|
pd57 -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (9/16/2010 4:53:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RYNODOG
quote:
Bryan, that is funny, because I don't see where it was taught that marriage was indissolvable for the last 1500 years.
Hey gmcspice,
Any honest study of Church history will show you that the indissolubility of marriage has been preached for nearly 2000 years. Check out the early Church fathers writings. Even Benelchi concedes this.
Well, here you go. The original quotes from the early church 'fathers' in the original Old English they used. Enjoy!
You might ask yourself the question: "Why start here?" There are several good and very valid reasons.
In the discussion over the last three to five years two men have led in the fight against the "TRADITIONAL VIEW" At least within the circle of folks who have been studying in this area.
Olan Hicks and John Edwards have placed emphasis on history and what the Catholic church has blessed us with in doctrine that we "Protestants" seem to follow blindly after.
This author has two observations:
First, None of the Supporters of the Traditional View" bothered to "object". Quite the contrary--silence reigns here.
Second, while both men mention such they present very little evidence to show that they have "wandered" in that neighborhood of history.
So, now you with a big grin from this author are able to join in-IN reading "Old English."
As we begin-- what are we looking for? We are looking for "evidence" PRO OR CON to the traditional view prior to 1554. In the process of examining all of the Evidence--most of this can be found at the local Library. This process also brings to light some very interesting definitions and applications of "fornication" that we somehow don't have with us today....
JUSTIN MARTYR in his first Apology writt'n within 50. yeares
after St. John dy'd, relates a story which "Eusebius" transcribes, that a certain matron of Rome, the wife of a vitious husband, her selfe also formerly vitious, but converted to the faith, and persuading the same to her husband, at lest the amendment of his wicked life, upon his not yeilding to her daily entreaties and persuasions in this behalf, procur'd by law to be divorc't from him.
This was neither for adultery, nor desertion, but as the relation saies, Esteeming it an ungodly thing to be the consort of bed with him, Who against the law of nature and of right sought out voluptuous waies.
Suppose he endeavour'd some unnaturall abuse, the Greek admits that meaning, it cannot yet be call'd adultery; it therefore could be thought worthy of divorce no otherwise then as equivalent, or wors. And, other vicesd will appear in other respects as much divorsive.
Next tis said her friends advis'd her to stay a while; and what reason gave they? Not because they held unlawful what she purpos'd, but because they thought she might longer yet hope his repentance.
She obey'd till the man going to Alexansdria, and from thence reported to grow still more impenitent, not for any adultery or desertions wherof neith can be gather'd.
But, saith the Martyr, and speaks it like one approving, lest she should be partaker of his unrighteouss and ungodly deeds, remaining in wedloc, the communion of bed and board with such a person, she left him by a lawful divorce.
This cannot but give the judgement of the Church in those pure and next to Apostolic times.for how els could the woman have bin permitted, or heer not reprehended; and if a wife mig then doe this without reprooff, a husband certainly might no less, if not more.
TERTULLIAN In the same age writing his 4. book against Marcion witnesses that Christ by his answer to the Pharisees protected the constitution of Moses as his own, and directed the institutuon of the creator, for I alter not his Carthaginian phrase:
He excus'd rather then destroi'd the constitution of Moses; I say he forbidd conditionally, if any one therefore put away that he may marry another so that if he prohibited conditionall then not wholly; and what he forbadd not wholly, he permitted otherwise, where the casue ceases for which he prohibited.
That is when a man makes it not the cause of his putting away, meerely that he may marry again. Christ teaches not contrary to Moses, the justice of divorce hath Christ the asserter: he would not have marriage separat, nor kept with igiminy, permitting then a divorc.
Tertellian guesses that this vehemence of our Saviours sentence was chiefly bent against HEROD.
ORIGEN in the next century testifies to have known certain who had the government of Churches in his time, who permitted som to marry, while yet their former husbands liv'd.
And, excuses the deed, as don not with out cause, through without Scripture, which conforms that cause not to be Adultery.
