Posted on 09/10/2015 2:03:34 PM PDT by marshmallow
STEUBENVILLE, Ohio, September 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Speaking yesterday at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Cardinal Raymond Burke expressed grave reservations about the very proposals that were released the same day in Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio concerning annulments in the Catholic Church.
Burke was addressing those proposals as outlined in the reports from the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family which took place last October, and not the Motu Proprio, since his prepared remarks predated yesterday’s release of the Motu Proprio. The crowd was directed to refrain from asking questions on the Motu proprio as the cardinal had not had time to review it sufficiently.
The most startling changes in the annulment procedure were to drastically lessen the time for acquiring an annulment to as little as 45 days. Moreover, the Motu Proprio eliminated the need for a second confirming judgment and left to the local bishop rather than canonical judges, the decision on annulments. Speaking of similar proposals as part of the Synod documentation and not as part of the Motu Proprio, Burke noted that the canonical procedures had been developed over centuries to give certainty of arriving at the truth.
He stressed the importance of determining the truth on the matter, noting that it deals with the “salvation of souls.”
Burke noted that similar proposals to alter the process along the lines that were suggested at the Synod (and now implemented in the Motu Proprio) were also proposed before the 1983 reformation of canon law and were rejected by Pope St. John Paul II. Moreover Burke noted that the Vatican already attempted a lessening of the procedures for the United States in the 70s and early 80s, leading to an impression of “Catholic divorce.”
Burke firmly rejected the notion that people could be too weak to conform to God’s......
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Is the Pope Catholic?
There were three reasons to Annul but I don’t remember them all.
Maybe adultery, refusal to make babies and physical abuse.
Still I won’t trust Francis an inch. This is the Obama Pope for Catholics. I so miss JP2.
For better period.
I think you got them right....there might be other reasons in this weird day and age, like marrying a woman who turns out to be a MAN!
That could be became the two were not eligible to marry (underage, close blood-relatives, already married to somebody else) or unwilling/unable to commit to a valid vow (did not intend the marriage to be lifelong, faithful and fruitful; one or both parties were mentally incompetent, drunk, on drugs, crazy) etc. These are things which would make the initial vows invalid.
Nothing that happens AFTER the making of valid vows, can invalidate a marriage.
Matthew 19:9?
Different translation depending if you are looking at a Catholic or Protestant bible. From Catholic answers website:
at may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.
The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthew 19:6 says, “Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is “porneia,” which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word “moicheia,” which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.
The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just “living together,” then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.
Porneia is a Greek work which has wide application in NT passages, where it can mean fornication, gross indecency, or unlawful sexual union in the sense of bigamy, marriage to a close blood relative, intercourse with a woman who was abducted (bride-capture), etc.
So if the first marriage was itself a case of porneia (unlawful union), it was not a true marriage.
It would be annulled (found to have been defective from Day One) and therefore, separation from that person (who was not in the full sense your true and honest spouse anyway) and remarriage to a person who is lawful to you, is allowed. What is permitted here is not divorce in the modern sense of he word, but annulment because of the initial defect or unfitness of the first union.
The evidence tilts toward NO.
Actions after the vows can be evidence that true consent was not given. E.g., adultery that begins immediately after the wedding.
I believe He chose His words carefully and fully understood the words He was speaking. If He meant annulled, He would have said it.
First of all, look at the principle the Lord is teaching here:
Matthew 19:6
"Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
Note that the principle as stated by Jesus, He states without exceptions in Mark and Luke:
Mark 10:11-12
He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery ("moicheia") against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery ("moicheia").”
Luke 16:18
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery ("moicheia"), and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery ("moicheia")."
Biblical scholars point out that, compared to Mark and Luke, the significant thing in the Matthew readings is that Jesus does not mention “adultery” ("moicheia") as an “exception” (which would violate His own principle, that “what God has joined together” no man must put separate. )
In the so-called “exception,” He uses a different word, "porneia," which means unlawful sexual intercourse. Jesus in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 does not use the Greek word "moicheia," which is the Greek word for adultery.
Matthew 5:32
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful--- ”porneia”) causes her to commit adultery ("moicheia"), and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery ("moicheia").
Matthew 19:9
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful--- ”porneia”) and marries another, commits adultery ("moicheia").”
So Jesus did not contradict Himself by saying an indissoluble marriage could nevertheless by dissolved by "adultery". He said if the marriage were "unlawful intercourse”, then it could be dissolved because it was not a valid marriage from the beginning that God had joined together.
He's talking about situation where there was some lack or defect or wrongdoing from the beginning, in the first attempted marriage, which would make it not something God had joined together. Because what GOD has joined together, no one must separate.
The term "annulled" did not exist them, either in Aramaic or in Hebrew or in Greek. It's a legal distinction that emerged later, to clarify why some unions are not valid marriages to begin with, they are “unlawful unions” (”porneia”). Therefore they can be separated (annulled) without breaking the Lord’s exceptionless principle that “what God has joined together” is not to be broken.
True.
You never address the word divorce, which the the exact word I asked you about.
I’m sure he is not.
According to a good Greek word analysis (see Helps: word studies), the word used in the NT in the "divorce passages,"(apolýō) does not have the specific meaning of "divorce" as understood today, but covers a much larger sematic field:
630 apolýō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 3089 /lýō, "to loose, release") – properly, to let go; release (discharge), dismiss. This term implies the release (annulment) of an existing bond. 630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner (Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9 – parallels at Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18).
So the translator must try to distinguish, through the use of context, which of the parallel term to use: setting loose, releasing, pardoning, setting free, discharging, letting go, acquitting, repudiating, dismissal, annulment, divorce.
In Biblical Judaism, divorce did not involve a judicial process, it was just telling a wife to "go". It could be with or without cause, but Moses said there should be a paper which documented that she was free to go, i.e. so she would not be accused of adultery if she later formed a union with another man.
Annulment, in contrast, always implies a judicial process, because there has to be some sort of investigation with testimony and/or evidence, to see if the initial union was valid or not. For instance, to reach a finding of nullity due to the bride and groom being half-siblings, there would have to be some sort of proof that they had the same father or the same mother.
In short: the word apolýō can mean divorce OR annulment, or even just separation, depending on the context.
I contend He meant divorce in Matthew 19:9. I believe you are contending He meant annulment. So did the translators know that Jesus meant annulment when they wrote divorce?!?!
I just now noticed - your reference cites Matthew 19:9 as an example of it being used for "divorcing a marital partner". So are you now agreeing that Jesus gave an exception for divorce in that verse?
Since Jesus just said that a valid marriage joined by GOD could not be put asunder, it follows that when He was talking about a split-up, He must have been talking about a union that want not quite kosher, not "joined by GOD" to begin with.
The key here would be to see how the Church, from the earliest days and historically, especially native Greek speakers, interpreted this. They interpret the Matthew passages to be fully in line with Mark and Luke, namely, the bond in a valid "joined by God" marriage, cannot be dissolved except by the death of one of the spouses.
In all of these passages, by the way ,apolýō does mean divorce. In the case where Jesus says "unless the marriage is unlawful" technically there cannot be a divorce because there was not a lawful marriage.
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.