Yes and that means God is involved and both spouses truly understand what is going on and are of the same accord in life, or they are not truly joined.
There are two instance's in my youth where marriages were annuled. The 1st was the marriage was not consummated therefore it was not a marriage and the second was a husband revealed to his new wife that there were to be no children. The marriage was annuled.
Clear and simple: thanks for your contribution. This priest seems to be telling people that if you are divorced you can get an annulment. That's a lie.
@el-sig22 49 to me he's telling people not to live in sin and they there is a way that may relieve an otherwise sinful situation. I don't get the amount of brainless comments here.
This what I needed to hear, my ex wife abandoned me and abandment is abuse, so I'm getting a annulment and I plan on remarrying, I don't think God would be so cruel to let me be abused by abandment and then on top of that I have to stay lonely my whole life.
Just bc a person is v young does not mean the church can annul the marriage. The RCC has no authority to do this n what Jesus taught on divorce n remarriage is already in line with holy spirit n the holy spirit is not going to bend the rules for the RCC. There is only one holy spirit n all must obey. But there is no such thing as infallibility where a church makes its own rules n thinks that it is guided by the holy spirit.
@@Davidjune1970 true, but if one separates, or divorces, the options are reconcile, or remain unmarried...and if one cant reconcile, the only other option is to remain unmarried....until the spouse dies...
@@philipbuckley759 I agree. But, as Mother Mary and Father Joseph had a special marriage. I too hope to meet a 'girlfriend' where we can serve Jesus the Lord and be two peas in a pod (have no sex).
The Just-unjust war principles have not been considered in ages. One of the principles is that a war can not be "just" if the collateral damage is greater than the actual participants in the fighting.
Great Homily! After his Ascension, Jesus appeared bodily to Saints Paul, Gertrude the Great, Margaret Mary, and Maria Faustina, commissioning openings for more people.
I am Catholic and divorced. I started the annulment process. I stopped pretty quickly because my marriage was sacramental and was entered into by adults who knew exactly what they were doing. I could not say otherwise. It's good to know I can be a part of the eucharist, though.
Reconciliation Why bother having a Sacrament of Reconciliation if you don’t even bother to pray for Reconciliation in a Marriage? I mean, that wasn’t even a option here. Who cares if you divorced and remarried, it’s adultery. Reconcile with your first spouse.
@@abeycee7427 If a homosexual couple got “government married”, adopted multiple children, and lived together for 20 years. Then the Holy Spirit convicts them. They come to the Catholic Church and say, what are we to do? Do they continue in the homosexual relationship, for the kids? Because that’s how absurd it sounds for a couple living in adultery to keep living in adultery for the kids, or mortgage, or whatever.
You don't have the authority to make that judgement if you are not the diocesan tribunal. If the proper conditions for a sacramental marriage were present, then you would be right. But you don't even know that in any case. Each case must be judged individually by the tribunal.
@ Actually, the condition of needing a tribunal already assumes the marriage valid until the marriage is found invalid by the tribunal. In other words, you are never free to remarry until the tribunal gives nullity. We 100% need a Ecumenical Council on what is a marriage. It should be a universal ruling, not one prone to bias where one tribunal can be more or less liberal/conservative than another. The book “Shattered Faith” is a great example of the need of the Ecumenical Council.
REad Mathew 19:12 to find out what some divorcees can do while others cannot. Like when becoming a priest or a nun instead of only being a divorcee with an annulment too. Having an annulment is like being a novice or a seminary student. Novices and seminary students can drop out of that direction in life to marry or remarry.
A case for nullity is now examined at diocesean level. It takes up to a year for the result. But no petitioning Rome. That's an appeal procedure also. I don't know about the procedure for that. It's also cost effective in that it's a free service. A charitable donation can be made, however.
If it’s not in the early church at all for the first few hundred before the Council of Nicaea, be skeptical. I am not aware of a single early Christian who supported and taught annulments but am aware of tons of them who warned about remarriage in great detail. The Catholic Church has sadly changed severely after the Vatican II, to the point now where only 2% of annulments asked for are denied. They should be ashamed of themselves for not staying true to the words of the Christ and the early church father’s traditions. It should instead be flipped to the point where somewhere around 2% of the annulments are granted and the vast majority denied. Holding someone’s hand through adultery is not love and considering a priest to have the same level of authority as Jesus’s words is idolatry (along with the entire consensus of the early church fathers on His word).
What if when you got married and divorced you never were a christian? You never knew or thought it was something between god and now you want to get married?
Marriage between an unbaptised man and women is called a natural marraige and is a valid marraige. For them a government marraige would be valid. It isn't the Christian Sacrament of Matrimony as they are not baptised.
@@johnfisher247I'm pretty sure a sacrament is only valid for 2 baptized Christians. A non baptized person cannot enter a sacrament (but baptism of course)
There are millions of Christians who have been divorced, some as believers, some before they became believers. They have remarried, attend church regularly, are raising Godly children, etc. Never let the ‘church’ tell you God won’t let you have a happy life. God does love you ❤
I have never heard the 'church ' say God doesn';t want you to have a happy life, but we do need to be as fully aware of what we are doing as possible. This is precisely why the church can offer annulments.
@@Mutasis_Mutandis I would suggest that you read God‘s word more carefully. For example in Matthew eight and Luke eight Jesus puts the demons into the pigs and then the pigs run down the hill into the water and drown. How far did the pigs go? If it’s from the geographic location in Matthew they ran 6 miles to the sea, if it’s from the location in Luke they ran 32 miles to the sea. The supposedly in fallible, inerrant , inspired word of God can’t even get the geographic location of an alleged miracle correct. Are you familiar with Homer‘s Odyssey? In this fable the Greek god Nestor comes ashore with his followers, finds 4500 supporters waiting for them, breaks them into small groups sitting on a hillside and feeds them. The language is exactly the same as the story of Jesus feeding the 5000 thousand, but it was written 800 years earlier. In Matthew 16:2-4 Jesus talks about weather patterns. The weather pattern he describes does not occur in Israel, it occurs in Greece and refers to the winds coming off of North Africa, it is an expression still used today in Greece. Jesus would not have said that, it would’ve made no sense to Galilean fishermen. A Greek gospel writer put those words in Jesus mouth. I could give you hundreds of examples, but the point is this: the book upon which you make your claims is nothing but a collection of stories and fables borrowed from other cultures. Do not destroy other’s lives by quoting from this nonsense.
The annulment thing didn't work out for me. I had relocated twice in the last ten years, and I am from a broken family, therefore, when my witnesses refused to come forward, I didn't have sufficient replacements. The secretary for the Marriage Tribunal for the Archdiocese, the same one that this priest belongs to, sent me an email saying that if I didn't have at least three witnesses who had known me for at least five years, there "was nothing they could do for me." After my wife told me she felt "disrespected" by the process, I withdrew my petition and left the church, becoming a Presbyterian (my wife's denomination). I have no respect for the Marriage Tribunal, or the work they do, as they meddle in affairs that are none of their business. I also think that Catholicism has a questionable future in mainstream, postmodern America; the church, going forward, will likely be made up of older, socially conservative critics of everything that is going on around them. They have a major image problem.
According to the literal word: to remarry after divorce is adultery unless the divorce is because of adultery. In which case the one who did commit adultery if remarrying is committing adultery. The one who did not commit adultery if the divorce was for adultery remarry someone else who was never married then it's not adultery but if the person who did not commit adultery did marry someone who did commit adultery then even though they did not commit adultery in the first marriage it is still adultery for the second one because the spouse committed adultery prior to the marriage. This is no way has any bearings on virginity. Assuming that the divorce with adultery was post consummation to begin with. It's not required to be a virgin play tradition in good sense and is the best plan for long-term survival of marriages. There is another acceptable and that is abandonment but if either party gets remarried is adultery for them and the third new partner but if they remarry each other later and come back together it is not adultery for them to remarry each other. Regardless of if either one committed adultery for the initial divorce if the original to remarry it cannot be adultery even against the third party that caused the second marriage. It's actually very simple.
