Posted on 02/20/2006 9:03:15 AM PST by bremenboy
Thank you for the equal opportunity.
I am not familiar with Chesterton and being fair to the Catholic Church! Is it "all's fair in love and war?"
Regards
Do you think that the sin of stealing a pencil is the same as committing adultery
There is a lot of confusion about this doctrine. The sin of adultery can be forgiven, but only with repentance and the resolution not to commit the sin again. Jesus clearly states, and there is no clearer admonition in the Gospels, that divorce and remarriage is a state of adultery. Forgiveness can be given when the offending act ceases. Clearly, when two people continue in an adulterous relationship they have no basis on which to ask for forgiveness.
Nowhere is it commanded that a victim of abuse in marriage must stay in the abusive relationship. What is commanded is that the victim is not free to remarry because Jesus states that no man can put asunder what God has joined together; the couple is still married even though they be separated.
It is interesting that the original post here refers to Matthew's account rather than those of Luke and Mark. Both these Gospel writers include Jesus's remarks without the apparent exception. Because these two do not include this phrase, it is highly likely that Jesus is not stating that the exception is grounds for remarriage but that it is a separate case with other ramifications.
In any event, the RCC has a clear and unequivocal dogma that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved. It should also be noted that when Jesus made these statements, the punishment for adultery could be death by stoning. He knew very well how seriously his audience took this particular transgression. This strong statement of Christ even surprised the Apostles who later questioned Him about it. Considering the weight that this sin has, it is unconscionable that the clergy and bishops are so sheepish about it. Nowhere is there a better example of the cowardice and lack of conviction in the hierarchy than in the neglect of this very serious subject!
Nope. Merely conveying God's word on the matter.
"What is commanded is that the victim is not free to remarry because Jesus states that no man can put asunder what God has joined together; the couple is still married even though they be separated."
That would just be contrary to the beliefs of God. How do you get that interpretation from the Bible?
To whom? You, the police authorities, or God?
To God it is a sin, pure and simple, which needs forgiveness. The sin keeping you from purity and forgiveness is immaterial. It does not seem all that fair to me either, but I'm not God, can only see from a limited perspective, and as has been said before "Fairness is the Enemy of Justice".
zooooooom
Quite the reverse. Chesterton claimed it was impossible for a non-Catholic to be "fair" to the Catholic church -- because the moment someone drops their hostility, they find themselves inexorably drawn in. Hence anyone who tries to be "fair" to it, ends up joining it.
Well, that's HIS story anyway. He joined it. But he couldn't convince his buddy CS Lewis.
If adultery is a state, is it permanent or does it cease whence the offense has stopped and repented of?
If the latter, then so long as a post marital period of continence and repentance is observed, adultery would become the escape hatch of a bad marriage.
If the former then what of forgiveness?
To God.
As I understand it, there are sins which cry to Heaven for vengeance and those which do not.
For Catholics, there are venial sins and mortal sins.
****Others claim that Jesus is simply clarifying the Mosaic code on divorce and remarriage, implying that it is not a part of the gospel; however, the context strongly suggests otherwise. The Mosaic law gave permission for divorce under certain circumstances because of the hardness of their hearts (vv. 7-8).****
This is a tough one. When we look at the OT quite a few changes of partners and plural marriages.
Gideon with many wives.
Samson, whose wife was given to another. so he went to a prostitute.
David whose wife was given to another till he took her back, and his others.
Hosea, who was instructed to marry a prostitute.
Solomon's many, ect.
Marriage was very flexable in those days.
I believe what CHRIST was talking about( Mosaic law divorce) was common today in the Arab world, when a man gives money and "marrys" a woman for a few hours, then gives her a bill of divorcement.
In other words, a legal form of prostitution. Adultry and fornication by any other name is still the same.
This would be equal to "giving" your fortune to the Temple as a "sacrifice (corban)", but still have access to it, just so you would not have to "Honor they Father and Mother(Take care of them in old age)."
We also have the Godly "ideal" marriage, and the sad reality.
I know many people opposed to divorce including a local C of C preacher who have had to come to terms with family members divorcing and remarrying.
