Second marriages

OSV.com ^ | 01-09-19 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[aMorePerfectUnion]

marajade,

Please read this post: https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3721260/posts?page=137#137

Which sheds light from the Apostle Paul.

And be at peace.

Those who are miserable in guilt based rituals want others to be as miserable as they are.

[marajade]

I know my heart is in the right place in my belief.

How do I know? I used to be a baptized and confirmed Lutheran. My family still are.

My father is abusive and I asked the priest what my mother should do, ie., divorce, etc. His response was my mother just didn’t love him enough.

I realized that day organized religion was a joke and never stepped inside the Lutheran church again.

The Catholic Church is even worse.

[Kickass Conservative]

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, blame on me.

[af_vet_1981]

Well the one who didn’t commit adultery doesn’t need to repent.

One only needs repent for one's own sins. The Messiah forbade the combination of divorce and remarriage for marriages that "God has joined together." It is the remarriage that results in new adultery.

[marajade]

I disagree and let’s just leave it at that.

[af_vet_1981]

“Matthew 19:9 (TCENB): porneia is a broad term that covers many different sexual sins that lie outside God’s will. This conclusion rests on the meaning of the word. These sexual sins, fornication, would include homosexuality, bestiality, premarital sex, incest, adultery, and perhaps others.”

Porneia would also include looking at porn on the Internet, cable TV, or any forbidden sexual activity not covered by adultery. Using that as the criteria for an excuse to put asunder a marriage that God has joined together makes a very broad path and wide gate to divorce and remarriage.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

FRiend, you continue to repeat your Rome beliefs, regardless of the meaning of language, systematic theology, contradicting facts, etc.

I do not believe we will resolve two different beliefs, based on your posting history. I’m perfectly comfortable with disagreeing with the view you espouse.

I don’t see any point in exchanging posts with you further about this.

I do wish you well.

[af_vet_1981]

If a person makes the mistake of getting divorced it does not separate him/her from God, and if that remarries not knowing the word of God, it does not separate them from God.

There are four classes of disciples the Messiah told to watch, and only one received no punishment.

In the case of one who did not know that divorce and remarriage was forbidden (having never learned, or been taught incorrectly), and sinned, one might receive much more lenient punishment than one who knew and chose to do it anyway.


1. the faithful and wise servant who obeyed the Messiah
2. the servant who thought the LORD was late and began to abuse servants under his authority, and to satisfy his own desires, was appointed a portion with the unbelievers
3. the servant who knew the Messiah's will but chose not to obey Him
4. the servant who did not know the Messiah's will and did not therefore obey Him.

• Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;
• And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
• Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
• And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
• And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
• Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
• Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
• And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
• Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
• Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
• But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
• The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
• And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
• But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Luke, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses thirty five to forty eight,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[imardmd1]

What say you to that???

I say that your approach is immediately a departure from sound interpretation: While it's good to know what Jesus taught to those who were under the law those teachings have nothing to do with the church . . . Thank God, we as Christians are not under the law, but Grace

This is essentially antinomian in flavor, not understanding how grace works. Countering your approach:

Matthew 5:19,20 (KJV):
¹⁹ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
²⁰ For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

1 Peter 1:13-16 (KJV):
¹³ Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
¹⁴ As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
¹⁵ But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
¹⁶ Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

I say that proper exegesis will back up everything that I've posted on this matter. To accomplish this, one must first start where Jesus did, before the Law was instituted, before Moses, before The Fall:

Genesis 2:24 (KJV):
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Matthew 19:4-6 (KJV):
⁴ And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
⁵ And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
⁴ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

How much clearer can that be? I believe your use of Scripture in Post #137 is leading you to some wrong conclusions.

And right now, I have no disposable time or energy to quibble further on it. Read the link to the paper at the Happy Heralds site, and agree or disagree. I will not have to answer to God for your conclusions, neither will you for mine.

Be filled with the Holy Ghost, consider Christ and His Church, and sin not. As a part of it, we are still members in the unconsummated espousal stage of it, as was Mary before He was born, before Joseph had congress with her.