When we are married in the Catholic church, we take vows in the presence of God "For better or worse, for good or bad,till death do us part.Annullment ,sophisticated word for divorce is man made.Christ too confirmed that if the spouse is living ,a man or woman cannot marry.If done so the divorced person is committing adultery.
@@ulrohermit1369 Sexual immorality may end the marriage as far as on the earth goes between the couple, we are instructed if we leave the marriage to either reconcile or remain single 1 Corinthians 7:11. It also states that is you remarry after a divorce in the eyes of God you are in adultery, now if the marriage was indeed ended why would God now consider you to be a adulterer.Because the marriage Covenant made before him has not ended! Only the civil part has which is Man Made. If you would like more resources on this send me a PM and I will forward them on to you.
@@patjones8598 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 maybe God doesn't want his men to be Cocked, sure you must not leave her in her illness or problems she has cause she didn't ask for them it was out of her will , but what if she is banging other men left and right, what if in some extreme cases, she is flirting in front of you, what about a mans' dignity ??!! you think god would stand for that or that marriage is still "sacred"
What he is speaking about is the difference between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Protestants believe in a concept known as Sola Scriptura, meaning that man can be guided by Sacred Scripture alone. The Catholic Church believes that over time the Holy Spirit guides the Church to come to new understandings that are relevant to today’s times. The priest in the video uses the example of Thou Shalt Not Kill in Sacred Scripture with the Just War principle in Sacred Tradition. Another example would be how the Church has had changing views over time on capital punishment. It was mentioned in Sacred Scripture that the punishment for murder should be death. However, that was only necessary thousands of years ago when there were no prisons to separate murderers from society. Now the Church sees sparing a murderer as a way to preserve their human dignity, giving them a chance to repent before death, while also keeping them separated and unable to hurt other people. There are numerous examples that you can find online about this topic. By the way, the Catholic Church is about as far away from woke as you could possibly get. Hope that helps.
@timothysanchez399 Oh Dear ! Woke , Democrat , all buzz words you have been told you must be against . No doubt you would support a Republican President who may have dubious sexual morals isntead of a Democrat one that attends church .
@wesfarmer83 well done! The first proper, "sane" and "compassionate " and dareci say it, BEST explanation i have read in the comments section so far. It drives me crazy that Protestants harp on about sola scripture yet they squabble amongst each others various and numerous denominations! Crazy. Yet the Catholic church does its best to analyse and decipher what was context for 2000 years ago and shpuld at all costs be upheld and yet has the nounce and critical thinking ability to allow the Holy spirit to guide and make an adjustment withing reason, with caution but at the same time doing its best to NOT allow exploitation. I think thats amazing. My only quibble is, if say this scenario, a man beats hiz wife and children and goodness knows what else whether he be a Catholic or not, for her and her children's safety its clear she needs to distance herself for thd psychological, emotional, physical anx spiritual health and wellness of her and her children, why should she have to NEVER ever find happiness again? OK she can get herself a man friend but never ever fornicate outside another potential marriage or marry and have sex. Tbvh, I can't see many blokes being happy to be in that situation whether they are Catholic or otherwise.
I have been divorced in the Catholic church and my annulment application was refused without explanation. I have always been aware that when you divorce you cannot recieve holy Communion again. I still continue to recieve holy mass Virtually those days and I say a spiritual communion prayer. I am praying that God will forgive me for my divorce as it seems the Catholic church doesn't
I'm a Traditional Catholic and I am telling you you can in fact receive our Lord provided you are in a State of Grace. Divorce does not remove you from the State of Grace however, if you engage in an adulterous relationship after a divorce without handling the divorce through the Church first, then that is a Grave matter. I will pray for you, I am a wicked sinnner so please pray for me. Ave Maria!
Be in a state of grace and become reconciled and you can receive communion. If you are not in a state of grace DO NOT say a spiritual communion prayer, it's sacrilege.
I am a divorced Catholic, I choose to remain single for the rest of my life me and my wife separated when I was 36 It was very painful, I fell short a few times with a few other relationships but Jesus made it very Clear to me NO other relationship that I must remain single and the love that’s in my Heart is for Christ and Christ Alone, Matthew 18:18 to Peter what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven what you unbound on earth will be unbound in heaven, the Church has been given authority, THAT SAID for me my Eternal salvation is too important to take the gamble with annulment and my annulment wouldn’t be legit me and my wife loved when married and I still love my wife, God Bless her, I Choose Christ and the Narrow Gate, You CAN IF DIVORCED RECIEVE JESUS as long as your in a state of Grace God Bless you all who are in this predicament it’s a Heavy Cross 🙏❤️🔥🛐🙏 GIVE ALL TO JESUS AND LOVE HIM AND HIM ALONE HE IS THE BRIDEGROOM 🙏❤️🔥🛐
Grounds for annulment only include the things which the church requires for a marriage to be valid. This is why the church asks about free will, openness to children, etc _during the wedding liturgy._ A marriage conducted in the Catholic church is assumed sacramental and therefore indissoluble. A person who's sacramental marriage has been disrupted must mend that marriage or remain in that broken marriage. The end. Jesus does not say don't kill, He says don't murder. This priest needs to go back to seminary. Catholic Catechism paragraph 1665 1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.
any marriage, in any culture is considered a covenant, if the two are eligible to be married....and face the same Biblical restrictions on divorce and remarriage...
Thank you for saying it. I was going to say the same thing. This priest is causing more problems than he is solving. He has a terrible understanding of annulment.
So if a woman gets married in a Catholic Church and endures years of violent abuse from her Husband she just has to put up with it until he dies or he kills her ? Thanks for straightening that out .
Thank you for sharing this. I’m not Catholic, but my soon to be former husband is. We both deserve to seek true connection. I wish him the best & know that myself & our children deserve us all to be happy. Thankful for the support from both of our families. We are Divinely protected. The future is bright. 🙏🏽❤
If you weded in the Church then you cannot divorce. What this priest is teaching is misleading. The most important thing is the salvation of every soul concern: you and your spouse.
If you got married in the Catholic Church, then you and your ex-husband are still married and can’t remarry. You not being Catholic will probably ignore this as not part of your beliefs, but if he remains Catholic he will not remarry until death do you part.
Is it confusing because of Vat 2 which could be partially true or is it the of life that changed and prompted Vat 2 and still continues to change .. ?(good word would be degenerate)
The Bible never said don’t kill. It says do not murder. There is a big difference between the two. Also, this man is giving advice on the topic of divorce & remarriage that clearly contradicts Scripture (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:39, Romans 7:2-3, Mark 10:9, Luke 16:18 etc.)
my bibleS say: Thou shalt not kill. One must look into the meaning of marriage. It is more about saying I do. 'What therefore God has joined together' If at the time of the marriage, the concept or vows are not fully understood, if one partner is destroying the life of another, God is merciful. Fr Andy is helping people pastorally and presenting a path of life in goodness before God.
Christ says turn the other cheek when hit. That would imply that if you are attacked do not fight back. Why would you think that means war would be justified?
@@donnaivy9506If you explore the Torah, there are different cases of killing: 1. Premeditated killing (i.e. murder), 2. Killing in a physical fight, 3. Accidental killing, like when 2 people work in the field then the tool they use accidentally break down and kill one of them. There are different verdicts for different types of cases. However, in the case of marriage, there are different interpretations even among Protestant churches.
