to Matt 5:32 and 19:9. Those words are absent from the text of the NIV, NASB and KJV as shown below. The text of the latter bibles were translated from Codex B and Codex Aleph (Vatican manuscripts I believe [NASB and NIV]) and the Greek Textus Receptus (KJV). Does the RCC add words to the bible based on tradition?

    Matt 5:32

    NAB: 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.

    NIV: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

    NASB: but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    KJV: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

    Matt 19:9

    NAB I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

    NIV: I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

    NASB: "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

    KJV: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    I got the NAB verses from http://www.nccbuscc.org.

  42.

    Tony, now I am beginning to undestand. The catholic bible adds the words “unless the marriage is unlawful” to Matt 5:32 and 19:9.

    I believe it was I who mentioned that.

    I looked into the Greek New Testament and found the following description of the original greek.

    egw de legw umin oti paV o apoluwn thn gunaika autou parektoV logou porneiaV poiei authn moiceuqhnai, kai oV ean apolelumenhn gamhsh moicatai.

    porneia,n {por-ni'-ah}
    1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 2) metaph. the worship of idols 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

    This word seems to have a lot of meanings, and to get the real meaning of the text it has to be taken in context. I'm not a Greek scholar (and if you are, please let me know your credentials) so I have to go to who I consider an authroitative source for the translation.

    I prefer the Douay-Rheims translation from the Latin Vulgate (of St. Jerome), but the problem you run into is that when you translate the Greek into Latin and into English, sometimes something gets lost in the translation.

    When you have shown me three different translations of the Bible which show three entirely different words, which one is right, and why?

    (edited to unbold where I think Tony wanted to unbold it)

  45.

    (from another blog)
    As a new Catholic, my dime store explanation is that before we can begin to look at something like annulments, we have to understand marriage is indissolveable. If it is dissolveable, the whole annulment thing is bunk. Is marriage dissolveable?

    1. As God designed the world, man and woman become one body, one flesh. (Gen2:20-24) A body cannot be split back in half while remaining alive.

    2. We are joined in covenant to our spouses (Mal2:14)

    3. God joins together these spouses (Mt19:6) in this covenant.

    4. Just as Christ cannot be separated from his church (Eph 5:32), so is the profound covenant of marriage.

    5. Spouses are joined until one dies, then remarriage is allowed (1 Cor 7:39, Rom 7:3b).

    6. This joining is not to be separated by man (Mt 19:6, MK 10:9). This means that a piece of paper from a judge in Arkansas does not unjoin the two such that remarriage is allowable.

    6. God HATES divorce!! (Mal 2:16[j])

    7. Jesus told the Pharisees Moses had allowed them divorce due to hardness of hearts (Mk 10:8)

    11. God charges the divorced to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:11).

    12. 'Divorce' is allowed for such reasons as being in unlawfull marriaged (Mt 5:32). The Greek term 'porneia' is used meaning sexual deviations such as incest, or blood relations (where the marriage never occured in the first place). St. Matthew did not use the greek term [i]'moicheia'[/i] meaning adultery. Jesus is permitting the dissolution of an unlawful marriage, not a release from a covenant.

    13. The [b]only time the bible allows divorcees to remarry while the other spouse is alive[/b] is if (1)they were married before being born again and (2)their spouse leaves them. (1 Cor 7:15)

    14. According to Jesus, all others who are divorced commit adultry if they remarry (Lk16:18, Mk10:11-12, Mt19:9).

    15. Adulterers destroy themselves (Prvb 6:32).

    16. Adulterers don't go to heaven (1 Cor 6:9).

    The Catholic Church strongly believes and teaches these things. Based on scripture, can we agree marriage is indissolveable?

  46.

    The Catholic Church strongly believes and teaches these things. Based on scripture, can we agree marriage is indissolveable?

    no. We can't, because it's not Biblically accurate.

    1. As God designed the world, man and woman become one body, one flesh. (Gen2:20-24) A body cannot be split back in half while remaining alive.

    God designed marriage.

    As for the second half of your statement, you're wrong, Biblically.

