Divorce
#11
Our Lord Jesus Christ said: "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" (Matthew 19:9)

So we see that Christ allowed divorce if the wife committed the sin of fornication.

Reply
#12
michaeorapronobis Wrote:Our Lord Jesus Christ said: "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" (Matthew 19:9)

So we see that Christ allowed divorce if the wife committed the sin of fornication.


The Catholic Church does not agree with your interpretation, but entire books have been written about this "exceptive clause", and and it's impossible to recap all the arguments here. But, even granting that your interpretation is correct, why do Orthodox bishops allow other grounds for divorce besides adultery?
Reply
#13
Because they are outside the Church and therefore do not partake of the Magisterium.  When you do that, you can get a lot of stuff wrong.  Look at the 50,000 (and counting) Protestant denominations.
 
 
Reply
#14
Quote:
The Catholic Church does not agree with your interpretation, but entire books have been written about this "exceptive clause", and it's impossible to recap all the arguments here. But, even granting that your interpretation is correct, why do Orthodox bishops allow other grounds for divorce besides adultery?
 
It's a good thing that we have the Magisterium of the Church to interpret the Scriptures, isn't it? 
Reply
#15
Quote:except it be for fornication

Fornication takes place between two people before (outside) marriage, adultery within marriage of one of two of those adultering with a person they are not married to.
 
Fornication might be a grounds for invalidity of a marriage, as this might indicate this or that person did not have the proper intention when sacramentalizing their marriage.
 
More: http://www.catholicapologetics.net/wsy-24-2
Quote:  
3. The Dogmatic Basis and Practical Application of The Complete Dissolubility of Consummated Marriage within the Catholic Church (a) Its Foundation in Scripture -- The complete exclusion of absolute divorce (divortium perfectum) in Christian marriage is expressed in the words quoted above (Mark 10; Luke 16; 1 Corinthians 7). The words in St. Matthew's Gospel (xix, 9), "except it be for fornication", have, however, given rise to the question whether the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery. The Catholic Church and Catholic theology have always maintained that by such an explanation St. Matthew would be made to contradict Sts. Mark, Luke, and Paul, and the converts instructed by these latter would have been brought into error in regard to the real doctrine in Christ. As this is inconsistent both with the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the innerancy of Sacred Scripture, the clause in Matthew must be explained as the mere dismissal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of the marriage bond. Such a dismissal is not excluded by the parallel texts in mark and Luke, while Paul (1 Corinthians 7:11) clearly indicates the possibility of such a dismissal: "And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband". Grammatically, the clause in St. Matthew may modify one member of the sentence (that which refers to the putting-away of the wife) without applying to the following member (the remarriage of the other), though we must admit that the construction is a little harsh. If it means, "Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery", then, in case of marital infidelity, the wife may be put away; but that, in this case, adultery is not committed by a new marriage cannot be concluded from these words. The following words, "And he that shall marry her that is put away" -- therefore also the woman who is dismissed for adultery -- "committeth adultery", say the contrary, since they suppose the permanence of the first marriage. Moreover, the brevity of expression in Matthew, xix, 9, which seems to us harsh, is explicable, because the Evangelist had previously given a distinct explanation of the same subject, and exactly laid down what was justified by the reason of fornication: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the causes of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Matthew 5:32). Here all excuse for remarriage or for the dissolution of the first marriage is excluded. Even the mere dismissal of the wife, if this is done unjustly, exposes her to the danger of adultery and is thus attributed to the husband who has dismissed her -- "he maketh her commit adultery". It is only in the case of marital infidelity that complete dismissal is justified -- "excepting for the cause of fornication". In this case not he, but the wife who has been lawfully dismissed, is the occasion, and she will therefore be responsible should she commit further sin. It must also be remarked that even for Matthew, xix, 9, there is a variant reading supported by important codices, which has "maketh her to commit adultery" instead of the expression "comitteth adultery". This reading answers the difficulty more clearly. (Cf. Knabenbauer, "Comment, in Matt.", II, 144). Catholic exegesis is unanimous in excluding the permissibility of absolute divorce from Matthew 19, but the exact explanation of the expressions, "except it be for fornication" and "excepting for the cause of fornication", has given rise to various opinions. Does it mean the violation of marital infidelity, or a crime committed before marriage, or a diriment impediment? (See Palmieri, "De matrim. Christ.", 178 sqq.; Sasse, "De sacramentis", II, 418 sqq.) Some have tried to answer the difficulty by casting doubt on the authenticity of the entire phrase of Matthew 19, but the words are in general fully vouched for by the more reliable codices. Also, the greater number, and the best, have "committeth adultery". (See Knabenbauer, loc. cit., and Schanz, "Kommentar über das Evang. d. hl. Matth.", 191, 409.) That absolute divorce is never allowable therefore clear from Scripture, but the argument is cogent only for a consummated marriage. For Christ found His law on the words: "They two shall be in one flesh", which are verified only in consummated marriage. How far divorce is excluded, or can be allowed, before the consummation of the marriage must be derived from other source.
Reply
#16
Spassiosochrani (Sp?),
 
I, of course, know that not every Orthodox is committing a mortal sin of schism. That is basic theology... you can't commit a mortal sin unless you know that what you're doing is a sin, and for old Orthodox Granny somewhere in the Caucassus mountains who has never heard of the Catholic Church or Her claims, of course there is no sin there. However, exceptions make poor rules, and that is clearly an exception. We do not, as men, have either the presumption, or the capability, or the right to judge the souls of other men, so we don't know who is and who is not in a state of mortal sin. However, we do know that objectively speaking, adherence to the Eastern Orthodox groups is a mortal sin of schism, and therefore it's not a good place to be. I'm sure there are exceptions to the mortal sin rule, but it's only through ignorance and whatnot, and not from any salvific qualities in the Orthodox Church. The sacrament of penance is valid insomuch as the Eastern Schismatic priest has the power to bestow the sacrament of penance, given the grace received at his ordination. However, if on the part of the penitent there is a desire to adhere to the Orthodox Schism, then the absolution would be invalid because of course schism is a sin.
 
 
Reply
#17
michaeorapronobis Wrote:Our Lord Jesus Christ said: "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" (Matthew 19:9)

So we see that Christ allowed divorce if the wife committed the sin of fornication.


Wow.  It takes a certain smugness to quote one passage of scripture to demonstrate it is so very OBVIOUS your position is right.
 
One wonders why the fornicator is allowed to remarry... And what of divorces granted to two parties where neither has committed adultery? Is it naive of me to presume that not EVERY divorce occurs because of marital infidelity?
 
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ332.HTM
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)