Development of doctrine?

[Michael Wilson]

If you read the Gospell, the Jews are quizzing Our Lord on the licitude of divorce; Our Lord tells them that Moses only allowed divorce because of the "hardness of their hearts" (fear that husbands would murder their wives), but in the beginning there was no divorce; He then states the law of restored matrimony i.e. No divorce allowed; but one did not have to live under a common roof with a spouse who committed adultery. The apostles then remarked, that if such was the case, then it was better not to marry at all. To which Our Lord replied, those who are able to, should abstain from marriage; for there are eunuchs that are born as such; others that are made eunuchs and finally those who make themselves eunuchs (take a vow of chastity) for the kingdom of Heaven.

[The Theosist]

The argument that I've heard is:
Premise: "Porneia" means "fornication".
Premise: Fornication can only be committed by a person who isn't married. (If he/she is married, then it's adultery. Not fornication.)
Premise: A person who isn't married cannot get divorced, and a person who has never been married cannot get "remarried".
Conclusion: Therefore, Christ's exception for porneia has nothing to do with divorce and remarriage. What He was saying was that if you're currently in a fake marriage then you're allowed to leave your fake spouse in order to get married to somebody else. Hence Catholic annulments.".

This is a linguistically unsound argument based on an incorrect definition of "porneia".

But this is essentially the argument presented on every Catholic apologetics website I'm looking at intended to justify a rejection of Matthew 19 as allowing an exception under which divorce and remarriage is not adultery.

What about porneia meaning the marriage is not valid as it is a sexually immoral union, e.g., incestous?

[Michael Wilson]

Precisely! They (N.O. Church) no longer believe in the Catholic doctrine of the indissolubility of Holy Matrimony. The Church has always held the marriage bond that is valid and consummated, to be a permanent bond "until death do them apart".
All a Catholic has to do to discover the teaching of the Church, is to consult a pre-VII Catechism on the subject:http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Matrimony.shtml

Marriage Is Indissoluble By Divine Law

Not only did God institute marriage; He also, as the Council of Trent declares, rendered it perpetual and indissoluble.' What God hath joined together, says our Lord, let not man separate.

Although it belongs to marriage as a natural contract to be indissoluble, yet its indissolubility arises principally from its nature as a Sacrament, as it is the sacramental character that, in all its natural relations, elevates marriage to the highest perfection. In any event, dissolubility is at once opposed to the proper education of children, and to the other advantages of marriage.
Marriage Is A Sacrament

That Matrimony is a Sacrament the Church, following the authority of the Apostle, has always held to be certain and incontestable. In his Epistle to the Ephesians he writes: Men should love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall adhere to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Now his expression, this is a great sacrament, undoubtedly refers to Matrimony, and must be taken to mean that the union of man and wife, which has God for its Author, is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of that most holy union that binds Christ our Lord to His Church.

That this is the true and proper meaning of the Apostle's words is shown by the ancient holy Fathers who have interpreted them, and by the explanation furnished by the Council of Trent. It is indubitable, therefore, that the Apostle compares the husband to Christ, and the wife to the Church; that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; and that for this very reason the husband should love his wife and the wife love and respect her husband. For Christ loved his church, and gave himself for her; while as the same Apostle teaches, the church is subject to Christ.

That grace is also signified and conferred by this Sacrament, which are two properties that constitute the principal characteristics of each Sacrament, is declared by the Council as follows: By his passion Christ, the Author and Perfecter of the venerable Sacraments, merited for us the grace that perfects the natural love (of husband and wife), confirms their indissoluble union, and sanctifies them. It should, therefore, be shown that by the grace of this Sacrament husband and wife are joined in the bonds of mutual love, cherish affection one towards the other, avoid illicit attachments and passions, and so keep their marriage honourable in all things, . . . and their bed undefiled.
Indissolubility Of Marriage

The self?same testimony of Christ our Lord easily proves that the marriage tie cannot be broken by any sort of divorce. For if by a bill of divorce a woman were freed from the law that binds her to her husband, she might marry another husband without being in the least guilty of adultery. Yet our Lord says clearly: Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery. Hence it is plain that the bond of marriage can be dissolved by death alone, as is confirmed by the Apostle when he says: A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die she is at liberty; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord; and again: 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. To the wife, then, who for a just cause has left her husband, the Apostle offers this alternative: Let her either remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. Nor does holy Church permit husband and wife to separate without weighty reasons.

