Posted on 03/14/2014 8:08:26 AM PDT by ebb tide
Except that isn't what the Lord said: Matt 19: 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[a]
[9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.
[9] Except it be: In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47019.htm
The may be the DR translation and explanation, but I find it unreliable, as the DR often functions as the house organ for the Catholic church. Gen 3:15 for instance. If the DR would sacrifice the clear meaning of Christ as the Messiah in an effort to pump up Mary, I have no problem believing this explanation was made in consonance with the Catholic doctrine rather than the clear reading of the text.
Jesus said clearly and unequivocably that divorce is NOT allowed,SAVING FOR THE CAUSE OF fornication, and that anyone who divorces and remarries is commiting adultery.
Actually, here is what he truly said....Matthew 5:31It has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.
Oops:
Matthew should read: 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Forget my reply, I read the 31 as three.
It just amazes me how some Catholics know so little about their own faith.
“Now I think Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage will, in the end, be squarely upheld in principle. My concern is different: what if Church teaching is duly upheld but, as happened after Humanae vitae, that teaching is allowed to twist slowly in the wind? For ecclesiastical officialdom to look the other way on contraception was, in a sense, possible; but for it to do so in regard to divorce, remarriage, and the reception of holy Communion would be immediately recognized as the practical abandonment of a major doctrino-disciplinary point.”
Stating the obvious.
Apparently you’re OK with that. Is that correct? You’ve already said annulment is the Church’s counter to Christ’s words in your post 14.
Yes I hate it that priests renounce vows to God
Yes I hate it that priests renounce vows to God
“Six Billion plus people and climbing.”
And yet life is materially better than ever before. More people = better life for everyone.
“There are many parts of the world that need some serious birth control.”
Actually there are none that need birth control.
Will you please clarify what you mean? Seriously, I don't understand.
Genesis 3:15
English Standard Version (ESV)
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
Genesis 3:15
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
In the first Messianic Promise passage of the Bible, God promises a Savior born of a woman. He also promises that man and Satan would be enemies, but from woman would come one who would crush the head of the serpent.
As you can see, there seems to be a disagreement about who is doing the head crushing. In the DR, the Catholic translation the woman, (Mary) is crushing the head of the serpent. In the Christian version, the seed or offspring Jesus does the crushing. He did it on the cross.
Did Mary die for the sins of the world? Did she defeat death, hell and Satan? Did she rise again on the third day? Well, on the last point Catholics would disagree maybe she rose on the first. But for that they have to turn to extra-scriptural accounts in the form of Tradition to make the case.
Does that clarify the 'pump up Mary' question?
First, Catholic Church doctrine has no impact on what "billions of people" in the world do, or do no do, about birth control. For better or for worse, like it or not, Catholic teachings simply do not affect at least 3/4 of the people in the world, and probably the figure is higher than that.
Second, public and private agencies, including nation-states and international authorities, universities, foundation, philanthropies, as well as the full weight of print, broadcast and digital media, academic, and business influence, has been pumping contraceptive propaganda and supplies into every country on earth since the days of that doozy Margaret Sanger.
The Contraceptive Project has particularly picked up steam since the popularization of the Oral Contraceptive Pill as of 50 years - your mother's and grandmother's generations, if you will.
This suggests the conclusion that it's the Contraceptive Project itself which has failed --- in its own terms
Third, that's a cause of hope for me, at least, since the maintenance of a healthy reproductive birthrate in many countries-- in the face of the most powerful marketing techniques on earth urging them toward reproductive suppression --- suggests that human nature may not be as "socially constructed" and "malleable" as some people think.
It's not a tragedy... not at all. There are less hungry, destitute people in the world now at 7.1 billion population, than there were 50 years (1965) when the population was less than half that.
Twice as many people, and less hunger. You got that? We have the phenomenon where former "hungry countries'" major health concerns are now neither caloric starvation nor kwashiorcor, but obesity.
I hope to live to welcome baby #8 billion. He or she will probably be a millionaire farmer in Siberia, if we can keep that wonderful global warming on track.
Divorce is no cause for separation from the Sacraments in the Catholic Church.
What causes separation from the Sacraments is bigamy: engaging in a second marriage while your first, validly married spouse is still living.
Sounds like an unfounded slander to me. (But what do I know?) Would you like to substantiate that?
That's why it's called an "annulment" and not a divorce. A valid, Sacramental marriage cannot be divorced.
As Jesus said, (Matthew 19:9) And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
The Greek word porneia used in this passage means unlawful sex; in this context it means "unless the first marriage was unlawful."
IF it just means "sexual morality," it would mean all you have to do to get a divorce, is to commit adultery, or maybe suborn your spouse to commit adultery, or maybe even watch porn and masturbate (that's porneia too, and bingo, you can dissolve your first marriage.
If the were the case, then any and every marriage would be potentially dissolvable, since porneia is highly available to everybody. It's practically divorce on demand, if you want to go that route.
That can't be what Our Lord meant. What He meant (and he says it in Mark and Luke too, without the porneia clause, you'll notice) is that marriage is indissoluble.
The only *logical* exception would therefore be if the first attempted marriage was defective from the first, and to such an extent, that there was no Sacramental bond from Day One, in the eyes of God.
This upholds the Lord's own Word that when God has joined them together and made them one flesh, the bond between husband and wife is indissoluble until death; but if the vows were defective or fraudulent to begin with, the attempted marriage was "null" (= "no covenant") from Day One because a holy, binding covenant cannot be made by incapacity or fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.