That is, Scripture shows us what marriage is, which is why we can also say what it isn't.

The scripture can show you what YOUR marriage should look like. To the degree you are content with that, I offer no complaint.

Nobody appointed you marriage counselor to the world Joe. You, and your Church, are not the global moral authority on sexual and marriage issues, especially given that most of the clergy has probably never been married, and maybe even never had sex. How long have you been married by the way?

It truly baffles me that given recent scandalous events within the clergy, you STILL think the rest of us should listen to anything the clergy has to say on such subjects.

The clergy can speak authoritatively and credibly on other subjects. Catholic Charities is an awesome accomplishment for example, which I am happy to applaud without reservation. Focus on things like that, or content yourself with being ignored.

Ok, ok, so the reality is probably that you are preaching to the choir so as to raise your status with those who already agree with you, in which case I'm being as silly as you are.

Jesus doesn’t mention homosexuality.

Bingo!

We can all observe how often some Christians simply ignore the example of Jesus whenever it becomes inconvenient. This might be understandable if those same Christians weren't typically lecturing us about how we need to follow the example of Jesus.

Give it up Joe. You're trying too hard here. If Jesus thought homosexuality was an issue needing our attention he would have surely said so. End of story.

Now, to debunk myself. We can observe how this simple common sense logic will have no impact of any kind, none whatsoever, on Joe and those of like mind. And yet I keep typing it, clear evidence I may be no more logical than they are.

>But there it is in black and white. I have to grudgingly concede.

Which is why you are a person of high integrity and it is a pleasure and privlege and challenge to dispute & dialog with you (unlike others here who need to up their game. They know who they are).

I salute you sir and send my respects.

>If nobody could offer an interpretation of scripture except the pope, probably 99.99% or more of the books on the religion and the bible would be of no significance.

You can offer an interpretation of scripture you just can't offer an authoratative one. At best your interpretation is equally one alternate possibility at worst it is simple wrong because the Church's interpretation is always right for Catholics & if yours contradicts it then it's automatically wrong.

The Church has settled the matter on Divorce and remarriage and the teaching of the Old Testament vs the New. No need to re-invent the wheel.

>However, I don't think it qualifies as "interpretation" to conclude from Matthew 19 that when the Pharisees asked Jesus a question about Jewish Law—"is it lawful?"—when he said "no" he was answering the question fo Jews, not for baptized Christians.

How is it wrong for Him to do that considering He is the Incarnate God of the Jews & the King Messiah? The Talmud says when the King Messiah comes he will write his own Torah. It also says the King of Israel can write additional laws to cover things not covered in Torah so he really isn't going against the Judaism of his time.

I use the accusation Sola Scriptura because it fits. David all you can ever give me is your interpretation of Holy Writ and I have no reason to accept it unless it is confirmed by the Church. You can't play "Bible contradicts itself gottcha" with a Catholic. Ever... We don't read Scripture like Protestants. You must accept it.

>I have never seen Matthew 19 and the question of divorce used as a text to support the idea that Jesus "raised marriage to the dignity of a s
sacrament."

Now you are splitting hairs. Jesus made Marriage a sacrament at some point. That is Tradition. Wither it's done in Matt 19 or elsewhere is not relavent. If there are no Bible verses that show it then so what? We still don't confess Sola Scriptura.

>What does seem to be claimed often is that Jesus's attendance (and first miracle) at the Wedding Feast at Cana (John 2) was the significant moment, although the Catechism regards it as a very significant moment but not the be all and end all proving the sacramentality of marriage.

Implying you have to prove everything by explicit Scripture is a Sola Scriptura argument. Just saying....

If I didn't use the old online Catholic Encyclopedia myself I would continue the battle against the idea that the Catholic Church ever grants "divorces." But there it is in black and white. I have to grudgingly concede. What I will say is that I haven't found the word divorce in any official, authoritative statement. For example, the 1983 Code of Canon Law never uses the word in the canons referring to marrying or dissolving marriages. Couples are never spoken of as divorcing. Rather, the language is always of marriages being dissolved.

Speaking of the Catholic Encyclopedia, I see support for my claim that you could not quote Augustine to prove that marriage was always considered a sacrament. The Encyclopedia says:

In the proof of Apostolicity of the doctrine that marriage is a sacrament of the New Law, it will suffice to show that the Church has in fact always taught concerning marriage what belongs to the essence of a sacrament. The name sacrament cannot be cited as satisfactory evidence, since it did not acquire until a late period the exclusively technical meaning it has today; both in pre-Christian times and in the first centuries of the Christian Era it had a much broader and more indefinite signification.

Dave I don't see a Pope hat on your head dude. So why should I accept your interpretation of what you think Jesus meant?

If nobody could offer an interpretation of scripture except the pope, probably 99.99% or more of the books on the religion and the bible would be of no significance. I think when scripture is interpreted by the Magisterium, it is inevitably "bottom up," not "top down." That is, scholars and the faithful have mulled over the scripture in question for decades or even centuries, and what emerges is accepted as doctrine.

However, I don't think it qualifies as "interpretation" to conclude from Matthew 19 that when the Pharisees asked Jesus a question about Jewish Law—"is it lawful?"—when he said "no" he was answering the question fo Jews, not for baptized Christians. That's not interpreting. It's just reading and understanding. You uses the accusation of "sola scriptura" to ignore anyone else's quotes from the Bible, but you use your own quotes ("I hate divorce") when it further's your own argument.