[Arvinger]

What about porneia meaning the marriage is not valid as it is a sexually immoral union, e.g., incestous?

That is exactly it - porneia is used in New Testament to describe incestuous and homosexual relationships. These relationships cannot be considered marriage by definition. Therefore, we can conclude that "exception clause" in Matthew does not refer to valid marriage which can be dissolved due to porneia, but rather a relationship which was never a marriage to begin with (hence declarations of nullity in the Catholic Church).

Also, treating "exception clause" in Matthew as allowing for dissolution of a valid marriage (as Protestants tragically do) would make Matthew contradictory to Luke and Mark, who record Jesus as saying that marriage cannot be dissolved, period, without any exception clauses.

It is thus clear that Catholic understanding of Our Lord's teaching on marriage is correct, while Protestant reinterpretation is contrary to the Sacred Scripture.

A good article on this issue http://shamelesspopery.com/does-the-bible-permit-divorce-in-the-case-of-adultery/

[Vetus Ordo]

That is exactly it - porneia is used in New Testament to describe incestuous and homosexual relationships. These relationships cannot be considered marriage by definition. Therefore, we can conclude that "exception clause" in Matthew does not refer to valid marriage which can be dissolved due to porneia, but rather a relationship which was never a marriage to begin with (hence declarations of nullity in the Catholic Church).

Porneia is just a general term for sexual immorality.

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (???????), and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. (Matt. 19:9)

Christ is not saying that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for those who don't have a wife because they are not in a real marriage to begin with, commits adultery. That's nonsense.

Also, treating "exception clause" in Matthew as allowing for dissolution of a valid marriage (as Protestants tragically do) would make Matthew contradictory to Luke and Mark, who record Jesus as saying that marriage cannot be dissolved, period, without any exception clauses.

This is no more contradictory than many other instances in the New Testament where you have different descriptions of the same event, such as the diverging genealogies of Christ, the different narratives of the words of institution, the different accounts of the resurrection, etc. These can all be seen as contradictory. Or they can be complementary. It's up to the presuppositions of the person interpreting the texts.

[John Lamb]

I think it helps to look back at the original context. He's addressing men who would casually dismiss their wives and take new ones. He's saying that such men have the hearts of adulterers, unless the wife is guilty of "porneia" (which I recently have read translated as "whorishness"). I don't think He's addressing the issues of the indissolubility of marriage or of divorce or anullment as we've come to understand them today. He's just making them know how spiritually corrupt they are and how they can't hide behind the law to cover it up. "Let no man put asunder what God has joined together", however you interpret that legally / canonically, the clear spiritual import is that marriage is a divine institution and men don't have the right to casually break it on a whim.

[Daniel]

Christ is not saying that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for those who don't have a wife because they are not in a real marriage to begin with, commits adultery. That's nonsense.

Well I don't know how it would read in the original Aramaic, but in English we sometimes talk that way.

It's not like saying "I have never met the bachelor's wife". But, it's more like saying "what if the pope is not the pope".

In this case, the word "wife", which strictly refers only to a true wife, is applied in a less strict manner to a merely putative wife. Or, that's how I talk anyway. I don't personally investigate every putative marriage I come across. If some man lives with a woman as if married, and if he claims that the two of them are married to one another, and if I don't suspect him to be lying or the marriage to be invalid, I usually just refer to the woman as his "wife". It's quite possible that a majority of such putative marriages these days are actually invalid, but I don't have the resources to sort it all out.

[Arvinger]

Christ is not saying that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for those who don't have a wife because they are not in a real marriage to begin with, commits adultery. That's nonsense.

Christ is saying that illegitimate unions can be dissolved, which plainly stems from the use od porneia in New Testament. Going with general meaning prooves too much for the Protestant interpretation, i.e. that valid marriage can be dissolved upon all sorts of sexual immorality, not just adultery.

This is no more contradictory than many other instances in the New Testament where you have different descriptions of the same event, such as the diverging genealogies of Christ, the different narratives of the words of institution, the different accounts of the resurrection, etc. These can all be seen as contradictory. Or they can be complementary. It's up to the presuppositions of the person interpreting the texts.

No, you are comparing apples to oranges. Different descriptions of places or events can include different details and be complementary. That is not the case with rules and laws, since it makes them contradictory.