John the Baptist lost his head because of this sin named Adultry.This Law applies to all and even to the unbeliever. Read Romans 7 : 3. From the begining God created 1 man for 1 woman until death do us apart. But now this sin has creep into most churches.....
I believe remarriage is adultry unless a spouse has died....Annulments are a man made thing.... So 2 people go through hours of pre martial counciling to be sure of what marriage is, make vows to God in front of several hundred witnesses, have legal marriage certificates...then at a later point divorce and get a legal divorce certificate...but none of that REALLY happened???? It wasn't valid???? Come on....lets call it what it is... Divorce.
So you consider a marriage by force (like under threat of death) a valid marriage. The Church says that that would be invalid even if done before a priests in the Catholic Church and requires an annulment. You are not divorced because the marriage was invalid.
The church annuls only if the marriage wasn't considered lawful by the church. a civil marriage by a justice of the peace, and underage spouse, if one party was forced into it. I think also someones mental health at the time may be a factor as well as one party never intending on remaining married (false vows) an unconsummated marriage or if after the wedding one spouse informs the other they do not want to have children. adultery is not an exception
this teaching has nothing to do with Scripture.....they are leading many to eternal judgement....because the basis, for our actions, come out of the Bible...so....false teaching...at 0.46
Oh, so the Holy Spirit goes against scripture? I never knew that! Unless your spouse is deceased or committed adultery while married to you there can be no remarriage! Thus one should be careful whom they marry!
@glennherron9499 How about your spouse committed fraud during marriage. What about that. Was it a true marriage? Your spouse knew he/she was gay but hid it from you. Do you really believe two sentences addressed to a different people, in a different culture, is a full treatise on marriage laws. Jesus as God wrote Deut. Israel was a theocracy and God was king. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the word would disappear. You are trying to say that it disappeared because the New Covenant came in. But that is not what he said. He gave them the symbol of the new covenant but his kingdom was not yet. And John 18 verse 36, which is the next day, Jesus says to pilot… My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But NOW is my kingdom not from hence. He was the Messiah the king of the Jews. He offered them the kingdom and they rejected him/it. His kingdom did not come in at that time and it did not come in with Gentile Christianity either. If you think any church is the kingdom of God, you better look at them more closely. Men are still hard hearted. The church is not the kingdom. One day on this earth there will be a kingdom where Jesus is King. Then the laws of the kingdom will be in effect. But it’s not now.
@@roachito3512 any marriage, anywhere, under any spiritual conditions, constitutes a valid marriage....otherwise one would be able to abandon a mate, or have to remarry, and no one requires this....indicating that any type of marriage is legitimate, and has the same restrictions, on divorce and remarriage...
This priest is lying through his teeth. Listen to him at the risk of your own soul! He conflates divorce with annulment. In real Catholicism (not the Novous Ordo teaching) divorcees are in mortal sin period! You are only separated if your spouse leaves against your will. That is not divorce and you can still receive the sacraments, but under no circumstances can you contract a new marriage. That's the true law of the Church.
Yes , it is the re marriage part that is the difficulty . What if a man's wife is cheating on him right , left and centre ? Does he just have to put up with it ?
@@scooby1992 D'you really want the answer to this question? Go read the prophet Hosea where God specifically addresses this exact question. It's hard. You must forgive 70 X 77 times. That's Catholicism. If it indeed becomes impossible for you to live together then a separation can be allowed under the most extreme conditions, but neither you or your spouse can remarry. You will have to learn to be celibate.
@@el-sig2249Excuse me, let me try to be "devil's advocate" here. It is true that every Christian should try to forgive, just like God always forgives those who repent. However, there are consequences of sin. You cannot avoid them just because you have repented and get forgiveness. If you steal your boss' money, you will get fired, no matter how sincere your repentance is. Likewise, you can't enter a marriage only by "love". There are commitments and responsibilities that entail a marriage vow. If you are unable to fulfil these requirements, you are not qualified. Don't you think so?
@@sr3821 you're right. We work off the temporary consequences of sin by doing penance. If we don't do the penance we end up doing it in purgatory. And the commitments and responsibilities you speak of are defined by Church teaching. Unfortunately too many priests are just trying to teach what people want to hear, and not the truth, just like this priest is doing 😒
@@el-sig2249 I am not talking about the sinner only. I mean, if you are a boss and your employee stole something from your cash register, you are allowed to fire him even if he promises to return the stolen money to you, right? You don't want rampant theft in your company. The same idea, if your spouse keeps betraying you and do not show any sign of repentance after some time, are you not allowed to say: "it is enough, I will continue my life without you"? Please be aware that some people are serial cheaters that will not stay faithful to anyone.
The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39. Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel. The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death. The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ's death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15. Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife. Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one's unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15. Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16. The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions. The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24. Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark's Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.
Re: your next to last sentence, "Remarriage after a divorce... under the new Covenant with Christ... is scripturally false .." (Sorry, I kept forgetting it word for word). Are you saying remarriage is false or what it says about remarriage is false?
@@ToastieBoo Believing that it simply justifies remarriage is false because it's practically doing away with remarriage altogether... Even down to looking at another person to lust after them.
Under the Law of Moses, the man who finds his wife to not be a virgin was NOT REQUIRED to turn her in to the authorities to be stoned to death. It was an OPTION, but not a requirement; because the text says IF he presses charges against her (Deu. 22v14) and the charges are true (v20) then she would be stoned to death (v21). The other OPTION, under the Law of Moses, was for him to put her away, because when he found her to not be a virgin, "he found some uncleanness in her" (Deu. 24v1). That's why Joseph had two options when he first found Mary pregnant (from what he naturally thought was fornication). His options in Mat 1v19 were either "to make her a public example" (the Deu. 22v14 option) or "to put her away privily" (the Deu. 24v1 option). If he had chosen the first option, they would not have stoned her to death, because they were under Roman occupation. But they still would have made her a public example. Since Joseph was a just man, he was intending to select the Deu 24v1 option. But then he found out that she was pregnant, not by fornication, but from the Holy Ghost, so that she could bear the Christ child. It's true that the exception clause is not about putting away a wife for adultery. But a man may put away his wife for fornication, which is him unexpectedly finding her to not be a virgin on the wedding night. This is extremely rare today, since we don't have arranged marriages. But if it happened, then it would not be a sin for the groom to immediately put away his wife. Today, we would call that an annulment.
1:28 Let's take a look at another situation from the 2000 years that you mentioned. Aquileia. Men had gone to war, gone missing in war, after a while they were supposed dead, women remarried. Then they got returned. Many women concluded to tell the new "husband" "my bad, my hubby was alive after all" ... but many didn't. Now, the synod there actually excommunicated the women who refused to go back to their real husbands. Your idea of someone at age 20 getting married to the wrong person is simply not the Catholic view, either of what marriage is, or what maturity is. You are basically offering annulments as a _kind of divorce,_ and that is evil.
This is shameful. John the Baptist and St Thomas More and St John Fisher are rolling in their graves. “Whoever causes one of these little ones* who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!" -Matthew 18:6-7
That's not in scripture. Jesus said, "Let no man deceive you." Listen to this priests language. "We just say." But Jesus said,"until death do you part." Adultery means lake of fire. It's not worth it. The flesh profits nothing. Serving Christ means denying yourself what the flesh wants that Christ hates. Remember, eternity is on the line.
Correct. They idolize marriage or the relationship (the other person) and not Christ. The Lord gives grace to help one live the life you are called to live for said circumstances.
@@chrismodlin6262 They are different things. Scripture calls remarriage after a divorce if the spouse is still alive : adultery. Adulterers do not inherit heaven. And they are both sins.
