Beginning and end of Christianity?

[RJM]

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)
You interpret this as Jesus saying that divorce is forbidden.
..but it doesn't say that, imo.

But it does say that.
What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder
(Mark10:9)

Later however the Gospel of Matthew softens it to:
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery
(Matt 5:32)

The contract can be broken by either party, but the man has the ultimate responsibility, as it is his responsibility to provide.
Making divorce unlawful, results in misery for many .. it is an example of how "idealism" can destroy a civilisation.
Do you really think that a man should keep a woman by force, for example?

A few posts back #23 in reaction to the fact the catechism is occasionally updated to keep up with real life you said this:

This might be the current official position, but should "the teachings" keep changing in order to appease modern society?

I explained that although Catholicism may occasionally be updated to include the science and culture of the current century, it can never directly contradict the spoken words of Jesus as recorded in the gospels. What Jesus said, is what Jesus said?

 

[RJM]

Making divorce unlawful, results in misery for many .. it is an example of how "idealism" can destroy a civilisation.
Do you really think that a man should keep a woman by force, for example?

Civilizations have come and gone for centuries.

Marriage annulment can be granted by the church, if conditions allow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_nullity
In 2015, the process for declaring matrimonial nullity was amended by the matrimonial nullity trial reforms of Pope Francis, the broadest reforms to matrimonial nullity law in 300 years.[6] Prior to the reforms, a declaration of nullity could only be effective if it had been so declared by two tribunals at different levels of jurisdiction. If the lower courts (First and Second Instance) were not in agreement, the case went automatically to the Roman Rota for final decision one way or another.

Divorce can be obtained through the secular courts.
I'm not commenting on it. Just explaining the facts.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Marriage annulment can be granted by the church, if conditions allow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_nullity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_nullity

Although an annulment is thus a declaration that "the marriage never existed", the Church recognizes that the relationship was a putative marriage, which gives rise to "natural obligations". In canon law, children conceived or born of either a valid or a putative marriage are considered legitimate, and illegitimate children are legitimized by a putative marriage of their parents, as by a valid marriage

It's just semantics..

Divorce can be obtained through the secular courts.

Not in Henry VIII's day..

 

[RJM]

@muhammad_isa
Should the church directly contradict the spoken word of Christ?
If the church doesn't like what Jesus said, should the church decide it doesn't matter?
I am not debating, just asking?

Not in Henry VIII's day..

Catherine could not bear him a son. He tried without success to have the marriage annulled. He went ahead and chucked her over anyway. At least she escaped with her life. The following wives he just chopped their heads off.

 

[muhammad_isa]

@muhammad_isa
If the church doesn't like what Jesus said, should the church decide it doesn't matter?

No, of course not.

Catherine could not bear him a son. He tried without success to have the marriage annulled. He went ahead and chucked her over anyway. At least she escaped with her life. The following wives he just chopped their heads off.

Forget about Henry .. what about the unhappy wives who were forced to stay with their husbands for centuries due to the Roman church?

 

[RJM]

Forget about Henry .. what about the unhappy wives who were forced to stay with their husbands for centuries due to the Roman church?

I'm not sure that permanent marriage vows were reserved for Catholics alone? I think most societies and tribes regarded marriage as permanent, apart from rare exceptions. Until quite recently marriage was the fabric of the family, of protecting the young, and necessary for the stability of society?

Adultery was a capital offence in many African societies. Probably other societies as well? There were all the problems of inbreeding and sexual diseases, etc. Marriage was a cultural necessity. It didn't have to be a happy one.

Modern western people live much longer nowadays, and the male hunter/fighter vs female child-bearer/home-maker divisions have softened. I don't know much about the cultural studies. But permanent marriage was a custom that went beyond the Catholic church. It applied globally to all/most cultures?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not sure that permanent marriage vows were reserved for Catholics alone? I think most societies and tribes regarded marriage as permanent, apart from rare exceptions. Until quite recently marriage was the fabric of the family, of protecting the young, and necessary for the stability of society?

All Christians believe that marriage vows are intended to be permanent. We are not talking about "temporary contracts"
Marriage is indeed necessary for the stability of society. There are many reasons why marriage is being undermined,
and is not confined to how easy it may be to obtain a divorce.

On 25 December 800, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as Emperor, reviving the title in Western Europe, more than three centuries after the fall of the earlier ancient Western Roman Empire in 476. In theory and diplomacy, the Emperors were considered primus inter pares, regarded as first among equals among other Roman Catholic monarchs across Europe.

