How to understand / interprete God's will?

booksale

One of my friend is a pastor and he is not happy working in his church but he said God's will is not for him to leave the church. So, he stays, but not happy.

A couple was very loving and served God together. Then one day, the man said, God asked me to be a priest. Very sad and dramatic.

Is it that people inside want some dramas (no offence) or a sense of 'doing for God' so they do something that they like.

I am always confused about God's will. I pray, but I would never say it's God's will. Because we human heart is just so limited and we make decisions because of loads of reasons rather than God's clear instruction. My psychology background makes me also more difficult to understand God's will without analysising people's desire and all that.

Jester Minute

booksale wrote: »

One of my friend is a pastor and he is not happy working in his church but he said God's will is not for him to leave the church. So, he stays, but not happy. (Maybe God is calling him out of this situation into a more authentic Christian life.)

A couple was very loving and served God together. Then one day, the man said, God asked me to be a priest. Very sad and dramatic. (No. A married man cannot be a priest in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church*. His vocation is to his marriage which he entered into freely.)

Is it that people inside want some dramas (no offence) or a sense of 'doing for God' so they do something that they like. (Maybe)

I am always confused about God's will. I pray, but I would never say it's God's will. Because we human heart is just so limited and we make decisions because of loads of reasons rather than God's clear instruction. My psychology background makes me also more difficult to understand God's will without involving people's desire and all that.

God wants the best for us. His will is often staring us in the face. In fact, I know that for me, IT IS staring me in the face. All He wants from us is courage and trust, which are often lacking on our behalf. Often the will of God in our lives is simply to take the next obvious step in the right direction.

* There are married priests in the Eastern Rite. But if the wife dies, she cannot be replaced under warranty. Also, some Anglicans came over to the RCC in the Latin Rite with the wife but this is an exception.

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

God wants the best for us. His will is often staring us in the face. In fact, I know that for me, IT IS staring me in the face. All He wants from us is courage and trust, which are often lacking on our behalf. Often the will of God in our lives is simply to take the next obvious step in the right direction.

Yes, that is my understanding too. There is a fundamental principle: God's will never violates His laws - so, for example, any woman who claims God wants her to pastor a church is deluded. Within that parameter, God's will also has a general and a specific case: He wills, for example, that we bring the gospel to all men - but it may not be His will that I bring it to people in Kenya, and it may be His will someone else in my church does.

The specific cases are where too much 'feeling' search takes place, in my opinion. If we feel burdened to do something specific and it lies in our power, we should attempt it. If God does not want us to do it, He will let us know:
Acts 16:6 Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. 7 After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them. 8 So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Not that it must be visions; circumstances or a re-directed burden could also be God's means of guidance. Prayer for guidance is of course is a given.

UB Dude

Hi,
God is, by nature, infinite – this presents certain challenges to finite and time bound mortals. We cannot of absolute certainty know God's will, therefore we rely on faith. When we live sincerely, honestly and loyally and present our thought processes and consequent decisions {i.e.: the choices we have made that we hope reflect the divine will} to our Heavenly Father, we stand humbly in His Presence and declare the reality of our uncertainty, proclaim our steadfast faith to live by the highest ideals we can imagine, and assert our devotion to doing the divine will to the best of our ability. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong.


The cardinal attributes of God, as it is experienced by finite mortals, are; Truth, Beauty and Goodness. I view these like three guiding stars that allow you to know what direction you are going, they get you 'oriented' correctly. Additionally, the teachings of Jesus inform us of the 'fruits of the spirit' – love, kindness, generosity, humility, meekness, forgiveness, tolerance and forbearance, with the instruction that we must 'bear much fruit'. These are the natural spirit outpourings of the love filled and mercy dominated life.


