Resources on remarriage of “the guilty party”
According to some interpreters of Matthew 19:9, the cheater who committed fornication (or guilty party) cannot remarry ever in his lifetime here on earth. Some say he can when his first wife dies others say he cannot remarry even if his first wife dies.
My request: are there any resources that point to the origin of this interpretation (s)? Who started this and around when?
Thanks!
DAL
Comments
-
This is the closest thing that I could find so far.
[quote]
d. No Remarriage for the Guilty Partner. I cannot recall reading a considered defense of this position, though I am sure that it exists somewhere. This view is commonly heard in debates on the topic, especially from those who have never had to deal with pastoral situations. In practice I have found it almost impossible to decide which one, if either one, of the parties is innocent. Even Origen realized that adultery can sometimes be blamed on the partner who refused conjugal rights rather than on the partner who was unfaithful.44 Often a case that seems clear-cut becomes very difficult to decide when we hear the other side of the story, and often the one who has the least reason to feel guilty takes in all the blame.
Alex R. G. Deasley45 has suggested that the only time spouses can be said to be truly innocent is when they have had nothing to do with the divorce. That is, they have been divorced against their will. However, in my experience it is more often the innocent (or relatively innocent) partner who finally decides that enough is enough and pushes for a divorce.
Forbidding divorce to the guilty party goes against one of the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith: that God is willing to forgive. Ken Crispin46 entitled his book on divorce The Forgivable Sin? to emphasize this fact. If we deny divorce to the “guilty” party, we are suggesting that the breakup of marriage is like blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: it is not capable of reversal by God’s grace. Crispin points out that this is even more serious when we deny remarriage to both partners because we suggest that even the inadvertent sinner here cannot find forgiveness. Unless we have a very strong belief in the indissoluble nature of marriage, it is wrong to deny remarriage to a “guilty” party because a guilty person can always ask for God’s forgiveness.
Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.
0 -
In The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, Volume 4, by Joseph Pohle, there is this section:
Thesis II: No cause, not even adultery, can justify the innocent, and much less the guilty partner in proceeding to a new marriage
This is fidei proximum.
Proof. We have here merely an application of our first thesis. Most Protestants regard adultery as a sufficient ground for divorce.21 This error is shared by the “Orthodox,” and to some extent even by the Uniate Greeks. Among Latin theologians it was defended by Cajetan, Ambrose Catharinus, and Launoy.
The official teaching of the Catholic Church is clearly set forth by the Tridentine Council: “If anyone saith that the Church has erred in that she taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and Apostolic doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties, … and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband, let him be anathema.”22
Though the above-quoted canon, strictly speaking, defines nothing more than that the Church is infallible in her teaching on this point, that teaching itself is so clearly set down as of faith that it cannot be denied without a dangerous approach to heresy. Pallavicini relates that in formulating this canon the Council chose the milder among two proposed phrases at the suggestion of certain prelates who thought it would be unwise to brand the Greeks as heretics.23
Separation from bed and board, on the other hand, is permitted for good reasons. Eugene IV says in his famous Decretum pro Armenis: “Though it be permitted, because of fornication, to obtain a separation a toro, it is not allowed to contract a new marriage, because the bond of legitimate wedlock is perpetual.”24 This teaching can be proved from Scripture and Tradition.
a) The scriptural argument may be stated in three propositions, to wit:
(1) Whenever Holy Scripture speaks of married people who have separated from each other, it brands the remarriage of either with a third person as adultery (Matth. 10:11 sq.; Luke 16:18).
(2) Where there is a just cause for separation (none can be more just than adultery) the Bible knows of but one alternative—the parties must either remain single or become reconciled. (1 Cor. 7:10 sq.)
(3) The only thing that can dissolve the marriage bond is death (cfr. Rom. 7:2 sq.; 1 Cor. 7:39).25
α) This teaching would be contradictory if adultery were a legitimate cause for divorce, and hence the most elementary principle of hermeneutics demands that the two ambiguous texts from St. Matthew, which Protestants quote in favor of divorce, be interpreted in conformity with the Scriptural truths stated above.
The texts referred to are:
Matth. 5:32: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the case of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery, and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”26
Matth. 19:9: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”27
Our opponents conclude from these texts, not only that a man may leave his adulterous wife,—which is in conformity with Catholic teaching,—but that adultery dissolves the marriage bond, as if Christ had said: “He who puts away his wife for fornication (adultery) and marries another, does not commit adultery.”
