Not a bad idea, Richard! Comments are closed.

#47: My point is no more and no less that I can adduce my own anecdotal evidence, and it’s neither useful nor illuminating.

#48: There is a fundamental logical problem here which forces the Orthodox to fudge.

Again, not as we understand it, but I do not get the impression that there’s anything I’m going to be able to tell you that will convince you otherwise. I don’t have much else to say that won’t have us going around in the same circles we’ve already lapped around a few times. The last thing I have to say about this is what I said at the get-go: either way you’ve got a pastoral problem that you can only solve by some concession to human weakness. I might suggest, without intending a negative connotation or the falling back on oft-used stereotypes of East and West, that Catholicism solves the problem legally (“The injury never occurred”), and Orthodoxy solves the problem medically (“Heal the injury”), and both are consistent, at least on paper, with our own understandings. Modern application in both cases may or may not leave something to be desired, but this is a pastoral issue, to say nothing of severe cultural problem, in and of itself.

#52: I think we can be reasonably certain Jesus meant what he said, don’t you? That said, seen anybody walking around missing eyes because they’ve plucked them out?

53: “thou shall not kill” is not a request. It doesn’t get more proscriptive that “shall not.”

I think what you’re getting at is an issue of the Metropolitan’s writing style in English, which I’m not going to argue. But nonetheless, God says οὐ φονεύσεις “You will not kill” not οὐ δύνασαι φονεύει “You will not be able to kill”. This commandment, in other words, does not bring about an ontological change in life; man can still exercise his free will and do so, and there are those who have done so, repented, and been readmitted to Communion after doing so without a legal decision that the murder never happened.

In terms of your “Matthean exception” question — is there a perceived conflict between the three accounts? I’m afraid I don’t really understand the question.

#54:

τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ κύριος γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ μενέτω ἄγαμος ἢ τῷ ἀνδρὶ καταλλαγήτω καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μὴ ἀφιέναι.

As literal a word-for-word translation as I can muster and have it be comprehensible:

And to those having been married, I command/transmit the message, it is not I but the Lord, a wife from (her) husband is not to separate.* And if she separates, let her remain unmarried or to her husband let her be reconciled. And a man is not to leave/abandon/dismiss (his) wife.

* – χωρισθῆναι is in the passive voice, but it was evidently common, when using this verb in particular, for it to have an active meaning when it was a wife who was the subject. Potentially it could be understood as being in the middle voice rather than a passive, e.g. “a wife from her husband is not to separate for her own benefit” or “…is not to cause a separation”.

A couple of things to point out here: παραγγέλλω is the main verb of this entire passage, in the present tense, indicative mood, active voice, first-person singular. The basic meaning is to “transmit a message,” the general idea being “to give orders,” but it’s also the word used to indicate what a doctor prescribes, and it can also be used to mean “exhort”, “encourage,” “cheer on”. It also has the political connotation of summoning one’s partisans. It’s the word Paul uses in 1 Timothy 6:13 to introduce what he’s about to tell him what to do, and also the word used in v.17 when he tells Timothy what to do with the wealthy. (You would also not be wrong if you were to see the word “angel” in the root form of the verb, αγγέλλω — the Greek noun that “angel” anglicizes is a verbal noun meaning “messenger”.) I would suggest that on the whole, there is a positive connotation of summoning one’s allies to action rather than laying down the law to a wrongdoer.

I said that παραγγέλλω is in the first person singular; Greek doesn’t need a personal pronoun except for emphasis to clarify ambiguity because the personal ending already tells you who the subject is in most cases. Thus, ἐγώ εἰμι (a la John 14:6) is perhaps better translated as “*I* am, and I mean *I*”, since εἰμι would already be “I am” on its own. Paul’s being very particular here about keeping it in the first person while making it clear it is the Lord speaking, not him, almost to the extent of wanting it to seem like a quote.

What I will also note is that Paul certainly tells the women who separate to remain ἄγαμος, but it’s also to those in an ἄγαμος state that he has just told (using the imperative mood, I might add) to marry if they cannot control themselves in verse 9.

#56: Here’s the verse:

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.

Word-for-word:

And I say to you all that whatever man leaves his wife except on account of unchastity and marries another woman, he is committing adultery.

πορνεία has a fairly broad set of meanings; unchastity, prostitution, licentiousness; sometimes it’s used metaphorically to mean “idolatry”. μοιχᾶται is the word which, used this way, has the specific meaning of adultery as in marital infidelity. The meaning of the verb in the active voice is “debauch”, basically, but here it is in what is clearly not the active voice and pretty clearly the middle voice (meaning, broadly, that the subject either is performing the action reflexively, self-interestedly, or causatively) since trying to construe a passive meaning (passive and middle voices share the same endings in the present tense in Greek) makes no sense. So, middle voice here basically means “causes debauchery” which is then used specifically to mean “commit adultery”.

Essentially, adultery is πορνεία but πορνεία is not necessarily adultery.