The divorced Catholic Can remarry; but he/she just cannot go to the sacrament of communion without an anulment from the first marrige. The church does not have to change its laws that they have had for 2,000 years for you, any more than the Commandments need to change. These are God's laws. If you are divorced, you can go to communion (after confession), but if you remarry and the 1st marriage wasn't anuled, then in God's eyes (it is his law, after all), than you are committing adultery, as you are still considered married to the person from your 1st marriage. Talk to your local priest if you still don't understand.
Yeah, but that type of killing is done from the authorities by becoming an authority like cops or soldiers which is much different than the commandment not to murder right? One can be supported biblically while I fail to see how divorce and remarriage is supported biblically.
You're right. Killing in war or by capital punishment or in self-defense is not a violation of the 5th commandment (6th for Protestants). It never was. In Greek, the word for "kill" is the same as "murder" and that's why this priest is confused. But in Aramaic, the language our Lord spoke, the word in the command is "thou shalt not MURDER" and it is different than the Aramaic word KILL. Murder is the unjust killing of a person, which is one type of killing. But the other types (ie. war, capital punishment, self-defense) are not murder. As for divorce and remarriage, biblically speaking, it depends on who puts away who. If the husband puts away the wife, then neither may remarry (Mat. 5v32, 19v9; Mark 10v11; Luke 16v18). But if the wife puts away the husband, then only she may not remarry (Mark 10v12). Keep in mind that putting away and filing for divorce are two different things. If she files for divorce because he keeps cheating on her, then he is putting her away and she is filing for divorce. In that case, neither spouse may remarry. A bill of divorce is simply a document certifying that one spouse has put away the other.
@@DanielJohn2300 No, if the wife puts away the husband she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled same as the husband 1 Corinthians 7:11 Putting away and divorce is the same as you have just said a divorce is a document that certifies someone was put away but you left out that it makes the divorce itself the act of putting away.
@@Captain_Of_A_Starship You added your own words ("same as the husband") to the inspired text of 1Co. 7v11. A lot of people do that. I used to do that myself. Just letting you know. As for the other thing, the scripture speaks of two actions: "to give a writing of divorcement, AND to put her away" (Mat. 19v7, emphasis mine). Also, see Deu. 24v1, Mat. 5v31, and Mark 10v4. The original meaning of "put away" was send a spouse away. But it can also mean to force a spouse to leave (an abusive situation for example) or to simply leave a spouse for no good reason. The bill of divorce, which was written and given to the wife, was a document that certified the fact that her husband had put her away. Today, when a spouse files for an "at fault" divorce, the document certifies that the "at fault" spouse put away the other. If it's a "no fault" divorce, then it's more difficult to determine which spouse put away the other.
The real struggle I have with my Church - The Catholic Church - is that if one deliberately misses a single Sunday Mass in ones lifetime and does not confess it before the point of ones death, then one will burn in Hell for all eternity. This is a Sin against the Catholic Church - not against God. Therefore the Catholic Church is free to remove that Mortal Sin. Now, suppose that after all time is consumed we end up with an exhausted Universe and all but one human being is in Heaven. The one person in Hell is the one that chose not to attend Sunday Mass on one Sunday during their 80 year long life. But they would be in Heaven if the Catholic Church had not chosen on its own authority ( given that it has authority ) to demand under pain of Mortal Sin that all of its followers are required to attend Mass per Sunday. That, to me, is a Diabolical Doctrine. Listen, the Catholic is not in Hell because he / she disobeyed God. He /she is there on the grounds that he / she disobeyed the Pope !
@@frankieRandle8779 It is well known - especially amongst Catholics - that Sundays are all Holydays of Obligation. Obliged to attend Mass if you possibly can or a Mortal Sin is committed. Attached to this is another Catholic Doctrine called " Particular Judgement." It says that anyone dying in Mortal Sin will, immediately after their point in time of death, be in Eternal Hell and Damnation. Where lies the Pastoral Theology ? Would you tell your children this ?
@@frankieRandle8779 It`s in the extended edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don`t know whether or not it is in the abridged version. But I wouldn`t advise you ( if you are a Catholic ) to leave the Catholic Church. You may easily find this information on the Internet.
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 no I don’t want to trawl the internet, I’m asking you to provide the page number where I can find this doctrine in the catechism. Surely you can do that if you are so certain?
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
Mark 10:9
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Yes and that means God is involved and both spouses truly understand what is going on and are of the same accord in life, or they are not truly joined.
@@donnaivy9506
Which is all in the vows being taken.
Our Lord didn't spake ole English
There are two instance's in my youth where marriages were annuled. The 1st was the marriage was not consummated therefore it was not a marriage and the second was a husband revealed to his new wife that there were to be no children. The marriage was annuled.
Clear and simple: thanks for your contribution. This priest seems to be telling people that if you are divorced you can get an annulment. That's a lie.
So where does it say that these are the only 2 reasons a marriage can be annulled?
@el-sig22 49 to me he's telling people not to live in sin and they there is a way that may relieve an otherwise sinful situation.
I don't get the amount of brainless comments here.
@@el-sig2249 Maybe that's just matter of wording.
I am going through an annulment right now
Just making clear, when the Church declares annulment, it only states that the marriage was never consumated a sacrament.
On the wedding night? There was a ton of consumating going on.
On the wedding night all they were doing was consumating.
@@EllenMurphy-c1uwell if "On the wedding night" There was a ton of consumating going on. and that not even called "marriage"
This what I needed to hear, my ex wife abandoned me and abandment is abuse, so I'm getting a annulment and I plan on remarrying, I don't think God would be so cruel to let me be abused by abandment and then on top of that I have to stay lonely my whole life.
If it was not fornication you can not remarry you must reconcile or stay single
I need advice from a bishop
@chris869100 Jesus is the bishop over your soul read KJV
@@chris869100 - yes, you do. Do not listen to people who are not of your faith. Seek out a bishop from your diocese. Good luck.
@@0206-b8z- that is not true. The Church teaches that a cheating spouse is, in itself, not enough reason for a divorce.
Wow minimizing Mariage??? An annulment should not be the “norm”:
It Should be readily available to those who it applies to
so if a husband directly abuse the wife, causing danger to A HUMAN LIFE. According to your logic the wife cannot be annulle
Just bc a person is v young does not mean the church can annul the marriage. The RCC has no authority to do this n what Jesus taught on divorce n remarriage is already in line with holy spirit n the holy spirit is not going to bend the rules for the RCC. There is only one holy spirit n all must obey. But there is no such thing as infallibility where a church makes its own rules n thinks that it is guided by the holy spirit.
I had a bad marriage and am converting. Is there hope?
Yes, absolutely
Always rely on the mercy of Jesus. There is nothing you can do to force someone to stay/be married to you.
not as long as your spouse is alive....you are willing to risk eternal judgement, for a few years, of pleasure, here...
@@Davidjune1970 true, but if one separates, or divorces, the options are reconcile, or remain unmarried...and if one cant reconcile, the only other option is to remain unmarried....until the spouse dies...
@@philipbuckley759 I agree. But, as Mother Mary and Father Joseph had a special marriage. I too hope to meet a 'girlfriend' where we can serve Jesus the Lord and be two peas in a pod (have no sex).
Listening to him makes me want to go back to Catholicism.❤
Welcome home
He's lying tho. Annulment is not supposed to be a normal divorce process. It's supposed to be extremely rare for illegitimate marriages
TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS 🙏⛪️🙏⛪️🙏⛪️🙏
This doesn't sound right.
It's heretical. He's lying and deceiving the people ☹️
He's confusing annulment with divorce.