But this interpretation is manifestly false. Logic forbids us arbitrarily to shift a restriction from one member of a sentence to another. The phrase, nisi ob fornicationem, or exceptâ fornicatione, plainly refers to dimittere, not to ducere aliam. Were I to say: “Whoever eats meat on Friday, except he have a dispensation, and drinks to excess, commits a sin,” I could not reasonably be understood to mean that he committed no sin, who, having a dispensation permitting him to eat meat on Friday, would drink to excess. To drink to excess is always sinful. If a man, besides drinking excessively, were to eat meat on Friday, he would commit two separate and distinct sins. Similarly, Christ means to say: To put away an adulterous wife is no sin, but to marry another is adultery, while if a man were to put away his innocent wife and then marry another, he would be guilty of double adultery,—that is to say, he would be responsible for the adultery committed by his wife (facit eam moechari) and commit the same crime himself. Hence, when our Lord speaks of dismissing a wife for fornication, he does not mean divorce, but merely a separation from bed and board, and the sense of the two texts is: “Whosoever shall put away his wife (which is justifiable if she be guilty of adultery), and marry another, commits adultery.”28
The interpretation we have given is the only one that fits into, nay is demanded by, the context. The object of the whole passage (Matth. 19:3–9) is to revoke the Mosaic law permitting divorce, and to restore Matrimony to its pristine indissolubility. Had our Lord excepted adultery as a cause for divorce, He would have stultified Himself, for He says (Matth. 19:19): “He that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” How could this be if the adulterous woman did not remain the wife of her first husband?29
If we were to grant Protestant interpretation for argument’s sake, what would be the result? Would Matrimony be elevated from its former state of degradation to a position of security and permanence under the New Testament? No; on the contrary, it would sink beneath the level of the Mosaic law, for the adulterous wife as well as her husband would be empowered to contract another marriage, whereas a woman innocently put away by her husband would, according to 1 Cor. 7:10 sq., be obliged to remain single unless she became reconciled to her husband. This would be putting a premium upon adultery and making the New Testament inferior to the Old, which punished adultery in both male and female with death.30 To ascribe such legislation to Christ would be to deny His wisdom and holiness. The Apostles evidently did not understand our Lord’s words in the sense which modern Protestants put upon them, for they said to Him: “If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry,”31 that is, if a man may not put away his wife for adultery, it is better not to marry.
β) This interpretation of the disputed texts is so evident and incontrovertible that we need not devote much space to certain other theories which have been suggested by Catholic theologians. Cardinal Bellarmine, e. g., explains the clause nisi ob fornicationem in a purely negative sense, as if our Lord meant to say: “Whosoever shall put away his wife,—I am not now concerned with the case of fornication,—and shall marry another, committeth adultery.”32 This interpretation fails to do justice to the context.
Other writers suggest that the two Scriptural passages under consideration refer to marriage among the Jews, who under the Mosaic law rightly regarded adultery as a sufficient ground for divorce. This interpretation is plainly untenable.
The same must be said of Döllinger’s theory that the term “fornication” (πορνεία) means unchaste conduct before marriage.33 If this were so, Christ would have made a sin committed before marriage a diriment impediment.
Patrizi interpreted fornicatio literally and explained the disputed passages in St. Matthew’s Gospel as follows: “No marriage can be dissolved, even by adultery, except the quasi-marriage of those who live in concubinage.”34 This suggestion is unacceptable: first, because fornicatio is a generic term which includes adulterium as a species, and second, because Christ expressly calls the alleged concubine “wife,”35 and brands her second marriage as “adultery.”36
b) The Latin Fathers are unanimous in teaching that adultery is no ground for divorce, and we may therefore confine the Patristic argument to the Greek Fathers, in order to show that the lax practice of the schismatic Orientals belies their own past.