    1 Corinthians 6:16
    Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh."

    Are you saying that every Jew that visited a prostitute was married to her for life?

    2. We are joined in covenant to our spouses (Mal2:14)

    Covenants can be broken.

    4. Just as Christ cannot be separated from his church (Eph 5:32), so is the profound covenant of marriage.

    False dichotomy.

    God separated from His wife. We know that Biblically, this New Covenant will be the last one, but it has nothing to do with the indissolvleablity of human marriage.

    5. Spouses are joined until one dies, then remarriage is allowed

    Right. If they are married, the wife cannot marry another. If they are divorced, they are not married.

    6. This joining is not to be separated by man (Mt 19:6, MK 10:9). This means that a piece of paper from a judge in Arkansas does not unjoin the two such that remarriage is allowable.

    "Let not..." is a command that can be broken, not a statement that it cannot be.

    If I were to say, "Let us agree that the Roman Catholic church is wrong" - you'd be wiping coffee off your monitor. Grammatically, "let" is not a statement.

    6. God HATES divorce!! (Mal 2:16[j])

    1 - as I said, when translaters go back to the ancient texts, the ESV is the most accurate.

    "For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers[a] his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless."

    At any rate, even with the translation that you use, ok...God hates sin. Does that mean it doesn't happen? God hates liars, but we all know that people lie? Can I get an "amen"?

    7. Jesus told the Pharisees Moses had allowed them divorce due to hardness of hearts (Mk 10:8)a

    Right. Jesus said that. That means that divorce was regulated in the Law. How can you regulate the separation of something that cannot be regulated?

    11. God charges the divorced to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:11).

    The wording used is "should not", not "cannot". Can we agree that God also charged Christians not to bear false witness, but that it happens?

    12. ‘Divorce’ is allowed for such reasons as being in unlawfull marriaged

    Pornia covered a wide range of sexual sin - Leviticus 18 also covered beastiality. When was the last time you heard about a human being being unlawfully married to a sheep?

    Pornia is not limited to "unlawful marriage".

    Jesus is permitting the dissolution of an unlawful marriage, not a release from a covenant.

    Then Jesus was calling His Father a sinner.

    13. The [b]only time the bible allows divorcees to remarry while the other spouse is alive[/b] is if (1)they were married before being born again and (2)their spouse leaves them. (1 Cor 7:15)

    That is not what the Bible say. Read it again, please...

    I'm going to have to do the rest of this later. I'm late for work.

  47.

    John, sorry to sound terse, but there's a lot of points that you tried to make and I'm short on time in the morning.

    As I said before, I've done a lot of research into this topic - and I think I'll plan a series on marriage. Although I'm not divorced, divorce touches everybody.

  48. phd4jesus

    Tony, I'm a little slow this morning so be patient.

    1. I said "Tony, now I am beginning to undestand. The catholic bible adds the words “unless the marriage is unlawful” to Matt 5:32 and 19:9.

    You said "I believe it was I who mentioned that."

    I don't see it in this thread.

    2. What are you refering to with regards to "When you have shown me three different translations of the Bible which show three entirely different words, which one is right, and why?"

  49.

    This word seems to have a lot of meanings, and to get the real meaning of the text it has to be taken in context.

    Okay Tony, and how many of the various reasons that the RCC allows for an annulment fall under ANY of the definitions of “porneia”?

    According to Ellen's list, I find 10%. I don't think God intended a tithe system for following his commands.

    -------------
    Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ? 144, ? 1112, §1, ? 1116, and ? 1127, §§1-2.

    porneia,n {por-ni’-ah}
    1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 2) metaph. the worship of idols 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
    -------------

    Tony, if you are not already in politics you really should think about it. This must be the biggest spin I have ever seen.

  50.

    1. phd, in one of the other marriage threads, I said:

    And it looks like the only reason for divorce is fornication, adultery, lewd behavior depending on the version you go to. The NAB (Catholic Bible) says differently, but I said I’d use your translation, so I’ll stick with it.

    2. I'm referring to one allowing a fornication loophole and another a "sexual immorality" loophole, yet another a "chasity" loophole. They're close, but not the same.

Comments are closed.