LACTANTIUS of the age that succeeded speaking of this matter in the 6. of his institutions hath these words. But lest any think he may circumscribe the divine precepts, let this be added, that all misinterpreting and occasion of fraud, or death be remov'd, he commits adultery who marries the divorc't wife, and, besides the crime of adultery, divorces a wife that he may marry another.
To divorce and marry another, and to divorce that he may marry another, are two different things; and imply that Lactantius thought not this place the forbidding of necessary divorce, but such only as proceeded from the wanton desire of a future chois, not from the burden of a present affliction.
About this time the Councel of ELIBERIS in Spain decreed the husband excommunicat, If he kept his wife being an adultress; but if he left her, he might after ten yeares be receav'd into communion, if heretain'd her any while in his house after the adultery known.
The councel of NEOCAESTREA in the year 314. decreed, that if the wife of any LAIC were convicted of adultery, that man could not be admitted into the ministery; if after ordination it were committed, he was to divorce her; if not, he could not hold his ministery.
The councel of NATES condemn'd in 7. years penance the husband that would reconcile with an adultress.
But how proves this that other causes may divorce? It proves thus; there can be but two causes why these councels enjoy'd so strictly the dovorsing of an adultress, either as an offender against God, or against the husband.
In the latter respect they could not impose on him to divorce; for every man is the maister of his own forgiveness; who shall hinder him to pardon the injuries don against himself?
It follows therefore that the divorce of an adultress was commanded by these three councels, as it was a sin against God; and by all consequence they could not but beleeve that other sins as hainous might weill equal justice be the grounds of a divorce.
BASIL in his 73. Rule as CAAMIER numbers it, thus determines, that divorce ought not to be unless for adultery, or the hinderances to a godly life.
EPIPHANIUS no less ancient, writing against Heretics, & therefore should himself be orthodoxal above others, acquaints us in his second book TOM. 1, not that his private persuasion was, but that the whole Church in his time generally thought other causes of divorce "lawful" besides adultery, as comprehended under that name.
If, saith he, a dovorce happ'n for any cuse either fornication or adultery, or any hainous fault, the word of God blames not either the man or wife marrying again, not cutts them off from the congregation, or from life, but beares with the infirmity.
Not that he may keep both wives, but that leaving the former he may be lawfully joy'd to the latte, the holy word, and the holy Church of God commiserates this man, especially, if he be otherwise of good conversation, and live according to God's Law.
AMBROSE on the 16. of Luke, teaches that all wedloc is not Gods joyning and to the 19. of Pro. That a wife is prepard of the Lord as the old Latin translates it, he answers that the septuagint render it:
A wife is fitted by the Lord, and temper'd to a kind of harmony; and where that harmony is there God joyns; where it is not, there dissension reigns, which is not from God, for God is love. This he brings to prove the marrying of Christian with Gentile to be no marriage, and consequently dovorc't without sin.
On the I to the Cor. 7, he grants a woman may leave her husband not for only fornication, But for Apostacy, and inverting nature, though not marry again, but the man may.
Heer are cuases of divorce assign'd other then adultery. And going on he affirms, that the cause of God is greaten then the cause of matrimony; that the reverence of wedloc is not due to him who hates the author thereof; that no matrimony is fomr without devotion to God; that dishonour don to God acquitts the other being deserted from the bond of matrimony; that the faith of marriage is not to be kept with such.
JEROM on the 19. of Matthew explains, that for the cause of fornication, or the suspicion therof a man may freely divorce. Jeroms consent therefore dovorce is free not only for actuall adultery, but for any cuase that my encline a wise man to the just suspicion therof.
AUSTIN also must be remember'd among those who hold that this instance of fornication give equal inference to other faults equally hateful, for wich to divorce: & therefore in his books to Pollentius he disputes that infidelity, as being a greater sin that adultery, ought so much the rather cause a divorce.