We begin with Hermas, because he wrote in Greek. “If a man have a faithful wife in the Lord,” says the “Shepherd,” “and finds her out in some adultery, does the husband sin if he lives with her?… ‘What … shall the husband do if the wife remain in this disposition?’ ‘Let him put her away,’ he said, ‘and let the husband remain by himself (ἐφʼ ἑαυτῷ). But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery himself.”37
St. Justin Martyr says: “Whoever marries a woman that has been put away by another, commits adultery.”38
Clement of Alexandria writes: “When Sacred Scripture advises [a man] to take a wife, and never allows a withdrawal from marriage, it openly lays down the law: Thou shalt not put away thy wife except for adultery. At the same time, however, [the Bible] declares it to be adultery if a person marries another while his or her partner is still alive.… It says: Whoever marries the wife that has been put away, commits adultery.”39
Of such pseudo-marriages Origen says: “As the wife who has been put away is an adulteress, though she seems to be married to another man during the lifetime of her husband, so our Saviour has shown that the man who has seemingly married such a woman, is not to be called her husband, but rather an adulterer.”40
St. Gregory of Nazianzus condemns the unjust divorce laws of his time as follows: “In this question I behold most people ill advised, and their law unjust and illogical. What justifies them in putting a curb on the woman, while they leave the husband unmolested? The wife that has disgraced the marriage bed of her husband is branded with the mark of adultery and punished with the severest penalties, whereas the husband who is unfaithful to his wife goes scot free. I do not approve of such a law, I do not commend such a custom. Men made this law, and therefore it is directed against the women.”41
St. John Chrysostom composed a homily on the Mosaic bill of divorce, in which he says: “What is that law which Paul has given to us? The wife, he says, is bound by the law, and consequently may not separate from her living husband, or take another man besides him, or contract a second marriage. And behold how carefully he has weighed his words. He does not say: ‘She shall cohabit with her husband as long as he lives,’ but: ‘The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives.’ Hence, even if he gives her a bill of divorce, and she leaves his home and lives with another, she is bound by the law, and an adulteress.… Do not cite the [civil] laws made by outsiders, which command that a bill be issued and a divorce granted. For it is not according to these laws that the Lord will judge thee on the last day, but according to those which He Himself has given.”42
21 Cfr. Luther, Von Ehesachen, 1530; Calvin, Instit., IV, 19, 37.
22 Sess. XXIV, can. 7: “Si quis dixorit, Ecclesiam errare, quum docuit et docet iuxta evangelicam et apostolicam doctrinam propter adulterium alterius coniugum matrimonii vinculum non posse dissolvi … moecharique eum qui dimissâ adulterâ aliam duxcrit et eam quae dimisso adultero alii nupserit, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 977).
23 Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trid., XXII, 4, 27 sqq.
24 “Quamvis autem ex causa fornicationis liceat tori separationem facere, non tamen aliud matrimonium contrahere fas est, quum matrimonii legitimi vinculum perpetuum sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 702).
25 The argument is developed in detail by Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 636 sqq., Paris 1896.
26 Matth. 5:32: “Omnis, qui dimiserit uxorem suam, exceptâ fornicationis causâ (παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας), facit eam moechari, et qui dimissam duxerit, adultecrat.”
27 Matth. 19:9: “Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem (μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ), et aliam duxerit, moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit, moechatur.”
28 Cfr. Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, p. 636.
29 Cfr. St. Augustine, De Coniug. Adult., I, 9, 9: “Neque quisquam ita est absurdus, ut moechum neget esse qui duxerit eam quam maritus propter causam fornicationis abiecit, quum moechum dicat eum, qui duxerit eam, quae praeter causam fornicationis abiecta est.”
30 Lev. 20:10.
31 Matth. 19:10: “Si ita est causa hominis cum uxore, non expedit nubere.”
32 De Matrimonio, 1. I, c. 16.
33 Döllinger, Christentum und Kirche, p. 392, Ratisbon 1868.
34 De Interpret. Scriptur., 1. I, c. 7, Rome 1844.
35 Matth. 19:9: “uxorem suam, τὴν γυναῑκα αὐτοῦ.”
36 For a fuller discussion of the New Testament teaching on the subject of divorce we must refer the student to Palmieri, De Matrimonio, pp. 178 sqq.; A. Ott, Die Auslegung der neutestamentlichen Texte über die Ehescheidung, Münster 1911; F. E. Gigot, Christ’s Teaching Concerning Divorce in the New Testament, New York 1912.