I have never seen Matthew 19 and the question of divorce used as a text to support the idea that Jesus "raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament." What does seem to be claimed often is that Jesus's attendance (and first miracle) at the Wedding Feast at Cana (John 2) was the significant moment, although the Catechism regards it as a very significant moment but not the be all and end all proving the sacramentality of marriage.

You are giving a good workout here Dave. Thanks for that. I need to sharpen my mind. Too many Video games are dulling it. That and I am old.

>The "Jewish" source you cited was Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia extremely reliable and use it a lot, but I wouldn't call it a Jewish source! vAlso the Wikipedia article you cited was about contemporary Jewish marriage, and the discussion was supposed to be about marriage in biblical times.

Actually if you look at the footnote of my citation it references Babylonian Talmud, Yebomoth 62b. That is a very Jewish source like Citing Ott or Denzinger or Aquinas to Catholics. I wouldn't look to the Wiki by itself but to the sources it cites.

>How that quote, which is about divorce rather than marriage, justifies the statement that precedes it in Wikipedia is beyond me.

It would make sense to someone who uses the Dialectic of the Talmud. I can't explain it as even I don't completely understand it. Still my citation from the Wiki was incomplete a further sentence does cite Genesis 1:24 as well. But I did originally include the link so one can look it up themselves.

>Interestingly, John Meier in Volume IV of A Marginal Jew says Deuteronomy 24:1-4 may very well be read as a rule for a (presumably) very rare case. That is, if a woman divorces her first husband, marries another man, and the second husband dies, then the first husband may not remarry his original wife. That says very little about marriage as an institution.

Interesting speculation. Of course I would consult the Misnha unless Meier has already did that.

I don't want to be too hard on you Dave. You for the most part get things right. Here maybe you are shaky on some details.

>I stand by my statement that the Catholic Church holds that divorce is never permissible, since I don't believe the word divorce would be applicable in the application of either the Pauline or Petrine privilege.

What is your Catholic Source for this view? Mine contradicts it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

quote:The Catholic doctrine on divorce may be summed up in the following propositions:

In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated;
Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favor of the Faith;
Christian marriage before consummation can be dissolved by solemn profession in a religious order, or by an act of papal authority;
Separation from bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife. Lehmkuhl, A. (1909). Divorce (in Moral Theology. CATHOLIC ENCYLOPEDIA 1909 edition.

>I wouldn't want to hang too much on Malachi 2:16. My references, both Jewish and Christian, say the original Hebrew is very cryptic. For example, the Douay-Rheims version follows the Vulgate and translates it as follows:

That is lovely but I think they both mean the same thing. My citation did come from an Era when Douay-Rheims was very popular and the NAB was just a gleam in a young Seminarian's Grandfather's eye.

I'll grant you this Dave. Terminology changes over time even if fundamental principles do not. Maybe that is the confusion here?

Happy St Patrick's Day. This is my first one as an Irishmen. I'll tell you that story sometime......

>And here is your mistake: To say that there are times when a marriage may be dissolved by the authority of the Church (in some cases even the Pope himself) is not to say that divorce is ever permissible. The pope does not grant divorces.

That makes no sense and is not Catholic teaching. Divorce is defined as the legal "dissolution" of marriage and the Pope can grant it under the privilege of Peter under the usual circumstances. I am not sure where you are getting this from?

>No, what you do is dismiss quotes from scripture as Sola Scripture arguments when you don't want to deal with them.

No I just don't agree with your interpretation and I don't believe the Bible can be interpreted apart form the Church. Giving me your own self serving contra-interpretation has never worked and in principle can never work with me.

>It is important to remember that Jesus was speaking about Jewish Law to Jews. Matthew 19:3 says, "Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,* saying, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?'” It is not a "Sola Scripture" argument to point out that in this specific case, Jesus was talking to Pharisees who were asking a question about a controversy within first-century Judaism about Jewish Law: How weighty a reason was sufficient for a man to divorce his wife? Jesus was not talking about later developments in marriage between baptized individuals, which were later settled by Paul or other authorities within the Church.

Dave I don't see a Pope hat on your head dude. So why should I accept your interpretation of what you think Jesus meant? I am back to dismissing..........I am not Protestant guy. I don't know why this is hard?

Here is your mistake. That is incorrect. That is not Catholic teaching. Catholic Teaching is that a sacramental marriage cannot be disolved. A mere natural marriage can be.

And here is your mistake: To say that there are times when a marriage may be dissolved by the authority of the Church (in some cases even the Pope himself) is not to say that divorce is ever permissible. The pope does not grant divorces.

At that time he didn't but Sola Scriptura arguments are tedious and I always dismiss them.

No, what you do is dismiss quotes from scripture as Sola Scripture arguments when you don't want to deal with them. It is important to remember that Jesus was speaking about Jewish Law to Jews. Matthew 19:3 says, "Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,* saying, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?'” It is not a "Sola Scripture" argument to point out that in this specific case, Jesus was talking to Pharisees who were asking a question about a controversy within first-century Judaism about Jewish Law: How weighty a reason was sufficient for a man to divorce his wife? Jesus was not talking about later developments in marriage between baptized individuals, which were later settled by Paul or other authorities within the Church.