What can you expect? It must be a norvus ordo mentality?
Why isn’t praying for Reconciliation on the table?
Hardness of heart?
Cuz it's not
It is right
The Just-unjust war principles have not been considered in ages. One of the principles is that a war can not be "just" if the collateral damage is greater than the actual participants in the fighting.
Great Homily! After his Ascension, Jesus appeared bodily to Saints Paul, Gertrude the Great, Margaret Mary, and Maria Faustina, commissioning openings for more people.
You talk crap but then your a f rc then it makes sense idiot
I am Catholic and divorced. I started the annulment process. I stopped pretty quickly because my marriage was sacramental and was entered into by adults who knew exactly what they were doing. I could not say otherwise. It's good to know I can be a part of the eucharist, though.
Divorce does not prevent one from receiving the eucharist, but being outside of a state of grace, e.g. due to adultery, does.
Reconciliation
Why bother having a Sacrament of Reconciliation if you don’t even bother to pray for Reconciliation in a Marriage?
I mean, that wasn’t even a option here.
Who cares if you divorced and remarried, it’s adultery. Reconcile with your first spouse.
that could be disastrous.
@@abeycee7427
If a homosexual couple got “government married”, adopted multiple children, and lived together for 20 years.
Then the Holy Spirit convicts them. They come to the Catholic Church and say, what are we to do?
Do they continue in the homosexual relationship, for the kids?
Because that’s how absurd it sounds for a couple living in adultery to keep living in adultery for the kids, or mortgage, or whatever.
You don't have the authority to make that judgement if you are not the diocesan tribunal. If the proper conditions for a sacramental marriage were present, then you would be right. But you don't even know that in any case. Each case must be judged individually by the tribunal.
@
Actually, the condition of needing a tribunal already assumes the marriage valid until the marriage is found invalid by the tribunal.
In other words, you are never free to remarry until the tribunal gives nullity.
We 100% need a Ecumenical Council on what is a marriage. It should be a universal ruling, not one prone to bias where one tribunal can be more or less liberal/conservative than another. The book “Shattered Faith” is a great example of the need of the Ecumenical Council.
Marriage is a sacremwnt. You get married and are married in gods eyes forever
At least men and men and women and women can get married now. And God made everybody and God loves us all
So basically anything goes as long as you go through the annulment process?
REad Mathew 19:12 to find out what some divorcees can do while others cannot. Like when becoming a priest or a nun instead of only being a divorcee with an annulment too. Having an annulment is like being a novice or a seminary student. Novices and seminary students can drop out of that direction in life to marry or remarry.
A case for nullity is now examined at diocesean level.
It takes up to a year for the result.
But no petitioning Rome.
That's an appeal procedure also. I don't know about the procedure for that.
It's also cost effective in that it's a free service. A charitable donation can be made, however.
Thou Shall Not Murder ! Not Thou Shall Not Kill
It is differently translate in different version of The Bible.
Tautology.
If it’s not in the early church at all for the first few hundred before the Council of Nicaea, be skeptical.
I am not aware of a single early Christian who supported and taught annulments but am aware of tons of them who warned about remarriage in great detail.
The Catholic Church has sadly changed severely after the Vatican II, to the point now where only 2% of annulments asked for are denied. They should be ashamed of themselves for not staying true to the words of the Christ and the early church father’s traditions. It should instead be flipped to the point where somewhere around 2% of the annulments are granted and the vast majority denied.
Holding someone’s hand through adultery is not love and considering a priest to have the same level of authority as Jesus’s words is idolatry (along with the entire consensus of the early church fathers on His word).
Nothing to prevent them
The state allows it
Scripture is flexible
As Jesus and the woman
Of samaria depicts!
What if when you got married and divorced you never were a christian? You never knew or thought it was something between god and now you want to get married?
Marriage between an unbaptised man and women is called a natural marraige and is a valid marraige. For them a government marraige would be valid. It isn't the Christian Sacrament of Matrimony as they are not baptised.
As a Catholic, , I married to a non christian, we were married in the Catholic church. I fully consider this as sacramental
@@johnfisher247I'm pretty sure a sacrament is only valid for 2 baptized Christians. A non baptized person cannot enter a sacrament (but baptism of course)
@@donnaivy9506Why was this allowed by the priest? Did you have children together already?
There are millions of Christians who have been divorced, some as believers, some before they became believers.
They have remarried, attend church regularly, are raising Godly children, etc.
Never let the ‘church’ tell you God won’t let you have a happy life.
God does love you ❤
I have never heard the 'church ' say God doesn';t want you to have a happy life, but we do need to be as fully aware of what we are doing as possible. This is precisely why the church can offer annulments.
Any Catholic that marry within the Catholic Church and divorce and remarry is now in a severe mortal sin because they are in public adultery
Should the Church tell you to stop living in adultery?
Did you abandon your spouse for your “happy life”?
God’s word does not change. Scripture does not condone second marriages. Death is the only thing that negates a marriage in God’s eyes.
@@Mutasis_Mutandis I would suggest that you read God‘s word more carefully. For example in Matthew eight and Luke eight Jesus puts the demons into the pigs and then the pigs run down the hill into the water and drown.
How far did the pigs go? If it’s from the geographic location in Matthew they ran 6 miles to the sea, if it’s from the location in Luke they ran 32 miles to the sea. The supposedly in fallible, inerrant , inspired word of God can’t even get the geographic location of an alleged miracle correct.
Are you familiar with Homer‘s Odyssey? In this fable the Greek god Nestor comes ashore with his followers, finds 4500 supporters waiting for them, breaks them into small groups sitting on a hillside and feeds them. The language is exactly the same as the story of Jesus feeding the 5000 thousand, but it was written 800 years earlier.
In Matthew 16:2-4 Jesus talks about weather patterns.
The weather pattern he describes does not occur in Israel, it occurs in Greece and refers to the winds coming off of North Africa, it is an expression still used today in Greece.
Jesus would not have said that, it would’ve made no sense to Galilean fishermen. A Greek gospel writer put those words in Jesus mouth.
I could give you hundreds of examples, but the point is this: the book upon which you make your claims is nothing but a collection of stories and fables borrowed from other cultures.
Do not destroy other’s lives by quoting from this nonsense.
The annulment thing didn't work out for me. I had relocated twice in the last ten years, and I am from a broken family, therefore, when my witnesses refused to come forward, I didn't have sufficient replacements. The secretary for the Marriage Tribunal for the Archdiocese, the same one that this priest belongs to, sent me an email saying that if I didn't have at least three witnesses who had known me for at least five years, there "was nothing they could do for me." After my wife told me she felt "disrespected" by the process, I withdrew my petition and left the church, becoming a Presbyterian (my wife's denomination). I have no respect for the Marriage Tribunal, or the work they do, as they meddle in affairs that are none of their business. I also think that Catholicism has a questionable future in mainstream, postmodern America; the church, going forward, will likely be made up of older, socially conservative critics of everything that is going on around them. They have a major image problem.
No one should be learning from this man. He openly admits to putting the teaching of Scripture aside.
Totally agree 💯
According to the literal word: to remarry after divorce is adultery unless the divorce is because of adultery. In which case the one who did commit adultery if remarrying is committing adultery. The one who did not commit adultery if the divorce was for adultery remarry someone else who was never married then it's not adultery but if the person who did not commit adultery did marry someone who did commit adultery then even though they did not commit adultery in the first marriage it is still adultery for the second one because the spouse committed adultery prior to the marriage. This is no way has any bearings on virginity. Assuming that the divorce with adultery was post consummation to begin with. It's not required to be a virgin play tradition in good sense and is the best plan for long-term survival of marriages. There is another acceptable and that is abandonment but if either party gets remarried is adultery for them and the third new partner but if they remarry each other later and come back together it is not adultery for them to remarry each other. Regardless of if either one committed adultery for the initial divorce if the original to remarry it cannot be adultery even against the third party that caused the second marriage. It's actually very simple.