However, we must bear in mind that we are creatures of two natures, the flesh and the spirit. Consequently is the stage set for the great spirit struggles of mortal life: the actualisation/realisation of the spirit-self, of attaining victory over the flesh through progressive identification with the divine will – what some traditions call 'Deification' i.e.: becoming Godlike. This concept gets folks in a tizzy but the life Jesus bequeathed us makes this very clear in that:

1. He revealed to us what God was like: “You that have seen me have seen God”.
2. He informed us that we were the Children of God and instructed us in how to behave as such: “Love one another as I have loved you”

The fact is we do deceive ourselves regularly, did not Jesus himself say, quoting Jeremiah, 'the heart is deceitful above all things, leading us into varying lusts' and that 'out of the heart come the issues of life; murder, theft, lies, adultery' and thus are we encouraged to pray, 'Create in me a clean heart oh Lord'. Often divine enthusiasm devolves into blind and unthinking fanaticism, where the satisfaction of personal desires achieves ascendancy over the Other-centred life required by God. 'Well-meaning', 'good-intentions', current mores, even conscience, are not to be confused with God's will. We should remember that 'stoning people to death' was once an honoured practice and in some places still is. Such facts reveal to us that the Will of God stands over and above the 'mores' of the hour, leading us ever on to greater and greater moral and spiritual achievements.


In our efforts to do the will of the Heavenly Father we must always remain conscious of the fact we have a tendency to deceive ourselves, and recognise our proclivity for hearing and seeing that which we most want to hear and see. We must honestly face the fact that often we are unconscious of our own motives, thus does it become clear that 'truth will set us free'. This practice encourages us in humility, which is the only viable context wherein we can lay our live our before and pour our lives out for God.


Regards
B.

locomo

"A couple was very loving and served God together. Then one day, the man said, God asked me to be a priest. Very sad and dramatic."

Jester Minute wrote: »

No. A married man cannot be a priest in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church*. His vocation is to his marriage which he entered into freely.

Noboby said the man in the loving relationship was married. Lots of couples who were " very loving and served God together " were not married. And many couples do not believe in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Chiurch. And besides, in the early centuries of the Catholic church were some priests not married?

Jester Minute wrote: »

(Maybe God is calling him out of this situation into a more authentic Christian life.)

I do not know if people who leave the priesthood would necessarily be entering " a more authentic Christian life". Perhaps in some cases that could be argued if it was for the good of the children eg Bishop Casey and Fr. Cleary, the two people who were each side of the Pope on his visit to Galway in 1979, had secret children at the time....would they have had a more authentic Christian life if they were to openly love their families / children, as many RCC priests in the third world do ?

Jester Minute

locomo wrote: »

I do not know if people who leave the priesthood would necessarily be entering " a more authentic Christian life". Perhaps in some cases that could be argued if it was for the good of the children eg Bishop Casey and Fr. Cleary, the two people who were each side of the Pope on his visit to Galway in 1979, had secret children at the time....would they have had a more authentic Christian life if they were to openly love their families / children, as many RCC priests in the third world do ?
[/COLOR]

Just to clarify: if a man leaves the Catholic priesthood for a woman, then that man is a scoundrel. He was ordained a priest of the Church and he is married to the Church.

As regards authenticity, I meant that if a Christian pastor left his church to become a Catholic, then that would be an authentic move towards fullness of the faith, not the other way around.

Priests in the Latin Rite must be celibate and chaste. If they have hidden children or a secret woman, then that is a betrayal of their vows to God.

locomo

Jester Minute wrote: »

Just to clarify: if a man leaves the Catholic priesthood for a woman, then that man is a scoundrel. He was ordained a priest of the Church and he is married to the Church.

He is only a scoundrel if he leaves the church ? He is not a scoundrel if he fathers children and neglets them then ? Do you think the two people on the altar with the Pope in Galway, Bishop Casey and Fr. Cleary, were scoundrels ? Or they would only have been scoundrels if they gave their offspring open loving care ?

Jester Minute wrote: »

As regards authenticity, I meant that if a Christian pastor left his church to become a Catholic, then that would be an authentic move towards fullness of the faith

A Christian Pastor may already be a catholic, just not a Roman Catholic.
The main thing is he is a Christian. He may be a good Christian or a bad Christian, but becoming a Roman Catholic would not necessarily make him a better Christian.

Jester Minute wrote: »

Priests in the Latin Rite must be celibate and chaste.

Nowadays yes, they are supposed to be, but any now are not, especially in the third world, where they openly live with " housekeepers" etc . For centuries Priests in the RCC did not have to be celibate + chaste.