37 Pastor Hermae, Mand. IV, i, 4–6: “… εἰ γυναῖκα ἔχῃ τις πιστὴν ἐν κυρίῳ καὶ ταὑτην εὕρῃ ἐν μοιχείᾳ τινί, ἆρα ἀμαρτάνει ὁ ἀνὴρ συνζῶν μετʼ αὐτῆς; … Τί οὖν, φημί, κύριε, ποιήσῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐὰν ἐπιμείνῃ τῷ πάθει τοὑτῳ ἠ γυνή; Ἀπολυσάτω, φησίν, αὐτὴν καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐφʼ ἑαυτῷ μενέτω ̇ ἐὰν δὲ ἀπολύσας τὴν γυναῖκα ἑτέραν γαμήσῃ· καὶ αὐτὸς μοιχᾱται.” (K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. II, p. 78, London 1913).
38 Apol., c. 1, n. 15 (Migne. P. G., VI, 350).
39 Stromata, 1. II, c. 23 (Migne, P. G., VIII, 1095).
40 In Matthaeum, tom. 14, n. 23 (Migne, P. G., XIII, 1246).
41 Or., 37, n. 6.
42 De Libello Repudii (Migne, P. G., LI, 218).—Cfr. M. Denner, Die Ehescheidung im Neuen Testament. Die Auslegung der neutestamentlichen Schrifttexte bei den Vätern, Paderborn 1910.
0 -
I don't know that this will get you to the origin of the interpretation, but it does explore views that say that one or both of the parties are prohibited from remarrying.
Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (Spectrum Multiview Books) by Thomas Edgar; William A. Heth; H. Wayne House; J. Carl Laney; Larry Richards
0 -
I suspect this will depend on which denominations hold Christ’s words against divorce and remarriage as absolute (and seeing this verse as declaring an invalid marriage as fornication, not marriage), and which see this as an exception to the absolute declaration.
You’d have to narrow your searches to those denominations holding the latter view and how they understood the Scriptures and the Patristic Writings.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
In your study, have you included 1 Corinthians 7:27-28? Your conclusion might rest on λύσις.
0 -
Thanks everyone! I may have to dig deeper for my answer.
One source stated that the only way one can be in an adulterous relationship is if one gets a divorce for any other reason other than fornication and then goes and marries again, because that’s the answer to the original question the Jews asked, “can a man divorce his wife for any reason?” Jesus said no, the only reason is fornication. This is where Romans 7:1-4 is an illustration of Matthew 19:9.
Same source states that nothing in the text states (implicit or explicit) that the guilty party‘s sentence is “Not being able to remarry for the rest of his life.” That would mean that fornication is the worst sin of them all. You’re not such a bad sinner if you kill somebody and then serve a 10 year sentence and you’re done with your punishment than fornicating and carry a long life sentence of living a celibate life! Besides, if the sentence for fornicating when you’re married means you’re no longer able to remarry again, then it follows that those singles who fornicated before getting married shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they couldn’t wait to get married to engage in sexual relationships which are only allowed in a marriage. That obviously doesn’t make sense based on what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 7:9.
Anyway, I’ll have plenty of time to research this. My guess is that the permanent sentence of not allowing the guilty party to remarry is based on emotions and not on the Word of God.
DAL
0 -
DAL said:
Anyway, I’ll have plenty of time to research this.
Good thing. I think the 'one source' is getting mixed up in his writings vs doctrine logic. Then, followed by his avoiding 'not marrying as the superior choice' ... not punishment (those darn women can be a big headache, right before the end-time).
Personally, I'm not in the sin-tagging business.
0 -
DMB said:DAL said:
Anyway, I’ll have plenty of time to research this.
Good thing. I think the 'one source' is getting mixed up in his writings vs doctrine logic. Then, followed by his avoiding 'not marrying as the superior choice' ... not punishment (those darn women can be a big headache, right before the end-time).
Personally, I'm not in the sin-tagging business.
I think that has been the problem — sin-tagging — and that’s where many have forgotten about forgiveness or the better road, “Remaining Single!”
👍😁👌And yep, women can be a headache, but men too have the potential to be worse 😂 at least that’s what my grandma used to say.
DAL
0 -
I'll add something to think about..... This is an article by Wayne Jackson... "Divorce and Remarriage: White, Black or Grey?"
Personally, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (MDR) is a great illustration of how the world can actually destroy people's lives by not considering the ways of God. IMHO.... [8-|]
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
xnman said:
I'll add something to think about..... This is an article by Wayne Jackson... "Divorce and Remarriage: White, Black or Grey?"