When we are married in the Catholic church, we take vows in the presence of God "For better or worse, for good or bad,till death do us part.Annullment ,sophisticated word for divorce is man made.Christ too confirmed that if the spouse is living ,a man or woman cannot marry.If done so the divorced person is committing adultery.
The church is an institution. If everyone asks for an annulment, we will introduce a huge bureaucratic burden with papers.
the Bible says dont murder, not dont kill...
So, did the bible say that priest should not marry?
Not in so many words but read St Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
Thank you for more clearly displaying how Romanism conflicts with Scripture and appeals to the flesh and or human reasoning.
I thought the only thing that end a marriage is the death of one of the spouses.
Correct only the death of a spouse ends the marriage covenant before God.
It is . Nothing changed. God is the same. Be careful with the diabolical modernism that changes and adapt everything to the human law…
@@patjones8598 and sexual immorality ,straight out of bible
@@ulrohermit1369 Sexual immorality may end the marriage as far as on the earth goes between the couple, we are instructed if we leave the marriage to either reconcile or remain single 1 Corinthians 7:11. It also states that is you remarry after a divorce in the eyes of God you are in adultery, now if the marriage was indeed ended why would God now consider you to be a adulterer.Because the marriage Covenant made before him has not ended! Only the civil part has which is Man Made.
If you would like more resources on this send me a PM and I will forward them on to you.
@@patjones8598 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9
maybe God doesn't want his men to be Cocked, sure you must not leave her in her illness or problems she has cause she didn't ask for them it was out of her will , but what if she is banging other men left and right, what if in some extreme cases, she is flirting in front of you, what about a mans' dignity ??!! you think god would stand for that or that marriage is still "sacred"
Really who gives a shit!
Of course divorced people can get remarried. Who would stop them? God sure doesn't...
I'm confused. Can someone explain what he is trying to convey? Is he a good priest or is he spewing woke modernist nonsense?
What he is speaking about is the difference between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Protestants believe in a concept known as Sola Scriptura, meaning that man can be guided by Sacred Scripture alone. The Catholic Church believes that over time the Holy Spirit guides the Church to come to new understandings that are relevant to today’s times. The priest in the video uses the example of Thou Shalt Not Kill in Sacred Scripture with the Just War principle in Sacred Tradition. Another example would be how the Church has had changing views over time on capital punishment. It was mentioned in Sacred Scripture that the punishment for murder should be death. However, that was only necessary thousands of years ago when there were no prisons to separate murderers from society. Now the Church sees sparing a murderer as a way to preserve their human dignity, giving them a chance to repent before death, while also keeping them separated and unable to hurt other people. There are numerous examples that you can find online about this topic. By the way, the Catholic Church is about as far away from woke as you could possibly get. Hope that helps.
It's the latter
@timothysanchez399 Oh Dear ! Woke , Democrat , all buzz words you have been told you must be against . No doubt you would support a Republican President who may have dubious sexual morals isntead of a Democrat one that attends church .
Woke modernist. Catholics who marry once cannot marry again
@wesfarmer83 well done! The first proper, "sane" and "compassionate " and dareci say it, BEST explanation i have read in the comments section so far. It drives me crazy that Protestants harp on about sola scripture yet they squabble amongst each others various and numerous denominations! Crazy. Yet the Catholic church does its best to analyse and decipher what was context for 2000 years ago and shpuld at all costs be upheld and yet has the nounce and critical thinking ability to allow the Holy spirit to guide and make an adjustment withing reason, with caution but at the same time doing its best to NOT allow exploitation. I think thats amazing.
My only quibble is, if say this scenario, a man beats hiz wife and children and goodness knows what else whether he be a Catholic or not, for her and her children's safety its clear she needs to distance herself for thd psychological, emotional, physical anx spiritual health and wellness of her and her children, why should she have to NEVER ever find happiness again? OK she can get herself a man friend but never ever fornicate outside another potential marriage or marry and have sex. Tbvh, I can't see many blokes being happy to be in that situation whether they are Catholic or otherwise.
I have been divorced in the Catholic church and my annulment application was refused without explanation. I have always been aware that when you divorce you cannot recieve holy Communion again. I still continue to recieve holy mass Virtually those days and I say a spiritual communion prayer. I am praying that God will forgive me for my divorce as it seems the Catholic church doesn't
You most certainly CAN and should receive communion! It’s only if you are intimate sexually outside of the marriage that you cannot receive.
I'm a Traditional Catholic and I am telling you you can in fact receive our Lord provided you are in a State of Grace.
Divorce does not remove you from the State of Grace however, if you engage in an adulterous relationship after a divorce without handling the divorce through the Church first, then that is a Grave matter.
I will pray for you, I am a wicked sinnner so please pray for me.
Ave Maria!
Be in a state of grace and become reconciled and you can receive communion. If you are not in a state of grace DO NOT say a spiritual communion prayer, it's sacrilege.
I am a divorced Catholic, I choose to remain single for the rest of my life me and my wife separated when I was 36
It was very painful, I fell short a few times with a few other relationships but Jesus made it very Clear to me NO other relationship that I must remain single and the love that’s in my Heart is for Christ and Christ Alone, Matthew 18:18 to Peter what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven what you unbound on earth will be unbound in heaven, the Church has been given authority, THAT SAID for me my Eternal salvation is too important to take the gamble with annulment and my annulment wouldn’t be legit me and my wife loved when married and I still love my wife, God Bless her, I Choose Christ and the Narrow Gate, You CAN IF DIVORCED RECIEVE JESUS as long as your in a state of Grace God Bless you all who are in this predicament it’s a Heavy Cross 🙏❤️🔥🛐🙏 GIVE ALL TO JESUS AND LOVE HIM AND HIM ALONE HE IS THE BRIDEGROOM 🙏❤️🔥🛐
An annulment is refused when the person you were married to is refusing to go along with it.
Grounds for annulment only include the things which the church requires for a marriage to be valid. This is why the church asks about free will, openness to children, etc _during the wedding liturgy._ A marriage conducted in the Catholic church is assumed sacramental and therefore indissoluble. A person who's sacramental marriage has been disrupted must mend that marriage or remain in that broken marriage. The end.
Jesus does not say don't kill, He says don't murder. This priest needs to go back to seminary.
Catholic Catechism paragraph 1665
1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.
any marriage, in any culture is considered a covenant, if the two are eligible to be married....and face the same Biblical restrictions on divorce and remarriage...
Thank you for saying it. I was going to say the same thing. This priest is causing more problems than he is solving. He has a terrible understanding of annulment.
So if a woman gets married in a Catholic Church and endures years of violent abuse from her Husband she just has to put up with it until he dies or he kills her ? Thanks for straightening that out .
Thank you for sharing this. I’m not Catholic, but my soon to be former husband is. We both deserve to seek true connection. I wish him the best & know that myself & our children deserve us all to be happy. Thankful for the support from both of our families. We are Divinely protected. The future is bright. 🙏🏽❤
if you divorce your only Biblical options are to reconcile or remain unmarried...
Re marriage is not good.
If you weded in the Church then you cannot divorce. What this priest is teaching is misleading. The most important thing is the salvation of every soul concern: you and your spouse.
If you got married in the Catholic Church, then you and your ex-husband are still married and can’t remarry. You not being Catholic will probably ignore this as not part of your beliefs, but if he remains Catholic he will not remarry until death do you part.
