Here is a good article which looks at the issue of divorce and remarriage addressed in Scripture:
This article is very solidly Protestant.
Stick with Catholic sources wrt Catholic marriage.
Yes, and Protestant doesn’t always mean they don’t recognize certain Catholic interpretations.
Don’t be so anti-Protestant that you can’t appreciate when some Protestants see Catholic beliefs and sound Scriptural study, right?
It’s actually refreshing to see Protestants see the absolute prohibition of remarriage for Christians, despite this widely disputed passage. These Protestants are very rare, and this interpretation should be commended by Catholics!
I am anti-error. The exception clause in Matthew’s gospel has been clearly defined.
Yes, I know it has been mis-interpreted by Protestants. I fail to see how putting up a post encouraging people to read mis-information is helpful.
Can you explain how this article contradicts Catholic Teaching? How is it in error?
And where has Matthew’s exception clause been clearly defined by Catholic Teaching?
Catholic Teaching upholds the absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage, while recognizing situations of just separation (which includes State divorce) while remaining single (1 Cor. 7).
This article’s conclusion is in agreement with that Teaching!
I suggest, at least, reading the conclusion. But the research of the terms is very good. Probably better than any Catholic article I’ve seen.
From the conclusion in the article:
"There is no clear example of porneia in the Greek New Testament or its Hebrew equivalent, zanah, in the Old Testament meaning adultery or sexual sin in general. Therefore the prevalent teaching that adultery or other sexual sin after marriage justifies divorce and remarriage is an assumption, not a clear Biblical teaching.
… Yet even if it is believed this exception refers to sexual sin in general we are still faced with the fact Jesus said whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery, irrespective of her guilt or innocence. Why? Because a man who marries a divorced woman becomes a participant (though not intentionally) in adultery (Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18).
… This was also the understanding of the early church of the first four centuries. Separation was permissible in certain circumstances, but marriage to another was not while the former partner was still alive.
… Yet the debate about divorce and the exception for porneia should never depend solely on the meaning of one word. There are other fundamental reasons why there is no right to divorce and remarry under the New Covenant. These are based on the basic principles of love and faithfulness that Jesus and Paul taught."
I understand that this is a very raw, open wound for you.
My best advice is to fund support through catholicsdivorce.com
Thank you for the support, honest!
But what does that have to do with criticizing the article? You claimed Protestant error. Please explain.
I posted this article as a cool recognition of Jesus’ Teaching about divorce and remarriage. I’m not venting or making any accusations towards anyone!
“The exception for divorce in Matthew only applied to the circumstance of betrothal unfaithfulness.”
This is not consistent with Catholic teaching.
Actually it is.
A Sacramental marriage that is not consummated can be dissolved.
There are interpretations, within the Catholic Teachings about marriage, which we are free to believe.
I’m not saying this article has the only acceptable interpretations of the Matthew passages, but that it supports the official position regarding the indissolubility of Marriage Taught by the Church.
You said, “The exception clause in Matthew’s gospel has been clearly defined.”
To be fair, yes, you may have a point here.
Can the Pope dissolve an unconsumated Sacrament marriage for any reason?
An unconsumated Sacramental marriage is actually very identical to a betrothal. We just no longer practice a betrothal.
Sorry I was so sharp with you about your advice. But it’s because I need to be firm about not getting into my personal situation here at CAF. It’s not because I think you are being mean, or that I don’t enjoy your participation. I want my privacy about my personal marriage.
Also, I actually personally don’t necessarily have the same conclusion about what the exception clause is referring to as the author of this article, yet I think his example of Mary and Joseph may be relavent and fit into it.
I actually believe the “porneia” which is cause for “divorce” refers to the union of the actual couple divorcing, and nothing to do with a third party involved. Porneia can be divorced, or rather is not binding on a couple.
1 Corinthians 6
Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one."
I believe this is an example of what Jesus was referring to. And it can include all forms of unlawful unions. This more commonly applies to couples dating and sleeping together in our times and culture.
Nevertheless, the Church actually has NOT clearly defined the exception clause, so there are a few interpretations that do no necessarily contradict the Church’s Teaching about the indissolubility of the Sacrament.
Rules state we cannot post blogs, Catholic or non catholic
Is that what it is?
I only read and intended to share the one article…
Rules are rules
Is it a blog or a website? What’s the difference and how do I know if it’s a blog? I honestly don’t know…
Either way, I deferred it to the moderator to determine.