And on the sermon on the Mount, under the name of "fornication" will have idolatry, or any harmfull superstion contain'd which are not thought to disturb matrimony so directly as som other obstinacies and dissaffections, more against the daily duties of that cov'nant & IN THE EASTERN TONGUES NOT UNFREQUENTLY CALL'D FORNICATION.
Hence, it is understood, saith he, that not only for bodily fornication, but for that which draws the mind from God's law, and fouly corrupts it, a man may without fault put away his wife, and a wife her husband, because the Lord excepts the cause of fornication, which fornication we are constrain'd to interpret in a general sense.
The councel of AGATHA in the year 506. Can. 25 decreed, that if lay men who divorc't without some great fault, or giving no probable cause, therefore divorc't that they might marry som unlawful person, or som other mans, if before the provinciall Bishops were made acquainted, or judement passt, they presum'd this, excommunication was the penalty.
Whence it follows, that if the cause of divorce were som great offense, or that they gave probable causes for what they did, and did not therefore divorce that they might presume with some unlawful person, or what was another mans, the censure of Church in those Daies did not touch them.
The witnesses here run us up to just around 500 AD. Here, then is the beginning of the assertion of Papal rule over--gasp--Civil authority.
Nevertheless while the Monarchs of Christendome were yet barbarous, and but halfe Christian, the Popes tooke this advantage of their weake superstition, to raise a corpulent law out of the canons and decretals of audacious priests; and presum's also to set this in the front:
That the constitutions of Princes are not above the constitutions of clergy, but beneath them. Using this very instance of divorce as the first prop of their tyranny; by a false consequence drawn from a passage of AMBROSE upon LUKE where hee saith, though Mans law grants it, yet God law prohibits it.
Whence Gregory the Pope writing to Theoctista inferrs the Ecclesiastical Courts cannot be dissolv'd by the Magistrate.
A faire conclusion from a double error. First in saying that the divine law prohibited divorce for what will hee make of Moses: next supposing that it did, how will it follow, that what ever Christ forbids in his Evangelic precepts, should be hal'd into a judicial constraint against the patterne of a divine law.
Yet neither can these{Popes} though so perverse, but acknowledge that the word of Christ under the name of fornication alow putting away for other causes then adultery both from bed and bord, but not from the bond.
Now, we advance to the beginning of the Reformation briefly because this battle is once again open to discussion--sort of by the opposition to the Catholic Church.
[1] Wicklef--began to teach among his cheifest recoveries of truth, that divorce is lawful to the christian to the christian for many other causes equall to adultery.
[2] Luther, allows divorce for obstinate denial of conjugal duty; and that a man may send away a proud Vashti and marry an Ester in her Stead. For out of question, with men that are not barbarous, love and peace, and fitnesse will be yeelded as essential to marriage, as corporal benevolence.
Though I give my body to be burnt, saith St. Paul, and have not charity, it profits me nothing. So thought the body prostitute it selfe to whom the mind afford no other love or peace, but constant malice and vexation, can this bodily benevolence deserv to be call's a marriage between Christians and rational creatures?`
Well, it goes on and on this pulling back and forth between the "Protestants" and the "Catholic Popes." Please note that when you do your own research--Fornication on both sides is given different definitions at different times. However, Fornication is never ever limited to just "Adultery."
Folks, what this author is saying is that the evidence is there--up to 505 AD through Gregory the Pope and especially through the Reformation that easily refutes our traditional view today.
Well, you will not find many traditional folks using any of these historical evidences.
I know, I know, we seem to know so much more than those folks right? We are so far advanced in our studies or should I venture--our opinion IN ORDER THAT the only reason for divorce is Adultery so they the traditional folks can never ever want to see the truth.
There is another reason for taking this space for quoting all of these folks and it has everything in the world with the main context of this book.
And, that is the formula for divorce and how divorce is to be translated.
There only reason is, because marriage they beleeve to be a Sacrament.
THE END! Peace, Love, OUT!
|
|
|
|