We are discussing divorce in Christianity, and up until the Reformation, the law was in the hands of
the Holy Roman Empire (800–1806)

Although the Reformation is usually considered to have started with the publication of the Ninety-five Theses by Martin Luther in 1517, there was no schism between the Catholic Church and the nascent Luther until the 1521 Edict of Worms. The edict condemned Luther and officially banned citizens of the Holy Roman Empire from defending or propagating his ideas

 

[muhammad_isa]

The First Council of the Lateran was the 9th ecumenical council recognized by the Catholic Church. It was convoked by Pope Callixtus II in December 1122
...
canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance.

Yes .. I most certainly believe in evolution
I don't believe in the divine authority of "church leaders", whatever their faith.

 

[juantoo3]

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.
A man promises "to love and to cherish"
A woman promises to "honour and obey"

The contract can be broken by either party, but the man has the ultimate responsibility, as it is his responsibility to provide.
Making divorce unlawful, results in misery for many .. it is an example of how "idealism" can destroy a civilisation.
Do you really think that a man should keep a woman by force, for example?

Spanner in the works here - I agree overall, but doesn't this apply more accurately to a paternalistic society of, say, 60 years ago? A lot has changed since then. The vows could literally be anything, there is no requirement for them to say or imply the man must love or cherish, or the woman honor or obey.

In fact, I don't recall seeing specific or even incidental wedding "vows" as such anywhere in the Bible. It is a social contract, albeit an oath before G-d and human witnesses, but apart from tradition really has nothing to do with faith or religion (or dogma, creed, credo, canon, axiom, ideology, precept or belief).

 

[juantoo3]

Catherine could not bear him a son. He tried without success to have the marriage annulled. He went ahead and chucked her over anyway. At least she escaped with her life. The following wives he just chopped their heads off.

Well, I suppose that's one workaround, if you're the King and can't divorce, arrange it so you outlive your wife...

Side note, Constantine had his wife meet an untimely and unfortunate end...along the lines of an overcooked lobster. To be fair, she falsely accused her step-son of making a pass at her, and Constantine had publicly executed the young man for what turns out to be a crime he did not commit.

 

[juantoo3]

I'm not sure that permanent marriage vows were reserved for Catholics alone? I think most societies and tribes regarded marriage as permanent, apart from rare exceptions. Until quite recently marriage was the fabric of the family, of protecting the young, and necessary for the stability of society?

Adultery was a capital offence in many African societies. Probably other societies as well? There were all the problems of inbreeding and sexual diseases, etc. Marriage was a cultural necessity. It didn't have to be a happy one.

Modern western people live much longer nowadays, and the male hunter/fighter vs female child-bearer/home-maker divisions have softened. I don't know much about the cultural studies. But permanent marriage was a custom that went beyond the Catholic church. It applied globally to all/most cultures?

In Native American tribes it was up to the woman, to stay or leave. If she chose to leave for another man, the first "husband" had no complaint and no recourse. Then too, a man could have as many wives as he wished, or at least as many as would chose to stay with him.

Side note, Chief Billy Bowlegs (a real Chief of the Seminole tribe) was asked how he kept 3 wives. His answer was "separate teepees."

 

[muhammad_isa]

The vows could literally be anything, there is no requirement for them to say or imply the man must love or cherish, or the woman honor or obey.

In fact, I don't recall seeing specific or even incidental wedding "vows" as such anywhere in the Bible. It is a social contract, albeit an oath before G-d and human witnesses, but apart from tradition really has nothing to do with faith or religion ..

22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.
24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.
Ephesians 5

The vows, which were in use for many centuries in the Christian world, have their roots in scripture.
That is not to say that the vows are part of the religion, but it is more than culture/tradition

 

[juantoo3]

There is certainly overlap, that is true of all cultures. I mean, prior to common air travel, I don't think it would be realistic to expect to see an African couple getting a Polynesian wedding, for example. The symbols of the wedding would be culturally significant, and a big part of that naturally would be the religion. But the ceremony itself has a significant social aspect to it that is apart from the religion. I would think this to be true universally, no exceptions are coming to mind at least until very recently, and even then it is more fad or fashion than religious statement.

So allow me to amend my statement; wedding vows apart from tradition really have little to do with faith or religion.

 

[juantoo3]

Of course, Ephesians 5 continues:

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 

[2ndpillar]

I think Henry the eighth was responsible for replacing the Roman Catholic Church with his Church of England, which would be more in line with him getting a divorce. The Protestants seem to be freer with regard to divorce, or at least they don't appear to charge for the performance necessary to get something like an annulment. The Roman church may be the mother of the Protestant church, but like most daughters, she is going to do what she wants, or at least be politically aware enough to play up to the king.