The other interesting thing about μοιχᾶται as used here is that with the relative clause of characteristic which precedes it, being the present tense (conveying present time, action performed progressively or repeatedly) it really convicts those listening. “He is committing adultery, right here and right now and over and over again, *whoever* has left his wife and married another woman except for reasons of unchastity” is kind of the force of it.

With that, we’re well over the 50-comment threshold, and I will gently suggest that we move on.

Richard

Now, as I say, what do I know? But, seeing as porneia is the root of several modern English words, none of which means “marital infidelity,” I can well understand why Catholic scholars might object to the claim that Our Lord means to allow divorce and remarriage (the latter not even mentioned in the phrase in question) merely for marital infidelity. Especially since, I am told, there was another Greek word that actually meant–and was commonly used to denote–adultery.

IOW, it seems this solicitude for precise Greek translation operates somewhat selectively. ;)

Scott Hahn has an illuminating article about this in the Ignatius Study Bible. But, as I am far too lazy to type it in here, I will link instead to Dave Armstrong’s similarly illuminating online article on the subject:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/05/biblical-evidence-for-prohibition-of.html

Diane

“Go and sin no more.” Sounds positively…Biblical.

Dominical, even. ;)

BTW, James, that post was a keeper. Absolutely brilliant.

Your analysis of Matthew 19 is interesting. I don’t know that I can agree with your conclusions but as I know no Greek I cannot argue the point.

I would be interested if you could give the same treatment to 1 Corinthians 7:10,11. I would be interested in how you interpret “But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.” Does the Greek in this case qualify as an absolute prohibition?

After reading the article you linked to I am more confused then ever. The article seems to contradict itself many times. I am with Fr. J; either marriage is indissoluble or it is not. If it is indissoluble then nothing can dissolve it; not sin, not adultery, not a civil or ecclesiastical decree, nothing.

The “not separate” is a divine request, as is “do not kill”. But man is free and can dissolve his marriage and kill his fellow man.

Wait a minute now; “thou shall not kill” is not a request. It doesn’t get more proscriptive that “shall not.” That sinful man can act in direct contradiction to a divine command is the very essence of sin. God to Adam – “Thou shall not eat of the tree.” Eve to Adam – “Have some fruit.” God to Adam – “you ate of the tree; you’re gonna get it now!” Just because we can do something in sin does not mean that God does not command against it; and going against God’s command has consequences, eternal consequences.

And yet the Orthodox Church can however permit divorce and remarriage on the grounds of interpretation of what the Lord says in Matt. 19, 9: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” According to Bishop Kallistos Ware divorce is an action of “economia” and “expression of compassion” of the Church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account, allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception”.

I’m going to come right out and say it. This is the same BS justification I get from Protestants. Now we can go on without end as to what exactly the “Matthean exception” is; whether Jesus is giving an exception for divorce only or permitting divorce and re-marriage or something else entirely. That is all beside the point in my opinion. I’ll pose the same question to you that I give to the Protestants; why is Matthew the normative passage, why not Mark 10 or Luke 16:18 where there is no exception? Is it because of a perceived loop-hole?

…economia is “the suspension of the absolute and strict applications of canon and church regulations…

This phrase seems very close to the Catholic saying that “the Church can dispense from her laws but not from God’s.” But just when things almost make sense:

…“economia” is for the Orthodox Church a notion that cannot be compared to “dispensation” in the Roman Catholic Church. Dispensation is an anticipated exception, which provides a juridical norm parallel to the official regulation.

It seems to me that the difference is that a dispensation is asking permission before doing something whereas “economia” is doings something and then asking for forgiveness afterward. If this is the case then it’s starting to make a little sense. Additionally, if my analogy holds then I can see why the Orthodox claim to be able to suspend even God’s express command. After all, “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness then for permission.”

It is the precise goal of economia that the weak person not be irrevocably banned from the church communion…

One final point; the Catholic Church does not desire to ban anyone forever from communion. Forgiveness for sin is always available. However, what cannot be allowed is the continuation of the sin. Allowing re-marriage after divorce, even with penance, is like forgiving a repentant car thief but allowing him to continue to drive the car he stole. Actually it’s worse because a car is not a Sacrament but Marriage is.

If [Our Lord] had meant ["let no man put asunder" to mean "divorce up to three times for up to 20 reasons,"] why would the disciples have registered shock and surprise? After all, if He meant to allow divorce, how (materially) did that differ from the status quo they were already used to?

Of your charity, if you would be so kind, would you address this question, which has nothing to do with anecdotal evidence?

Thanks!

Diane

To marry a Catholic couple previously civilly married to each other is a convalidation. This is the blessing of an already existing marriage.

In order to marry baptized Catholics who were civilly married to other people without benefit of the sacrament requires an annulment called “Lack of Form,” which is virtually automatic. So, yes, the Catholic Church recognizes these as marriages, just not sacramental ones.

For the record I hold no scorn for the Orthodox, I just find their approach to marriage inconsistent/illogical.

As for Catholic marriage being in disarray, well at least we have the lowest divorce rate in the US. It isn’t perfect, but we must be doing something right in these nightmarish times.