Posted on 06/16/2008 6:16:35 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Actually, giving sex inordinate importance isn’t the root of my objection. The Church being absolutely ridiculous is. Basically, the Church is saying that as long as a guy can get an erection - even if he can’t do anything procreative with it - he can get married. No woody, no marriage. This reduces the totality of marriage to an empty (literally empty, if one is sterile) biological act, which is exactly what the Church rails against in many other contexts (pre-marital, homosexual, etc.)
And that IMHO is just moronic beyond words and, as some of the Protestants on this thread have correctly alleged, exceedingly legalistic. As I said, the Holy Spirit has fixed the Church when it went on a silly streak before, and I’ll pray that it does so again.
Actually, giving sex inordinate importance isn’t the root of my objection. The Church being absolutely ridiculous is. Basically, the Church is saying that as long as a guy can get an erection - even if he can’t do anything procreative with it - he can get married. No woody, no marriage. This reduces the totality of marriage to an empty (literally empty, if one is sterile) biological act, which is exactly what the Church rails against in many other contexts (pre-marital, homosexual, etc.) I thought we had finally come around to the belief that marriage was, not only for the procreation of children, but also for the mutual benefit of the man and woman). This Canon shows how far we have not come.
And that IMHO is just moronic beyond words and, as some of the Protestants on this thread have correctly alleged, exceedingly legalistic. As I said, the Holy Spirit has fixed the Church when it went on a silly streak before, and I’ll pray that it does so again.
C
According to Strong's Greek dictionary the Greek word “porneia” used by both Mathew and Mark in their accounts of Jesus's confrontation with the Pharisees can properly be translated into English as either “adultery”, “harlotry”, or “incest”, and can be used in a religious context to mean “idolatry”. The root word is "porne", which translates to "harlot", whore", "unlawful lust", and figuratively as "idolater". "Moicheia" ls derived from "moichus" which translates to "adulterer" or "male paramour" in ancient Greek.
I am by no means an expert on the ancient Greek and Aramaic languages of the New Testament era, but Dr. James Strong was a widely recognized authority in that field and I trust his dictionary to be accurate.
The Lord's reference is to marriages that are not real marriages, because of consanguinity or some other invalidating circumstance.
How do you arrive at that conclusion from the translated language of the Greek text? Jesus plainly said that a man who divorces his wife for adultery, or sexual immorality of you prefer that translation of "porneia", and then marries another woman commits adultery. The Greek term "moicheia" has the connotation of a male adulterer, and it was not the word Jesus used to describe the unfaithful wife. I can't see anything in His statement that justifies the husband using a wife's familial relationship with him or other possible pre-marriage circumstances to invalidate the marriage under Jewish religious law. As I said before, some scholars believe that he was referring to an immoral sexual experience on the part of the wife during the customary Jewish year long betrothal period, which would fit your interpretation, but to me it only seems logical in the context of the situation he was addressing that he used the term "porneia" to mean a wife's act of physical adultery while legally married to a husband under Jewish law. In any case, whichever meaning you assign to his use of that word I believe it is undeniable that he was referring to the justifiable termination of an actual legal marriage, i.e., divorce, and not to something else such as annulment of a quasi-marital relationship that was legally or morally impermissible to begin with, such as you appear to suggest.
I hate divorce and what it is doing to the American people, our children,our churches, and our society in general. But I believe Jesus taught that a marriage can be terminated without violating God's marital law under that one narrowly defined condition, adultery. My concept of biblical marriage that I believe is justified by Mark's account of Jesus' own words and by St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians is that of a co-equal lifetime male-female relationship initiated by a Christian ceremony including vows of marital fidelity, and confirmed by the physical and emotional expression of marital love which we call consummation of the marriage. Anyone who immorally trespasses on that divinely established relationship commits either rape or adultery. And if the illicit act was consensual both parties to that act are equally guilty of adultery, and the offended spouse is granted the right to divorce the unfaithful spouse and remarry another spouse. But the unfaithful divorced spouse is not granted the right to remarry without committing adultery, and the adulterous spouses's new wife or husband is also an adulterer even if the marriage is legal under secular law . I know that doesn't fit well with either Catholic doctrine or the beliefs of a great many evangelical protestants. But I believe that given the context of the scriptural pronouncements on the issue it fits the scripture's meaning more logically than any other.
OTOH I remember that the Apostle Peter wrote under divine inspiration that no scripture is of private interpretation, and consequently I am not totally dogmatic on the issue and I can respect your obviously heartfelt belief on the matter and that of the Catholic Church as well.