Jester Minute

locomo wrote: »

He is only a scoundrel if he leaves the church ? He is not a scoundrel if he fathers children and neglets them then ? Do you think the two people on the altar with the Pope in Galway, Bishop Casey and Fr. Cleary, were scoundrels ? Or they would only have been scoundrels if they gave their offspring open loving care ?

A Christian Pastor may already be a catholic, just not a Roman Catholic.
The main thing is he is a Christian. He may be a good Christian or a bad Christian, but becoming a Roman Catholic would not necessarily make him a better Christian.

Nowadays yes, they are supposed to be, but any now are not, especially in the third world, where they openly live with " housekeepers" etc . For centuries Priests in the RCC did not have to be celibate + chaste.

Of course, I should have thought that was obvious. Betraying his vows is quite scandalous whether he is found out or not.

Priests can control themselves just as well as you or I. The fact that some don't is most unfortunate.

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

Just to clarify: if a man leaves the Catholic priesthood for a woman, then that man is a scoundrel. He was ordained a priest of the Church and he is married to the Church.

Although saddened by it, Christ does permit divorce in the case of marital infidelity.

wolfsbane

booksale said:

How to understand / interprete God's will?
One of my friend is a pastor and he is not happy working in his church but he said God's will is not for him to leave the church. So, he stays, but not happy.

Sometimes it is painful to do God's will. We can be happy to do it, but unhappy at the pain.

A couple was very loving and served God together. Then one day, the man said, God asked me to be a priest. Very sad and dramatic.

It would be indeed - since God does not have ordained priests in this gospel age (all Christians are His priests).

Is it that people inside want some dramas (no offence) or a sense of 'doing for God' so they do something that they like.

Indeed it can be. Many enter full-time Christian work who should have remained in their jobs, imagining they were called by God but really only responding to a need for 'drama' or a mistaken idea of what God requires (they are afraid of being unwilling to serve full-time if He did ask, so they jump the gun).

I am always confused about God's will. I pray, but I would never say it's God's will. Because we human heart is just so limited and we make decisions because of loads of reasons rather than God's clear instruction. My psychology background makes me also more difficult to understand God's will without analysising people's desire and all that.

That is a wise approach.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Jester Minute

antiskeptic wrote: »

Although saddened by it, Christ does permit divorce in the case of marital infidelity.

No, he doesn't.

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"

He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'

and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"

He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

[His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."

He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.

- Mt.19 NAB.

The key bit is in brackets.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

- Mt.19 NAB.

The key bit is in brackets.

The 'key bit' is makey-up.

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Greek understands that the word porneia refers to sexual immorality, not to an unlawful marriage. It's where we derive our English word 'pornography'.

This is the real danger with producing 'translations' that try to bolster a particular denomination's position rather than faithfully translating the Word of God.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

lmaopml

I agree, I think some of the priests contribute so much and sometimes God means it to be for a period in their lives, and sometimes for their whole lives. We're not the best judges of these things.

When I was a child I remember such a priest - a Fr. Rockneene (sp), he had so many things to say and explain that he even enchanted a rather unruly kid who had no more interest...lol... and his faith was tangible..In my opinion he did more good for the 10 odd years he was in the priesthood than many could do in a lifetime, and he was never dishonest.

He left the priesthood and is still involved in the Church, but living in America now with his wife and family. He's not a 'rebel', he simply had a vocation which he followed for as long as he could and in the best way he could..

I still remember him - says it all.

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

The 'key bit' is makey-up.

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Greek understands that the word porneia refers to sexual immorality, not to an unlawful marriage. It's where we derive our English word 'pornography'.

This is the real danger with producing 'translations' that try to bolster a particular denomination's position rather than faithfully translating the Word of God.

Sorry, you are wrong. The thing is, the only allowance for divorce was for cases whereby there was no marriage, for example if brothers and sisters married, that kind of thing.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't condemn him to hell, only God can do that However, it is wrong for a man wedded to the Church to then go off with a lady. That's wrong. However, the Church has freed men to leave the priesthood in order to go off with a woman. It is unfortunate, but it happens. See here: http://efpastormeritus.blogspot.com/2009/06/pope-augments-rules-on-laicisation-of.html

lmaopml wrote: »

I agree, I think some of the priests contribute so much and sometimes God means it to be for a period in their lives, and sometimes for their whole lives. We're not the best judges of these things.