There were many holy men before the institution of the law, and were in obedience to it and monogamous before it was inscripturated: Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph. Should we not also, who are after the Law's power to condemn the spiritual man's soul to hell, but not away from The Father's chastisement?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
⁹ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
¹⁰ Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Remarriage adultery is in the same class as these other forms of idolatry and immorality. For John 1:9 to come into play abandonment of it and eschewing it is a necessary condition for one to be cleansed of sin and restored by the blood of Jesus. The couple cannot merely acknowledge and confess their error, and then just keep on repeating it without consequences.

[imardmd1]

If divorce didn’t end a marriage, you would not be “loosed.”

So will death. If you were once married, what was the vow you made that seals your first marriage?

Do you think, under God, that you can make it again to a second, third, fourth, etc? Carry this out to the end result, don't stop in the middle.

[imardmd1]

This is 'if thou marry, a second time'...Paul is already speaking to a married couple...AND, if a virgin marries one who has previously been married, he/she has not sinned either...

This is not exegesis. In this context and in that of the whole Bible that is irresponsible eisegesis. The verse to which you refer assures no such thing.

And "thou" does not refer to a couple. It is singular, and to say otherwise is twisting what the Spirit says here. Can you prove that 7:28 refers to anyone else than a widower, or to someone who has been unchaste but not married, then saved and from then on faithfully and obediently continent?

[af_vet_1981]

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 8/5/2006:

Adultery is NOT a grounds for marital nullity. For a marriage to be declared invalid, causes for nullity must exist from the beginning of the marriage. It cannot simply be adultery. If that was the case, then all one needs to do to get out of a marriage is go and commit adultery.

Of course, adultery may be an indication of other problems in a marriage and may be a relevant circumstance to a case for nullity. For example, someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder might freely commit adultery, having no concern for anyone but him or herself. The existence of this disorder might impede a person from assuming the essential obligations of marriage.

The Church does recognize two situations were separation is permitted while the bond of marriage endures. The first is adultery -- the innocent party has a right (although not an obligation) to separate. And the second is danger -- the party in danger has a right to separate and also to take children out of danger. If a separate occurs, then the note that you mention about civil divorce applies. However, a civil divorce does not mean that the marriage (in the eyes of God and the Church) is dissolved.

I cannot tell anyone whether they should separate or not, but in the case you are describing she has the right to.

[af_vet_1981]

Well done;

I would add this from a Catholic perspective, without impugning the fine post, but rather since the Catholic response may be misunderstood pertaining to:

e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[180]

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Do you think, under God, that you can make it again to a second, third, fourth, etc?”

Yes. Or you will also find yourself advocating that widows and widows are never permitted to remarry.

There are Christians that teach you can only marry once - even in the terrible event of death of your spouse. They can believe what they choose, but I do not find their arguments convincing.

[imardmd1]

I'm sorry, I did not make myself clear. Let me amend that line from Post #154 to clarify what the intent was:

>> Do you think, under God, that you can make it a vow of fidelity again to a second, third, fourth, etc while any of the objects of a previous vow is still physically alive? <<

That is, the covenant sealed by the marital pledge of fidelity is validated from then on and according to the conditional boundary stated: (a) on the one hand, as long as they both shall live (be physically alive); and, on the other hand, until death do them part (one or both shall become physically dead).

To attempt to re-vow to someone else under this condition would be utterly inconsistent with sanity, let alone holiness.

There are Christians that teach you can only marry once - even in the terrible event of death of your spouse

It is true that some interpreters, looking at the passages:

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife . . .
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well" (1 Tim. 3:2_a,b,12 KJV)

". . . ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, . . ." (Tit. 1:5_c,d-6_a,b KJV)

insist that this means that a bishop/elder must be married, and that only once, ever. It would be hard to convince me that either part of that presumed standard is iron-clad. But I would say that no man, having divorced his wife according to man's law, thence celibate or not, should be admitted to the function of overseer or elder of the church; nor should a man whose wife, still alive, has divorced him according to man's law, or has separated from him.