A marriage does not need to happen in the Catholic Church to be valid. That is because the spouses are themselves the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony. So, marriages initiated in a civil ceremony, or in non-Catholic settings are also valid in the eye of the Church, provided, again, a number of conditions are met: free consent, ability to consent, consummation, proper intetn, etc., as we discussed.
Yes, the Church considers herself with the God-given power to “bind and loose” (Mt 18) for the entire world, and I realize that not all recognize her powers.
I am sorry that you interpreted it as such. The entire thread was about the Church’s position.
As for the log in your eye comment, the way I and everyone else I have understood about this verse is that it is about sin and not hypocrisy, though that can be a sin of course.
You are another one of the people on FR that seem to have awfully thin skin.
I am never averse to reading a book that is suggested to me but you told me I “needed” to read it and that is why you were sent the appropriate comment. Incidentally, a little blurb about the book and its general content would have been nice, such as (for example):
“Hey, have you ever heard of Peters? Well, he wrote a great book entitled, “blank” and it’s about “blank.” I’d highly recommend it.”
I am in the group of readers that would be considered true bibliophiles and I enjoy sharing reading suggestions, but I would never presume to tell someone they “NEED” to reading something.
Have a nice day and try to chill a little. Life is too, too short.
I thought this was true but thanks for the clarification. If I actually remembered everything I’ve ever learned or knew, it’d be great.
You wrote:
“I am sorry that you interpreted it as such.”
What other way is there to interpret “you”?
“The entire thread was about the Church’s position.”
That post wasn’t. You made that abundantly clear by saying “you” four times and never saying Church in that post.
“As for the log in your eye comment, the way I and everyone else I have understood about this verse is that it is about sin and not hypocrisy, though that can be a sin of course.”
It’s about hypocrisy. It’s always been about hypocrisy. It will always be about hypocrisy. It was hypocrisy over sin, but it was hypocrisy nonetheless. By the way, now you are saying I sinned. How? Don’t say that you meant the Church sinned because that doesn’t even make sense.
“You are another one of the people on FR that seem to have awfully thin skin.”
What? Re-read your posts and you’ll see how thin your own skin is.
“I am never averse to reading a book that is suggested to me but you told me I “needed” to read it and that is why you were sent the appropriate comment.”
Were you speaking erroneously about annulments? Yes or no?
Have you ever read a single book on annulments? Yes or no?
We both know you made mistakes about annulments and have never read a book on the subject. You then, NEED to read a book on the subject.
“Incidentally, a little blurb about the book and its general content would have been nice, such as (for example):”
Now who is sounding thin skinned? Are you incapable of doing a little research? Ever hear of Amazon.com?
“I am in the group of readers that would be considered true bibliophiles and I enjoy sharing reading suggestions, but I would never presume to tell someone they “NEED” to reading something.”
I would. I wouldn’t hesitate to tell someone to read a book if that were the case. It is in yours.
“Have a nice day and try to chill a little. Life is too, too short.”
Try to chill? Wow, you are thin skinned.
Don’t make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is also a form of “making it personal.”
I need to add a couple of things.
The Church presumes all conventional marriages to be valid. In order to annul a marriage one or both of the spouses must request it. Then an investigation is made into how the marriage was initiated, and if a defect is found, it will be annulled. Subsequent problems in the marriage, however tragic, are important insofar as they point to some intial defect, but not in themselves. For example, if an adultery happened and the couple separated, that in itself is not grounds to annul that marriage, — however, if there is reason tio believe that the adulterer never intended to be faithful to the spouse, then the fact of adultery becomes evidence to corroborate that theory.
When one of the spouses is Catholic, or both are, in order for it to be properly initiated the marriage must follow canonical form. There is no such requirement on non-Catholic marriages. Canonical form basically demands that the marriage be in the Catholic Church (dispensations may be granted with good reason), and the Catholic parent is to promise to make an effort to raise the children Catholic. So, my earlier sweeping statement that civil and other non-Catholic marriages are presumed valid must not be taken as if Catholics could marry outside of the Church, — they cannot.
Spouses in a marriage that is subsequently annulled do not become guilty of fornication, and the children do not become illegitimate. That is because their sexual union at the time was understood by them to be valid, — there was no intent to break the Divine law.
I understand.
At least Canon Law has stopped allowing marriages of prepubescents.
Interesting. One thing I know we will agree on is that far too many divorces are occurring within the Christian community. Christians should not be divorcing at the same rates as non-Christians and it is painful to hear these statistics.
Well now that the moderator has chastised me, I am going to say “bye bye.”
Please don’t post me anymore. Thank you.
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.