He left the priesthood and is still involved in the Church, but living in America now with his wife and family. He's not a 'rebel', he simply had a vocation which he followed for as long as he could and in the best way he could..

I still remember him - says it all.

The vocation to the priesthood comes with the call to orders given by the Bishop. That's that. There is no room for sentimentality. A vocation to the priesthood is for life. Hand to the plough and all that

lmaopml

I think Jester that it's important to step back sometimes and maybe lower the horse a few inches...

Nobody is saying that there aren't priests who have a lifetime vocation, there are very many fabulous ones - it doesn't diminish others 'paths' though...

There are many who are called in various ways and being human we travel as best we can. Even the Bishops understand being 'human' and all the ways in which one can serve God and do it best... Apart from which, the Church is the guide, but there is only 'one' Judge for every single person; who understands every single person; - least we forget???

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

Sorry, you are wrong. The thing is, the only allowance for divorce was for cases whereby there was no marriage, for example if brothers and sisters married, that kind of thing.

So you are claiming that the Greek word 'porneia' means 'where there was no marriage'?

That's interesting. Where did you learn your Greek?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Jester Minute

lmaopml wrote: »

I think Jester that it's important to step back sometimes and maybe lower the horse a few inches...

Nobody is saying that there aren't priests who have a lifetime vocation, there are very many fabulous ones - it doesn't diminish others 'paths' though...

There are many who are called in various ways and being human we travel as best we can. Even the Bishops understand being 'human' and all the ways in which one can serve God and do it best... Apart from which, the Church is the guide, but there is only 'one' Judge for every single person; who understands every single person; - least we forget???

Sorry, I've never heard of a temporary versus a lifetime vocation to the priesthood. Whereabouts is that in the Magisterial teaching? Cos temporary priest sounds good. I'd be interested myself! :pac:

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

So you are claiming that the Greek word 'porneia' means 'where there was no marriage'?

That's interesting. Where did you learn your Greek?

I didn't study Greek anywhere. I am a little one that the Lord spoke about versus the wise and puffed up. I am against all forms of intellectualism or clericalism. :P

The issue isn't actually about the meaning of the word porneia. The issue is, are the parties free to remarry after separation in the case of a marriage where one party has been unfaithful and they separate? No they aren't is the answer.

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

I didn't study Greek anywhere. I am a little one that the Lord spoke about versus the wise and puffed up. I am against all forms of intellectualism or clericalism. :P

The issue isn't actually about the meaning of the word porneia..

The issue isn't about what the bible means?

Right so

I hope you are not implying pdn is puffed up

Jester Minute

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry that green bit is not Catholic teaching. The bishop calls to orders. I might 'feel' I have a vocation to priesthood, but if I am rejected by the Church, i.e. the Bishop, then I mustn't have a vocation.

lmaopml

Jester Minute wrote: »

Sorry, I've never heard of a temporary versus a lifetime vocation to the priesthood. Whereabouts is that in the Magisterial teaching? Cos temporary priest sounds good. I'd be interested myself! :pac:

Well Jester, it seems the Church is more forgiving than you...The man I spoke of wasn't judged so quick by his peers. The whole idea is that to follow Christ and his Church is to be very very human, more than most imagine, and not super human. The 'bar' is set, and most of us fall short every single day, but forgiveness and understanding is a virtue..

Jester Minute

lmaopml wrote: »

Well Jester, it seems the Church is more forgiving than you...The man I spoke of wasn't judged so quick by his peers. The whole idea is that to follow Christ and his Church is to be very very human, more than most imagine, and not super human. The 'bar' is set, and most of us fall short every single day, but forgiveness and understanding is a virtue..

We are called ot be perfect, not human To be perfect is to be perfect in our humanity after the imitation of Christ., not to make allowance for sin or to indulge.

It's not about being forgiving. I'm sure his peers were very forgiving, given that many of them would love to get married in the morning!!! I asked you were it was in the Magisterial teachings that there is a temporary versus a lifelong vocation to the priesthood???

You need to be careful that your charity doesn't exclude truth and become false charity and false compassion.