Since Vatican II everthing is very confusing. It seems like its case by case.
Is it confusing because of Vat 2 which could be partially true or is it the of life that changed and prompted Vat 2 and still continues to change .. ?(good word would be degenerate)
The Bible never said don’t kill. It says do not murder. There is a big difference between the two. Also, this man is giving advice on the topic of divorce & remarriage that clearly contradicts Scripture (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:39, Romans 7:2-3, Mark 10:9, Luke 16:18 etc.)
my bibleS say: Thou shalt not kill. One must look into the meaning of marriage. It is more about saying I do. 'What therefore God has joined together' If at the time of the marriage, the concept or vows are not fully understood, if one partner is destroying the life of another, God is merciful. Fr Andy is helping people pastorally and presenting a path of life in goodness before God.
For GoD divorce it’s not acceptable!!
Christ says turn the other cheek when hit. That would imply that if you are attacked do not fight back. Why would you think that means war would be justified?
@@donnaivy9506If you explore the Torah, there are different cases of killing: 1. Premeditated killing (i.e. murder), 2. Killing in a physical fight, 3. Accidental killing, like when 2 people work in the field then the tool they use accidentally break down and kill one of them.
There are different verdicts for different types of cases.
However, in the case of marriage, there are different interpretations even among Protestant churches.
John the Baptist lost his head because of this sin named Adultry.This Law applies to all and even to the unbeliever. Read Romans 7 : 3. From the begining God created 1 man for 1 woman until death do us apart. But now this sin has creep into most churches.....
What total nonsense.
I believe remarriage is adultry unless a spouse has died....Annulments are a man made thing....
So 2 people go through hours of pre martial counciling to be sure of what marriage is, make vows to God in front of several hundred witnesses, have legal marriage certificates...then at a later point divorce and get a legal divorce certificate...but none of that REALLY happened???? It wasn't valid???? Come on....lets call it what it is... Divorce.
So you consider a marriage by force (like under threat of death) a valid marriage. The Church says that that would be invalid even if done before a priests in the Catholic Church and requires an annulment. You are not divorced because the marriage was invalid.
The church annuls only if the marriage wasn't considered lawful by the church. a civil marriage by a justice of the peace, and underage spouse, if one party was forced into it. I think also someones mental health at the time may be a factor as well as one party never intending on remaining married (false vows) an unconsummated marriage or if after the wedding one spouse informs the other they do not want to have children. adultery is not an exception
Bible pretty plain about divorce
this teaching has nothing to do with Scripture.....they are leading many to eternal judgement....because the basis, for our actions, come out of the Bible...so....false teaching...at 0.46
We are not to judge.
@@Justhumbleme one needs to challenge the false teachings, out there...this do not judge is misused many times..
No, the divorces can left the Catholic Church because the UN Governments support the divorce to remarriage again...😅😂
Oh, so the Holy Spirit goes against scripture? I never knew that! Unless your spouse is deceased or committed adultery while married to you there can be no remarriage! Thus one should be careful whom they marry!
@glennherron9499
How about your spouse committed fraud during marriage. What about that. Was it a true marriage? Your spouse knew he/she was gay but hid it from you. Do you really believe two sentences addressed to a different people, in a different culture, is a full treatise on marriage laws.
Jesus as God wrote Deut. Israel was a theocracy and God was king. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the word would disappear. You are trying to say that it disappeared because the New Covenant came in. But that is not what he said. He gave them the symbol of the new covenant but his kingdom was not yet. And John 18 verse 36, which is the next day, Jesus says to pilot… My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But NOW is my kingdom not from hence.
He was the Messiah the king of the Jews. He offered them the kingdom and they rejected him/it. His kingdom did not come in at that time and it did not come in with Gentile Christianity either. If you think any church is the kingdom of God, you better look at them more closely. Men are still hard hearted. The church is not the kingdom. One day on this earth there will be a kingdom where Jesus is King. Then the laws of the kingdom will be in effect. But it’s not now.
@@mchevalier-seawell4438 If they lusted after someone, gay or straight, did they not commit adultery in their hearts?
@glennherron9499 YES. But we do NOT know what is in people's hearts, only God knows that
@@marismith2416 That is true!
Wake up Priest!!! Marriage is a COVENANT with GOD...A COVENANT with GOD!!...You should know that!..
Are you Catholic?
What if one spouse doesn’t believe in God, wasn’t Christian, was married outside the church, and left the spouse who is Catholic?
What if you marry someone who is afallen away Catholic who doesn't fully cooperate with procreation?
There are annulments that are granted.
@@roachito3512 any marriage, anywhere, under any spiritual conditions, constitutes a valid marriage....otherwise one would be able to abandon a mate, or have to remarry, and no one requires this....indicating that any type of marriage is legitimate, and has the same restrictions, on divorce and remarriage...
Vatican 2 changed the church.
Yikes! Leading everyone to hell…
This priest is lying through his teeth. Listen to him at the risk of your own soul!
He conflates divorce with annulment. In real Catholicism (not the Novous Ordo teaching) divorcees are in mortal sin period! You are only separated if your spouse leaves against your will. That is not divorce and you can still receive the sacraments, but under no circumstances can you contract a new marriage. That's the true law of the Church.
Yes , it is the re marriage part that is the difficulty . What if a man's wife is cheating on him right , left and centre ? Does he just have to put up with it ?
@@scooby1992 D'you really want the answer to this question? Go read the prophet Hosea where God specifically addresses this exact question. It's hard. You must forgive 70 X 77 times. That's Catholicism.
If it indeed becomes impossible for you to live together then a separation can be allowed under the most extreme conditions, but neither you or your spouse can remarry. You will have to learn to be celibate.
@@el-sig2249Excuse me, let me try to be "devil's advocate" here.
It is true that every Christian should try to forgive, just like God always forgives those who repent. However, there are consequences of sin. You cannot avoid them just because you have repented and get forgiveness. If you steal your boss' money, you will get fired, no matter how sincere your repentance is. Likewise, you can't enter a marriage only by "love". There are commitments and responsibilities that entail a marriage vow. If you are unable to fulfil these requirements, you are not qualified. Don't you think so?
@@sr3821 you're right. We work off the temporary consequences of sin by doing penance. If we don't do the penance we end up doing it in purgatory.
And the commitments and responsibilities you speak of are defined by Church teaching. Unfortunately too many priests are just trying to teach what people want to hear, and not the truth, just like this priest is doing 😒
@@el-sig2249 I am not talking about the sinner only. I mean, if you are a boss and your employee stole something from your cash register, you are allowed to fire him even if he promises to return the stolen money to you, right? You don't want rampant theft in your company.
The same idea, if your spouse keeps betraying you and do not show any sign of repentance after some time, are you not allowed to say: "it is enough, I will continue my life without you"? Please be aware that some people are serial cheaters that will not stay faithful to anyone.
The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel.
The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death.
The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ's death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15.
Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife.
Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one's unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15.
Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16.
The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions.
The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24.
Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark's Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.
Re: your next to last sentence,
"Remarriage after a divorce... under the new Covenant with Christ... is scripturally false .."
(Sorry, I kept forgetting it word for word).
Are you saying remarriage is false or what it says about remarriage is false?
Thank you for this comment, good job
@@ToastieBoo
Believing that it simply justifies remarriage is false because it's practically doing away with remarriage altogether... Even down to looking at another person to lust after them.
RUclips channels by
Paulogia, MythVision, Kristi Burke and others help to clarify what the Bible really says.
Worth checking out.
Under the Law of Moses, the man who finds his wife to not be a virgin was NOT REQUIRED to turn her in to the authorities to be stoned to death. It was an OPTION, but not a requirement; because the text says IF he presses charges against her (Deu. 22v14) and the charges are true (v20) then she would be stoned to death (v21).