Personally, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (MDR) is a great illustration of how the world can actually destroy people's lives by not considering the ways of God. IMHO....
I love his articles! I’m surprised it wasn’t really announced when he passed away!
DAL
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
In The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, Volume 4, by Joseph Pohle, there is this section:
Thesis II: No cause, not even adultery, can justify the innocent, and much less the guilty partner in proceeding to a new marriage
This is fidei proximum.
Proof. We have here merely an application of our first thesis. Most Protestants regard adultery as a sufficient ground for divorce.21 This error is shared by the “Orthodox,” and to some extent even by the Uniate Greeks. Among Latin theologians it was defended by Cajetan, Ambrose Catharinus, and Launoy.
The official teaching of the Catholic Church is clearly set forth by the Tridentine Council: “If anyone saith that the Church has erred in that she taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and Apostolic doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties, … and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband, let him be anathema.”22
Though the above-quoted canon, strictly speaking, defines nothing more than that the Church is infallible in her teaching on this point, that teaching itself is so clearly set down as of faith that it cannot be denied without a dangerous approach to heresy. Pallavicini relates that in formulating this canon the Council chose the milder among two proposed phrases at the suggestion of certain prelates who thought it would be unwise to brand the Greeks as heretics.23
Separation from bed and board, on the other hand, is permitted for good reasons. Eugene IV says in his famous Decretum pro Armenis: “Though it be permitted, because of fornication, to obtain a separation a toro, it is not allowed to contract a new marriage, because the bond of legitimate wedlock is perpetual.”24 This teaching can be proved from Scripture and Tradition.
a) The scriptural argument may be stated in three propositions, to wit:
(1) Whenever Holy Scripture speaks of married people who have separated from each other, it brands the remarriage of either with a third person as adultery (Matth. 10:11 sq.; Luke 16:18).
(2) Where there is a just cause for separation (none can be more just than adultery) the Bible knows of but one alternative—the parties must either remain single or become reconciled. (1 Cor. 7:10 sq.)
(3) The only thing that can dissolve the marriage bond is death (cfr. Rom. 7:2 sq.; 1 Cor. 7:39).25
α) This teaching would be contradictory if adultery were a legitimate cause for divorce, and hence the most elementary principle of hermeneutics demands that the two ambiguous texts from St. Matthew, which Protestants quote in favor of divorce, be interpreted in conformity with the Scriptural truths stated above.
The texts referred to are:
Matth. 5:32: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the case of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery, and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”26
Matth. 19:9: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”27
Our opponents conclude from these texts, not only that a man may leave his adulterous wife,—which is in conformity with Catholic teaching,—but that adultery dissolves the marriage bond, as if Christ had said: “He who puts away his wife for fornication (adultery) and marries another, does not commit adultery.”
But this interpretation is manifestly false. Logic forbids us arbitrarily to shift a restriction from one member of a sentence to another. The phrase, nisi ob fornicationem, or exceptâ fornicatione, plainly refers to dimittere, not to ducere aliam. Were I to say: “Whoever eats meat on Friday, except he have a dispensation, and drinks to excess, commits a sin,” I could not reasonably be understood to mean that he committed no sin, who, having a dispensation permitting him to eat meat on Friday, would drink to excess. To drink to excess is always sinful. If a man, besides drinking excessively, were to eat meat on Friday, he would commit two separate and distinct sins. Similarly, Christ means to say: To put away an adulterous wife is no sin, but to marry another is adultery, while if a man were to put away his innocent wife and then marry another, he would be guilty of double adultery,—that is to say, he would be responsible for the adultery committed by his wife (facit eam moechari) and commit the same crime himself. Hence, when our Lord speaks of dismissing a wife for fornication, he does not mean divorce, but merely a separation from bed and board, and the sense of the two texts is: “Whosoever shall put away his wife (which is justifiable if she be guilty of adultery), and marry another, commits adultery.”28
The interpretation we have given is the only one that fits into, nay is demanded by, the context. The object of the whole passage (Matth. 19:3–9) is to revoke the Mosaic law permitting divorce, and to restore Matrimony to its pristine indissolubility. Had our Lord excepted adultery as a cause for divorce, He would have stultified Himself, for He says (Matth. 19:19): “He that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” How could this be if the adulterous woman did not remain the wife of her first husband?29
If we were to grant Protestant interpretation for argument’s sake, what would be the result? Would Matrimony be elevated from its former state of degradation to a position of security and permanence under the New Testament? No; on the contrary, it would sink beneath the level of the Mosaic law, for the adulterous wife as well as her husband would be empowered to contract another marriage, whereas a woman innocently put away by her husband would, according to 1 Cor. 7:10 sq., be obliged to remain single unless she became reconciled to her husband. This would be putting a premium upon adultery and making the New Testament inferior to the Old, which punished adultery in both male and female with death.30 To ascribe such legislation to Christ would be to deny His wisdom and holiness. The Apostles evidently did not understand our Lord’s words in the sense which modern Protestants put upon them, for they said to Him: “If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry,”31 that is, if a man may not put away his wife for adultery, it is better not to marry.