The Church does laicize men from the priesthood if they have taken up with a woman or some other scandalous behaviour. It's unfortunate but it happens. There is a provision for that eventuality but it is hardly ideal. It is sad.

http://efpastormeritus.blogspot.com/2009/06/pope-augments-rules-on-laicisation-of.html

Jester Minute

bluewolf wrote: »

The issue isn't about what the bible means?

Right so

I hope you are not implying pdn is puffed up

Usually when somebody makes a comment about levels of Greek learning on a discussion board, they are trying to be smart. Is smart the same as puffed up? I dunno.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Jester Minute

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The call to Holy Orders is the responsibility of the Bishop. A man discerns if he thinks he has a vocation. The bishop calls the man to Orders and that confirms the vocation to priesthood. God gave the Bishops of the Church special power and authority, remember! If you want to debate that, a new thread would be in order.

I'm pretty sure that is the Catholic Magisterial teaching, however, I am open to correction.

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

Usually when somebody makes a comment about levels of Greek learning on a discussion board, they are trying to be smart. Is smart the same as puffed up? I dunno.

You know the bible wasnt written in english right?

Telling someone who's actually studied it "no you're wrong and it says" is a bit lol

lmaopml

Nobody is making allowance for 'sin' Jester. Gosh, you are so 'versed' sometimes, but there's more to it than that..

We are not robots, we are human, and while we - as Catholics, understand the beauty and depth of faith that is so rich it's really got a proverbial 'wow' with a little research etc, we are nonetheless quite imperfect! Saints of Sinners is the ideal, many fall short, it doesn't mean they are rejects of some sort?

It's nice to understand that, and to know the very first rule, that those who put themselves first come last - One judge, one faith, and one saviour who knows all..

I am a Catholic.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Jester Minute

bluewolf wrote: »

You know the bible wasnt written in english right?

Telling someone who's actually studied it "no you're wrong and it says" is a bit lol

The word porneia is really concerning impediments to marriage (like incest), not adultery. So it's about unlawful or non-marriages.

Karl Keating explains in this short post: http://forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=508&postcount=2

Further background:
This explains the thing: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509sbs.asp

http://www.defendingthebride.com/sc/marriage.html



-

Jester Minute

lmaopml wrote: »

Nobody is making allowance for 'sin' Jester. Gosh, you are so 'versed' sometimes, but there's more to it than that..

We are not robots, we are human, and while we - as Catholics, understand the beauty and depth of faith that is so rich it's really got a proverbial 'wow' with a little research etc, we are nonetheless quite imperfect! Saints of Sinners is the ideal, many fall short, it doesn't mean they are rejects of some sort?

It's nice to understand that, and to know the very first rule, that those who put themselves first come last - One judge, one faith, and one saviour who knows all..

I am a Catholic.

Er, where did I put myself first?

I suggest you read this, about judgement: http://www.chastitysf.com/judgmental.htm

lmaopml

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]

In other words, the judgment forbidden to us and given to Christ alone is the determination of whether any individual soul will enter the Kingdom of Heaven or whether that soul will, by its own actions, condemn itself to Hell.


Probably, ( I have a weird font now ) the most important part of your link Jester? Especially the 'Christ alone'..bit..

O look, I rather enjoy reading some of your links etc. and I welcome the adversity of opinon to the forum, you are not the only poster with a steadfast and immoveable approach to the faithful - and I think it's rather cool that we have the opportunity to communicate, even though we may be generations or literally across the globe from eachother..

I still think there is only one judge though, and that you are portraying a Church that is wholly unforgiving; which is in my opinion totally wrong.

The Catholic church is bursting at the seams with sinners...the way it was meant to be..
[/FONT]

Jester Minute

lmaopml wrote: »

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]

In other words, the judgment forbidden to us and given to Christ alone is the determination of whether any individual soul will enter the Kingdom of Heaven or whether that soul will, by its own actions, condemn itself to Hell.


Probably, ( I have a weird font now ) the most important part of your link Jester? Especially the 'Christ alone'..bit..

O look, I rather enjoy reading some of your links etc. and I welcome the adversity of opinon to the forum, you are not the only poster with a steadfast and immoveable approach to the faithful - and I think it's rather cool that we have the opportunity to communicate, even though we may be generations or literally across the globe from eachother..