I have been married for 35 years to my only wife. I can't say that for other family members and friends.
ANY sinful state, ceases to be sinful when you stop doing it. (So-called "repentance" isn't real unless you stop.)
In the case of an invalid remarriage, permanently ceasing the sexual activity would mean that the union was no longer adulterous. Quite unpopular, of course, but this path is occasionally chosen for the sake of the children born in the second union: rather than separate, the invalidly married partners agree to live together "as brother and sister" (separate bedrooms,etc), and raise the kids in a 2 parent family.
You seem to be skirting the issue. "ANY sinful state, ceases to be sinful when you stop doing it. (So-called "repentance" isn't real unless you stop.)"
So, if my marriage sucks then all I have to do is sleep with some stripper once, tell my wife and when she divorces me then after my period of continence and repentance, my slate is clean and I can remarry?
Do I have that right?
No. Sleeping with the stripper would give your wife just cause to separate, if she so wished, but neither of you would be eligible for remarriage. Remain celibate, or reconcile...
No you do consider all sins equal, not God. If God did, God would not have set down the Ten Commandments, a list of the worst sins in God's eyes.
Man does not. Man cannot grant eternal life.
Humans are born with souls, therefore we are already immortal to begin with, just not in the physical sense.
This one has been hashed out pretty well in Orthodox v Catholic threads here on FR in the past.
Orthdoxy does allow 2nd and even 3rd marriages. An ecclesiastical divorce must be obtained, the main point of which is to see if there is any hope of salvaging the first marriage. The hard reality of modern life is that if someone is living a pious Orthodox life, one generally won't be getting a divorce in the first place. And if one has not been living a pious Orthodox life, by the time the matter is brought to the Church's attention, it is generally far too late to do anything.
A fourth marriage is not allowed. I would also point out that the Orthodox ideal is one man, one woman for life. No distinction is made between a 2nd marriage involving a widow or one involving a divorcee (except that the former doesn't need an ecclesiastical divorce.)
Marriages fail because we are sinful. There is no point pretending that they don't fail and end. We see the Catholic process of annullment as callous casuistry. There are genuine circumstances for annulment (primarily coersion -- but these are circumstances that hardly apply in the modern world in the vast majority of cases.)
The Orthodox ideal is reflected in the standards expected of clergy, who are to be an example to all. Anyone who has been divorced, married after becoming a widower, or who has married a divorcee or widower is not allowed to become a priest (there are some cases where economia has been applied, but these are rare and scandalous.) These restrictions apply to anyone at or above the rank of subdeacon (i.e. readers may remarry, but they cannot advance any further in the ranks of the priesthood.) This is probably because the subdeacons are allowed to touch the chalice and other holy things when they are on the proskomede table (the table where the priest prepares the gifts), whereas readers are not allowed to touch the holy objects in any situation, although they are allowed to, and indeed required to, enter the altar area for specific tasks at specific times.
Divorce is a falling short. Remarriage, is an even greater falling short. Remarriage after the death of a spouse is also a falling short, although not as much as the previous things mentioned.
Yet, it is better to marry than to burn. The Orthodox Church allows remarriage to prevent the worse sin of fornication or adultery. The Orthodox marriage ceremony for 2nd marriages omits a number of blessings and the Scripture appointed to be read is the "better to marry than to burn" passage from St. Paul.
Third marriages are a brief, even more penitential service.
In practice, many Orthodox priests will use the 1st marriage ceremony in a couple of instances even if it is a remarriage: if it is the first marriage for *one* of the pair, and if it is the couple's first marriage since being baptized into the Orthodox Church (i.e. this applies to converts.)
Well, I don't know about joining it, but being amiable to those who are Catholic, I think is inevitable. Once people (non-Catholic Christians) find out that we share many common beliefs, and preach a Biblical morality, I think most realize that we can at least co-exist without the need for being anti-Catholic.
Well, that's HIS story anyway. He joined it. But he couldn't convince his buddy CS Lewis
True. But Lewis was quite friendly to Catholic beliefs, such as Purgatory
Regards
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.