β) This interpretation of the disputed texts is so evident and incontrovertible that we need not devote much space to certain other theories which have been suggested by Catholic theologians. Cardinal Bellarmine, e. g., explains the clause nisi ob fornicationem in a purely negative sense, as if our Lord meant to say: “Whosoever shall put away his wife,—I am not now concerned with the case of fornication,—and shall marry another, committeth adultery.”32 This interpretation fails to do justice to the context.
Other writers suggest that the two Scriptural passages under consideration refer to marriage among the Jews, who under the Mosaic law rightly regarded adultery as a sufficient ground for divorce. This interpretation is plainly untenable.
The same must be said of Döllinger’s theory that the term “fornication” (πορνεία) means unchaste conduct before marriage.33 If this were so, Christ would have made a sin committed before marriage a diriment impediment.
Patrizi interpreted fornicatio literally and explained the disputed passages in St. Matthew’s Gospel as follows: “No marriage can be dissolved, even by adultery, except the quasi-marriage of those who live in concubinage.”34 This suggestion is unacceptable: first, because fornicatio is a generic term which includes adulterium as a species, and second, because Christ expressly calls the alleged concubine “wife,”35 and brands her second marriage as “adultery.”36
b) The Latin Fathers are unanimous in teaching that adultery is no ground for divorce, and we may therefore confine the Patristic argument to the Greek Fathers, in order to show that the lax practice of the schismatic Orientals belies their own past.
We begin with Hermas, because he wrote in Greek. “If a man have a faithful wife in the Lord,” says the “Shepherd,” “and finds her out in some adultery, does the husband sin if he lives with her?… ‘What … shall the husband do if the wife remain in this disposition?’ ‘Let him put her away,’ he said, ‘and let the husband remain by himself (ἐφʼ ἑαυτῷ). But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery himself.”37
St. Justin Martyr says: “Whoever marries a woman that has been put away by another, commits adultery.”38
Clement of Alexandria writes: “When Sacred Scripture advises [a man] to take a wife, and never allows a withdrawal from marriage, it openly lays down the law: Thou shalt not put away thy wife except for adultery. At the same time, however, [the Bible] declares it to be adultery if a person marries another while his or her partner is still alive.… It says: Whoever marries the wife that has been put away, commits adultery.”39
Of such pseudo-marriages Origen says: “As the wife who has been put away is an adulteress, though she seems to be married to another man during the lifetime of her husband, so our Saviour has shown that the man who has seemingly married such a woman, is not to be called her husband, but rather an adulterer.”40
St. Gregory of Nazianzus condemns the unjust divorce laws of his time as follows: “In this question I behold most people ill advised, and their law unjust and illogical. What justifies them in putting a curb on the woman, while they leave the husband unmolested? The wife that has disgraced the marriage bed of her husband is branded with the mark of adultery and punished with the severest penalties, whereas the husband who is unfaithful to his wife goes scot free. I do not approve of such a law, I do not commend such a custom. Men made this law, and therefore it is directed against the women.”41
St. John Chrysostom composed a homily on the Mosaic bill of divorce, in which he says: “What is that law which Paul has given to us? The wife, he says, is bound by the law, and consequently may not separate from her living husband, or take another man besides him, or contract a second marriage. And behold how carefully he has weighed his words. He does not say: ‘She shall cohabit with her husband as long as he lives,’ but: ‘The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives.’ Hence, even if he gives her a bill of divorce, and she leaves his home and lives with another, she is bound by the law, and an adulteress.… Do not cite the [civil] laws made by outsiders, which command that a bill be issued and a divorce granted. For it is not according to these laws that the Lord will judge thee on the last day, but according to those which He Himself has given.”42