I still think there is only one judge though, and that you are portraying a Church that is wholly unforgiving; which is in my opinion totally wrong.

The Catholic church is bursting at the seams with sinners...the way it was meant to be..
[/FONT]

Howl on sweetheart. Just because I've not mentioned mercy or forgiveness does not mean I do not esteem them as I should. Plus the Church is a hospital for sinners, where they are meant to get better, not a recreation tent, where they get worse.

What I am trying to do is make the point that we don't soften our teachings or give people an easy ride just because we are sinners. The Church presents the truth, and often it's hard as nails. I know for me it often is. because it requires changes. Often big and difficult changes.

I have not once spoken of anyone going to hell - not fallen priests nor bankers. So why are you reminding me about my duty not to judge on final destinations when I've done no such thing?

That bit in pink is problematic too. I have a solid and immovable stance on the faith, not the faithful. Maybe you meant faith, I dunno.

Just be careful you aren't 'judging' me.;) Just kiddin'. Kind-of.

Plus you still haven't answered my query about temporary versus lifelong priestly vocations.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

The 'key bit' is makey-up.

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Greek understands that the word porneia refers to sexual immorality, not to an unlawful marriage. It's where we derive our English word 'pornography'.

This is the real danger with producing 'translations' that try to bolster a particular denomination's position rather than faithfully translating the Word of God.

Maybe that's the NAB translation.
Whatever way you look at it remarriage is not allowed while a spouse is alive

I prefer the Douay-Rheims translation

[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. [7] They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? [8] He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, that 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. [10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

and it is noted

[9] "Except it be"... In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

To understand this one must examine Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11


The correct reading is that one who divorces his wife commits adultery with an exception for those who divorce unfaithful wives, however remarriage following divorce is adultery.


In case anyone wants to argue that this is Catholic mis-interpretation or use some derogatory Greek it might be worth reading this non-denominational interpretation


http://www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/articles/mark/mark_10.html

Notice that we have not talked about the authority for remarriage. Do not assume too much that once divorced, one has the right to remarriage. Remarriage needs to have authority from God as much as divorce. In 1 Corinthians 7:15 there is not authority for remarriage. Though no longer bound to the duties as a spouse, Paul does not grant the right to remarriage. Verse 11 seems to be in effect: they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled.
In Matthew 19:9 there is the inference that only the one who puts away the fornicator can remarry. No one else is given the exception. If anyone divorces and remarries it is adultery, except the one who divorces and remarries because of sexual immorality.
The overriding law of God concerning divorce is that divorce is not to occur. It also should be noted that there are no other exceptions that I am aware of for divorce. Human emotions can be brought in about falling out of love, what a terrible person someone is, how they are an alcoholic, or any other scenario. Though we may think up lots of problems, we have seen the only two reasons given for divorce. This teaches us that we ought to think two or three times before we get married, because marriage is permanent. God has joined you together and that is all there is to it. Let us take marriage seriously and the sin of divorce seriously.
If you have found yourself in this situation, that you have been divorced and remarried not for the cause of sexual immorality, you may be living in an adulterous relationship. I encourage you to study these words of God and let me or another leader here know of your situation so that we can help you find the best way to get back into a right relationship with God.

Festus

Jester Minute wrote: »

Usually when somebody makes a comment about levels of Greek learning on a discussion board, they are trying to be smart. Is smart the same as puffed up? I dunno.

Porneia actully covers a number of sexual acts, not just adultery, as seems to be the stock non-Catholic response to any reference to Jesus teachings on marriage and divorce.

Porneia covers

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
[*] illicit sexual intercourse

1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,

[*] metaph. the worship of idols

1. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

[/FONT]


So adding this to the context we see that Jesus may have been refering to a man married to a woman who committed adulery, or some other form of immorality of a sexual or idolatrous nature, with a divorced or possibly single man or widow. In this case the man is allowed divorce his wife and not suffer the pain of being (or called) an adulterer by default.