The other OPTION, under the Law of Moses, was for him to put her away, because when he found her to not be a virgin, "he found some uncleanness in her" (Deu. 24v1).
That's why Joseph had two options when he first found Mary pregnant (from what he naturally thought was fornication). His options in Mat 1v19 were either "to make her a public example" (the Deu. 22v14 option) or "to put her away privily" (the Deu. 24v1 option). If he had chosen the first option, they would not have stoned her to death, because they were under Roman occupation. But they still would have made her a public example.
Since Joseph was a just man, he was intending to select the Deu 24v1 option. But then he found out that she was pregnant, not by fornication, but from the Holy Ghost, so that she could bear the Christ child.
It's true that the exception clause is not about putting away a wife for adultery. But a man may put away his wife for fornication, which is him unexpectedly finding her to not be a virgin on the wedding night. This is extremely rare today, since we don't have arranged marriages. But if it happened, then it would not be a sin for the groom to immediately put away his wife. Today, we would call that an annulment.
No divorce and remarriage
1:28 Let's take a look at another situation from the 2000 years that you mentioned.
Aquileia. Men had gone to war, gone missing in war, after a while they were supposed dead, women remarried.
Then they got returned.
Many women concluded to tell the new "husband" "my bad, my hubby was alive after all" ... but many didn't.
Now, the synod there actually excommunicated the women who refused to go back to their real husbands.
Your idea of someone at age 20 getting married to the wrong person is simply not the Catholic view, either of what marriage is, or what maturity is.
You are basically offering annulments as a _kind of divorce,_ and that is evil.
This is shameful. John the Baptist and St Thomas More and St John Fisher are rolling in their graves.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones* who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!"
-Matthew 18:6-7
amen...
I couldn't imagine living my life under the rules created by other men thousands of years before I was born
That's not in scripture. Jesus said, "Let no man deceive you." Listen to this priests language. "We just say." But Jesus said,"until death do you part." Adultery means lake of fire. It's not worth it. The flesh profits nothing. Serving Christ means denying yourself what the flesh wants that Christ hates. Remember, eternity is on the line.
Correct. They idolize marriage or the relationship (the other person) and not Christ. The Lord gives grace to help one live the life you are called to live for said circumstances.
Divorce/ remarriage is not an unforgivable sin (assuming it’s a sin at all)
@@chrismodlin6262 They are different things. Scripture calls remarriage after a divorce if the spouse is still alive : adultery. Adulterers do not inherit heaven. And they are both sins.
This position is in direct contradiction to the words of our Savior Jesus Christ. This is wrong.
What God has Joined let no MAN put asunder
Bible says, Murder , not kill
the definition, of terms, change, over time....
Pay the church a sufficient fee and they can make any divorce and remarriage go away. Just ask Ted Kennedy how that worked out.
Your hypocrisy is touching
The divorced remarry all the time. With or without some male priest absolving the first marriage. Grow up Catholic Church it's 2024 not 1624.
The divorced Catholic Can remarry; but he/she just cannot go to the sacrament of communion without an anulment from the first marrige. The church does not have to change its laws that they have had for 2,000 years for you, any more than the Commandments need to change. These are God's laws. If you are divorced, you can go to communion (after confession), but if you remarry and the 1st marriage wasn't anuled, then in God's eyes (it is his law, after all), than you are committing adultery, as you are still considered married to the person from your 1st marriage. Talk to your local priest if you still don't understand.
1624…😂😂😂, how about AD 33 when Jesus established the Church at Pentecost.
Yeah, but that type of killing is done from the authorities by becoming an authority like cops or soldiers which is much different than the commandment not to murder right? One can be supported biblically while I fail to see how divorce and remarriage is supported biblically.
because it is not....supported...Biblically...
@@philipbuckley759. Deut 24
You're right. Killing in war or by capital punishment or in self-defense is not a violation of the 5th commandment (6th for Protestants). It never was.
In Greek, the word for "kill" is the same as "murder" and that's why this priest is confused. But in Aramaic, the language our Lord spoke, the word in the command is "thou shalt not MURDER" and it is different than the Aramaic word KILL. Murder is the unjust killing of a person, which is one type of killing. But the other types (ie. war, capital punishment, self-defense) are not murder.
As for divorce and remarriage, biblically speaking, it depends on who puts away who. If the husband puts away the wife, then neither may remarry (Mat. 5v32, 19v9; Mark 10v11; Luke 16v18). But if the wife puts away the husband, then only she may not remarry (Mark 10v12).
Keep in mind that putting away and filing for divorce are two different things. If she files for divorce because he keeps cheating on her, then he is putting her away and she is filing for divorce. In that case, neither spouse may remarry. A bill of divorce is simply a document certifying that one spouse has put away the other.
@@DanielJohn2300
No, if the wife puts away the husband she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled same as the husband 1 Corinthians 7:11
Putting away and divorce is the same as you have just said a divorce is a document that certifies someone was put away but you left out that it makes the divorce itself the act of putting away.
@@Captain_Of_A_Starship You added your own words ("same as the husband") to the inspired text of 1Co. 7v11. A lot of people do that. I used to do that myself. Just letting you know.
As for the other thing, the scripture speaks of two actions: "to give a writing of divorcement, AND to put her away" (Mat. 19v7, emphasis mine). Also, see Deu. 24v1, Mat. 5v31, and Mark 10v4.
The original meaning of "put away" was send a spouse away. But it can also mean to force a spouse to leave (an abusive situation for example) or to simply leave a spouse for no good reason.
The bill of divorce, which was written and given to the wife, was a document that certified the fact that her husband had put her away. Today, when a spouse files for an "at fault" divorce, the document certifies that the "at fault" spouse put away the other. If it's a "no fault" divorce, then it's more difficult to determine which spouse put away the other.
The real struggle I have with my Church - The Catholic Church - is that if one deliberately misses a single Sunday Mass in ones lifetime and does not confess it before the point of ones death, then one will burn in Hell for all eternity.
This is a Sin against the Catholic Church - not against God. Therefore the Catholic Church is free to remove that Mortal Sin.
Now, suppose that after all time is consumed we end up with an exhausted Universe and all but one human being is in Heaven. The one person in Hell is the one that chose not to attend Sunday Mass on one Sunday during their 80 year long life. But they would be in Heaven if the Catholic Church had not chosen on its own authority ( given that it has authority ) to demand under pain of Mortal Sin that all of its followers are required to attend Mass per Sunday.
That, to me, is a Diabolical Doctrine.
Listen, the Catholic is not in Hell because he / she disobeyed God. He /she is there on the grounds that he / she disobeyed the Pope !
I’ve never heard of that.
@@frankieRandle8779 It is well known - especially amongst Catholics - that Sundays are all Holydays of Obligation. Obliged to attend Mass if you possibly can or a Mortal Sin is committed.
Attached to this is another Catholic Doctrine called " Particular Judgement." It says that anyone dying in Mortal Sin will, immediately after their point in time of death, be in Eternal Hell and Damnation.
Where lies the Pastoral Theology ? Would you tell your children this ?
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 can you quote your sources for this doctrine please?
@@frankieRandle8779 It`s in the extended edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don`t know whether or not it is in the abridged version.
But I wouldn`t advise you ( if you are a Catholic ) to leave the Catholic Church.
You may easily find this information on the Internet.
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 no I don’t want to trawl the internet, I’m asking you to provide the page number where I can find this doctrine in the catechism. Surely you can do that if you are so certain?
Lies
Modernism
Ddont killis same as,dont murder. How do yu see that any diff.
The Catholic will change God's law for any reason