21 Cfr. Luther, Von Ehesachen, 1530; Calvin, Instit., IV, 19, 37.
22 Sess. XXIV, can. 7: “Si quis dixorit, Ecclesiam errare, quum docuit et docet iuxta evangelicam et apostolicam doctrinam propter adulterium alterius coniugum matrimonii vinculum non posse dissolvi … moecharique eum qui dimissâ adulterâ aliam duxcrit et eam quae dimisso adultero alii nupserit, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 977).
23 Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trid., XXII, 4, 27 sqq.
24“Quamvis autem ex causa fornicationis liceat tori separationem facere, non tamen aliud matrimonium contrahere fas est, quum matrimonii legitimi vinculum perpetuum sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 702).
25 The argument is developed in detail by Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 636 sqq., Paris 1896.
26Matth. 5:32: “Omnis, qui dimiserit uxorem suam, exceptâ fornicationis causâ (παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας), facit eam moechari, et qui dimissam duxerit, adultecrat.”
27Matth. 19:9: “Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem (μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ), et aliam duxerit, moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit, moechatur.”
28 Cfr. Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, p. 636.
29 Cfr. St. Augustine, De Coniug. Adult., I, 9, 9: “Neque quisquam ita est absurdus, ut moechum neget esse qui duxerit eam quam maritus propter causam fornicationis abiecit, quum moechum dicat eum, qui duxerit eam, quae praeter causam fornicationis abiecta est.”
30Lev. 20:10.
31Matth. 19:10: “Si ita est causa hominis cum uxore, non expedit nubere.”
33 Döllinger, Christentum und Kirche, p. 392, Ratisbon 1868.
34De Interpret. Scriptur., 1. I, c. 7, Rome 1844.
35Matth. 19:9: “uxorem suam, τὴν γυναῑκα αὐτοῦ.”
36 For a fuller discussion of the New Testament teaching on the subject of divorce we must refer the student to Palmieri, De Matrimonio, pp. 178 sqq.; A. Ott, Die Auslegung der neutestamentlichen Texte über die Ehescheidung, Münster 1911; F. E. Gigot, Christ’s Teaching Concerning Divorce in the New Testament, New York 1912.
37Pastor Hermae, Mand. IV, i, 4–6: “… εἰ γυναῖκα ἔχῃ τις πιστὴν ἐν κυρίῳ καὶ ταὑτην εὕρῃ ἐν μοιχείᾳ τινί, ἆρα ἀμαρτάνει ὁ ἀνὴρ συνζῶν μετʼ αὐτῆς; … Τί οὖν, φημί, κύριε, ποιήσῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐὰν ἐπιμείνῃ τῷ πάθει τοὑτῳ ἠ γυνή; Ἀπολυσάτω, φησίν, αὐτὴν καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐφʼ ἑαυτῷ μενέτω ̇ ἐὰν δὲ ἀπολύσας τὴν γυναῖκα ἑτέραν γαμήσῃ· καὶ αὐτὸς μοιχᾱται.” (K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. II, p. 78, London 1913).
38Apol., c. 1, n. 15 (Migne. P. G., VI, 350).
39Stromata, 1. II, c. 23 (Migne, P. G., VIII, 1095).
40In Matthaeum, tom. 14, n. 23 (Migne, P. G., XIII, 1246).
42De Libello Repudii (Migne, P. G., LI, 218).—Cfr. M. Denner, Die Ehescheidung im Neuen Testament. Die Auslegung der neutestamentlichen Schrifttexte bei den Vätern, Paderborn 1910.
I am of this persuasion after studying the issue for many years when there was a controversy in a Reformed denomination where I live.
I recommend the following books:
https://www.logos.com/product/175899/jesus-divorce-and-remarriage-in-their-historical-setting
https://www.logos.com/product/9105/divorce-and-remarriage-biblical-principle-and-pastoral-practice
Director
Elyon Family Clinic & Surgery Pte Ltd
Singapore
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
In The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, Volume 4, by Joseph Pohle, there is this section:
Thanks for sharing this.
0
