Posted on 07/07/2017 7:45:07 PM PDT by marshmallow
-——Christ said don’t divorce and whoever divorces a woman and marries another commits adultery against her.——
You might want to read some commentary outside of the RCC teaching that contextual would shed some light on what the Lord was teaching about....
He was actually pointing out what hypocrites the religious leaders of that time were...not condemning divorced people to a celibate life...
Remarried (after divorce) = not married, don’t have sex.
Remarried (after widowhood) = married, please have sex.
Remarried (after annulment) = married for the first time.
Concise.
The question is why can some get an annulment and others can’t?
I guess the RCC doesn’t believe in the grace of God though the redemption of Christ on the Cross...
Two sinners divorced for maybe good reasons should live like brother and sister....?
Flaw in this analysis is they were married in the Catholic Church.
If it weren’t for sex there’d be no second marriages ever.
Just saying.
L
“Considering that the Bible teaches that mere lust equates to sex in the context of adultery, maybe we should all just keep our eyes closed 24/7.”
Not really. It says it’s adultery in the heart.
“In the heart” clearly delineates it from being equated to actual sex.
Jesus addresses that as well:
| "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." - Matthew 5:29 |
|
|
| "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." - Matthew 18:9 |
Uh...do not really care what some cardinal says. What does Scripture say??? If a decision is not based on Scripture, it is simply man’s tradition.
>Realize that it also has a missional implication in evangelizing cultures that are not monogamous (be it American or foreign). But the remarried couple wishing to heed God's Word and follow it should not cohabit, nor should they separate, divorce, or re-remarry. These are secular and devilish in finding ungodly methods to dealing with their predicament.
For a solidly correct exposition of this matter, read through the article "THE SIN OF REMARRIAGE ADULTERY" (click here), in which the ending text states:
There are some in America who have followed a similar pattern to abstain from cohabitation adultery so as to please the Lord and abstain from uncleanness and defilement. Certainly those who truly love The Father and one another would prefer such an arrangement to that of being excluded from inheriting Eternal Life and the Kingdom of The God. . .
It is imperative that the couple fall on their knees before God and seek His face and direction as to how to perform His will in this matter. But remember it is vital that we “Continually abstain from semblances of every wicked thing” (1 Thes. 5:22 APT*).
* A Precise Translation)
The situation is not what you seem to think. The Archbishop is talking about people who have married civilly but invalidly. They may have children. It would be unjust to the children for the mother and father to live apart. Such people can receive communion provided they abstain from acts of adultery.
Your anti-Catholic bigotry comes through, but your comments are so incoherent it’s impossible to guess what you are trying to say.
An annulment is a declaration that a marriage was null from the beginning.
When people seek an annulment and it is not granted, the reason is that no invalidating fact was discovered.
This is journalism?
I’m sure the directives are far less ambiguous.
Totally irrelevant.
But try. Try to use your words.
There are four places in the New Testament where Our Lord teaches that to divorce one spouse and marry another, is adultery.
Is the better solution just to get an X-Acto knife and cut out those parts?
Or maybe just footnote it with, “Don’t worry, He’s not serious”?
Maybe, but there’s apparently one place in the NT where it’s perfectly fine. Matthew 5:31
Your comment implies that Jesus is contradicting Himself, but I think the true meaning is based on how we are to understand the phrase “except for porneia”.
Historically, and in context, the church has understood this to mean, “except in the case of an unlawful sexual union”-— that is, if the first union were not a valid, God-made bond to begin with.
Interesting. That’s very close to what the Apostles said when they objected to this teaching.
If you’re validly married, you should have sex. If not, not.
That’s been the rule for a really long time.
Probably true. One of the terrible consequences of being stuck with a church that’s stuck with Jesus.
I guess this would not apply to drug fueled gay sex parties for church officials or am I missing something?
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.