As to puffed up. Trying to be smart by presenting and incomplete arguement may be seen by some to be more puffed up than intelligent. The problem with English is that it tends to have singular meanings to words - adultery is specific, fornication is specific, incest is specific - as opposed to other languages like Greek where one word can have many meaning - porneia, sexual immorality covering adulter, fornication, bestiality, incest to name but a few. Using one specific meaning for a foreign word where many meanings exists can lead to much mis-interpretation. If that is done deliberately it qualifies as "puffed up" especially if it is qualified with "Hey, I studied this therefore I know what I am talking about, you can just get back in your box" statements.

lmaopml

Lmao, at 'howl on..'..! Love it! - she wolf -

Still Jester, I shall try to explain..what I said earlier..

I think there are many priests who may 'believe' they have a vocation and 'who knows'? probably do, and are very honest about it at a point during their lives..

I certainly think it's best if it's a lifelong vocation! However, I remember being struck by a priest who had the most tremendous faith but failed to have a lifelong vocation to the priesthood...

Perhaps it's comparable to a parent who's faith is tangible? Some people have a 'gift', and it should never be dismissed no matter what role they play, so long as they are honest in the role they are in?

Perhaps dropping the 'I'm right', down a notch would be more productive jester...? There are plenty of ways to communicate..

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Jester Minute

lmaopml wrote: »

Lmao, at 'howl on..'..! Love it! - she wolf -

Still Jester, I shall try to explain..what I said earlier..

I think there are many priests who may 'believe' they have a vocation and 'who knows'? probably do, and are very honest about it at a point during their lives..

I certainly think it's best if it's a lifelong vocation! However, I remember being struck by a priest who had the most tremendous faith but failed to have a lifelong vocation to the priesthood...

Perhaps it's comparable to a parent who's faith is tangible? Some people have a 'gift', and it should never be dismissed no matter what role they play, so long as they are honest in the role they are in?

Perhaps dropping the 'I'm right', down a notch would be more productive jester...? There are plenty of ways to communicate..

Here up north, at least where I live, we say 'Howl on' instead of 'hold on'. Add sweetheart and you've got a nice refrain. But I digress.

The Church realises that such men are best laicized and so, per that other link I posted, there are means to enable this. It is sad when it happens though.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think many priests joined up when they were still very wet behind the ears. They may not have had any conception of what they were getting themselves into. I think that is the case. I think that is the case for many of the dissenter priests, the media types we see, who attack the Church teachings. I think they are very unhappy and should never have become priests. In that instance, I would concede to the idea that perhaps they had no vocation to the priesthood, but a lack of discernment and spiritual direction meant they went ahead anyhow. When you read what a certain bishop in America said about allowing one man to be ordained, you would wonder what on earth they were thinking. Anyone see that recently? I don't want to draw attention to it if you haven't.. scandal and all that!!!

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Porneia actully covers a number of sexual acts, not just adultery, as seems to be the stock non-Catholic response to any reference to Jesus teachings on marriage and divorce.

Porneia covers

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
[*] illicit sexual intercourse

1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,

[*] metaph. the worship of idols

1. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

[/FONT]


So adding this to the context we see that Jesus may have been refering to a man married to a woman who committed adulery, or some other form of immorality of a sexual or idolatrous nature, with a divorced or possibly single man or widow. In this case the man is allowed divorce his wife and not suffer the pain of being (or called) an adulterer by default.

So, it's OK for a person to divorce if their spouse commits adultery, or if their spouse indulges in homosexuality, bestiality, incest and, quite possibly, even worships an idol.

So, what you are saying is that the grounds for divorce are actually more numerous than just for adultery.

Btw, your characterisation of the "stock non-Catholic response" is a strawman since, to anyone not trying to split hairs, 'adultery' would also include sexual activities such as homosexuallity, bestiality or incest.

Anyway, if we choose to be more pedantic abouit the meaning of porneia - according to all you posted above it refers to sexual immorality of kinds (which is what I posted) and not to 'illegal marriages' as Jester claimed.

As to puffed up. Trying to be smart by presenting and incomplete arguement may be seen by some to be more puffed up than intelligent. The problem with English is that it tends to have singular meanings to words - adultery is specific, fornication is specific, incest is specific - as opposed to other languages like Greek where one word can have many meaning - porneia, sexual immorality covering adulter, fornication, bestiality, incest to name but a few. Using one specific meaning for a foreign word where many meanings exists can lead to much mis-interpretation. If that is done deliberately it qualifies as "puffed up" especially if it is qualified with "Hey, I studied this therefore I know what I am talking about, you can just get back in your box" statements.