It is true, but not commonly known that John Wesley, the Anglican priest and key founder of Methodism, was so distantly separated from his wife and not in conjugal felicity with her for years into his evangelical ministry, that he was not aware of her death and burial until some weeks after the event. But certainly he was continent in te years of his peregrinations, else he would have been seen as a charlatan, unable to keep up a front of holiness among the very practical farmers, coal-miners, and worker-class constituents. Ah, sad the degree that his wife rejected his godly calling!

There are some Scripture-manglers that claim if one of the partners of a marriage of worldlings become saved, then applying Romans 7:4-6 gives that person the freedom to just separate from or divorce the unsaved member of the union, and then freed to go ahead and make marital union with another who is likewise "loosed" from an unsaved partner. And that is where your logic about divorce leads you, I believe.

The forging of a marital union, once willingly undertaken and the vows exchanged, is unbreakably independent of the standing of either before God as regarding salvation and eternal life, until physical death separates. Note that in the Old Testament, the answer to the sin of adultery was immediate sentencing to death for the perpetrator(s), not divorce. That was the OT method of "loosing," eh?

In God's Heaven, of course, the only marriage is that of Christ and His Bride. I leave up to you now whether or not one's spiritual body will be fully furnished with genital equipment as in earthly life.

[Ikeon]

More or less punishment based on the severity of the sin and their Biblical knowledge? You are nothing more than a white washed tomb. I dont think you know the meaning of Grace.

[imardmd1]

I’m sorry, but I have no aympathy for the Romanist implementation of the doctrine of marital union.

[Iscool]

This is 'if thou marry, a second time'...Paul is already speaking to a married couple...AND, if a virgin marries one who has previously been married, he/she has not sinned either...

This is not exegesis. In this context and in that of the whole Bible that is irresponsible eisegesis. The verse to which you refer assures no such thing.

But then to what do those verses refer???

1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1Co 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

It's clear to me that 'But' in verse 28 is a continuation of 'Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife'., in verse 27...And if not, why would Paul have to remind someone that it's not a sin to marry...Who wouldn't know that (except possibly a Catholic)??? And then Paul points out that if a virgin marries, she hasn't sinned either...

It's kinda like when you show a Catholic actual scripture that says a bishop must have a wife and family to be qualified to be a bishop...They pretend that scripture doesn't exist...You've cited some good Old Testament scripture but what about the scripture to the church...You can't just ignore it...

Act_20:27  For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

The apostle Paul didn't ignore it...

Matthew 5:19,20 (KJV):
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Good scripture there but none of it was written to me nor the church, doctrinally...
except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.
Really??? That verse doesn't apply to Christians...

I don't have any righteousness...None at all...All my righteousness is in Jesus Christ...He picked up my check and paid the bill...Those people in those verses are under the law...They have to pay their own bill...
Their religious system is filled with priests, a veil, sacrifices, food restrictions and all kinds of things Jesus did away with when his church got off the ground...He then gave the Apostle Paul instructions on how to operate the church...And it was a whole new world to those Jesus is speaking to in Matt. 5...You won't find the church in Matt. 5...

[imardmd1]

God's grace comprises the gift of the ability to live gratefully and fully according to His Law as a consequence of salvation, not as a cause or condition for salvation.

I dont think you know the meaning of Grace.

I may have the desire to God's will, bot not the power; or the power to do it but not the desire. In wither case, His Will is not done. It is by God's grace through faith in His Son that He can supply me with both, so that as His servant I can please Him.

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Php. 2:12-13 KJV).

You can't work out a salvation that you don't already possess.

[Iscool]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Remarriage adultery is in the same class as these other forms of idolatry and immorality. For John 1:9 to come into play abandonment of it and eschewing it is a necessary condition for one to be cleansed of sin and restored by the blood of Jesus. The couple cannot merely acknowledge and confess their error, and then just keep on repeating it without consequences.

So we have to be nigh on to perfect to become a member of the body of Christ??? I' guess I'll never make it...And I'll hazard a guess that you won't either...

1Co 6:9  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 
1Co 6:10  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
  1Co 6:11  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

So what's that mean??? Does it mean that since we quit sinning we were allowed to be washed or does it mean that we are washed clean because the blood of Jesus washed all that sin off of us??? I think Jesus cleanses us after we are washed in the blood...I don't believe we do or can cleanse ourselves...