Which is why I didn't limit the meaning of porneia to 'adultery' - I used the broader term of 'sexual immorality'.

If we are discussing Bible translations, particularly of the New Testament that was written in Greek, then it is reasonable to discuss the meaning of Greek words.

What is not acceptable is when someone like Jester who has zero knowledge of the language we are discussing adopts an attitude of "I'm right because I know so", parades their dislike of 'intellectualism', and gets personal when questioned as to what their own knowledge of the subject might be.

If we were discussing the translation of a French word, and someone who speaks no French insisted to a fluent French speaker that they are wrong, then it would be reasonable to question their competency to make such a claim. It is also reasonable to do the same with Greek, particularly since the links you tyourself have posted support the point I made - that porneia deals with sexual immorality - not 'illegal marriages'.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

So, it's OK for a person to divorce if their spouse commits adultery, or if their spouse indulges in homosexuality, bestiality, incest and, quite possibly, even worships an idol.

So, what you are saying is that the grounds for divorce are actually more numerous than just for adultery.

Btw, your characterisation of the "stock non-Catholic response" is a strawman since, to anyone not trying to split hairs, 'adultery' would also include sexual activities such as homosexuallity, bestiality or incest.

Anyway, if we choose to be more pedantic abouit the meaning of porneia - according to all you posted above it refers to sexual immorality of kinds (which is what I posted) and not to 'illegal marriages' as Jester claimed.



Which is why I didn't limit the meaning of porneia to 'adultery' - I used the broader term of 'sexual immorality'.

If we are discussing Bible translations, particularly of the New Testament that was written in Greek, then it is reasonable to discuss the meaning of Greek words.

What is not acceptable is when someone like Jester who has zero knowledge of the language we are discussing adopts an attitude of "I'm right because I know so", parades their dislike of 'intellectualism', and gets personal when questioned as to what their own knowledge of the subject might be.

If we were discussing the translation of a French word, and someone who speaks no French insisted to a fluent French speaker that they are wrong, then it would be reasonable to question their competency to make such a claim. It is also reasonable to do the same with Greek, particularly since the links you tyourself have posted support the point I made - that porneia deals with sexual immorality - not 'illegal marriages'.

All this intellectualizing is just glossing over the salient point. As JM said

The issue isn't actually about the meaning of the word porneia. The issue is, are the parties free to remarry after separation in the case of a marriage where one party has been unfaithful and they separate? No they aren't is the answer.

And likewise the issue of the grounds for divorce are neither here nor there if one cannot remarry.

Remarriage after leaving an unlawful marriage is not an issue. What God puts together let no man put assunder. God does not put together incestuous marriages or marriages that contain impediments. If a brother and sister who do not know they are brother and sister get married and their marriage is consecrated by a priest who does not know they are brother and sister, rest assured God knows they are brother and sister and does not recognise it as a valid marraige. Later when the parties come to realise their mistake they separate and are free to marry lawfully because the original marriage was not lawfull from the start and therefore invalid.

Remarriage after leaving a lawful marriage is an issue because there are no grounds presented in the Bible by Jesus or anyone since that allows for remarriage of previously lawfully married persons save the death of a spouse.

If JM or anyone else makes a mistake should you not recognise this, forgive them, and assist in the learning process rather than snap " Where do you learn your Greek?" in a patronizing and condescending manner?

as you said yourself

This is the real danger with producing 'translations' that try to bolster a particular denomination's position rather than faithfully translating the Word of God.

and the faithful translation of the Word of God [regardless of denomination] is that remarriage after divorce from a [lawful] marriage is not allowed.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

All this intellectualizing is just glossing over the salient point. As JM said

That's just another way of saying "Lah. Lah. Lah. I'm walking right by anything that might challenge my preconceptions."

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

"Lah. Lah. Lah. I'm walking right by anything that might challenge my preconceptions."

I always pictured you as being a curly brunette

Fanny Cradock

Do you think of me often?

Festus

You're on my list of people to pray for at Mass

Fanny Cradock

Well thank you.