Say, you have two decrees, both of equal status in law. One says "you always have to pay 15% income tax". The other says the same, but adds "unless you earn less than 30.000 dollars per year". That is not complementary, that is contradictory.  According to the first decree a person earning 28.000 dollars has to pay the tax, according to the second he does not.

[The Theosist]

Christ is not saying that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for those who don't have a wife because they are not in a real marriage to begin with, commits adultery. That's nonsense.

Christ is saying that illegitimate unions can be dissolved, which plainly stems from the use od porneia in New Testament. Going with general meaning prooves too much for the Protestant interpretation, i.e. that valid marriage can be dissolved upon all sorts of sexual immorality, not just adultery.

This is no more contradictory than many other instances in the New Testament where you have different descriptions of the same event, such as the diverging genealogies of Christ, the different narratives of the words of institution, the different accounts of the resurrection, etc. These can all be seen as contradictory. Or they can be complementary. It's up to the presuppositions of the person interpreting the texts.

No, you are comparing apples to oranges. Different descriptions of places or events can include different details and be complementary. That is not the case with rules and laws, since it makes them contradictory.

Say, you have two decrees, both of equal status in law. One says "you always have to pay 15% income tax". The other says the same, but adds "unless you earn less than 30.000 dollars per year". That is not complementary, that is contradictory.  According to the first decree a person earning 28.000 dollars has to pay the tax, according to the second he does not.

Note how you snuck in the word "always". Anyhow, these are not codifications of law; they are relations of sayings of Jesus in a narrative context, which rarely agree word-for-word, and I could simply retort that Matthew, the only purportable eye-witness among them, is relating a fuller account of the same saying.

[Michael Wilson]

The Church has always interpreted this passage in Matt. As prohibiting divorce and re-marriage; the "exemption" clause, is the permission to put away an unfaithful spouse. If Our Lord was giving permission to divorce, the rest of the passage where he states that if one marry the wife that has been put away for fornication also commits adultery; which would not be the case if the marriage could be annulled for this cause. 

[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.
Commentary:
[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.

[The Theosist]

The Church has always interpreted this passage in Matt. As prohibiting divorce and re-marriage; the "exemption" clause, is the permission to put away an unfaithful spouse. If Our Lord was giving permission to divorce, the rest of the passage where he states that if one marry the wife that has been put away for fornication also commits adultery; which would not be the case if the marriage could be annulled for this cause. 

[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.
Commentary:
[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.

It makes perfect sense. The adultery in the second part relates to the first part, to which the exception applies. He doesn't need to repeat the exception in the second part for it to retain that sense. This is just not a solid argument.

[Michael Wilson]

If divorce were permitted for adultery, then both the innocent and guilty spouse would be free to marry; and yet in the passage Our Lord tells us that if one were to marry a wife that has been put away, they commit adultery. Therefore the woman is still married and so is her husband.

[The Theosist]

If divorce were permitted for adultery, then both the innocent and guilty spouse would be free to marry; and yet in the passage Our Lord tells us that if one were to marry a wife that has been put away, they commit adultery. Therefore the woman is still married and so is her husband.

No, it's not at all clear he does. You are insisting on a reading of the passage that omits for the second clause the exception established in the first clause. You're implying that if there were such an exception, the second clause would have to also read, " and he that shall marry her that is put away, except it be for porneia,  committeth adultery." But nobody speaks like this; it would be unnatural, and your reading is unnatural.

But your reading doesn't make sense anyway. It renders the words "except for ... committed adultery" nonsensical. Under Catholic doctrine any still married man who marries another, without exception, commits adultery. And one who puts away a faithful spouse doesn't by the act of putting her away commit adultery. What on earth is the exception excepting? Giving permission to put away an unfaithful spouse? Where on earth does it say that? One who puts away his wife for adultery and marries another commits adultery. One who puts away his wife for any other reason and marries another commits adultery. So what on earth does "except for" mean there?

But note how this same logic would apply to and contradict the porneia as illegitimate marriage reading, so Arvinger's reading is irreconcilable with Michael's. I think the former makes more sense for defending Catholic doctrine.

[Michael Wilson]

Theosist,
the whole passage develops from the question by the Jews if it is lawful to put away one's wife for any cause?
Its a trick question, because they know that Moses gave the Jews permission to divorce their wives; they are aware that our Lord has condemned divorce and they are trying to catch him in his words. Our Lord's response is clear:

[4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

What could be clearer? Our Lord tells the Jews straight out that men cannot undo what God has done. There is no exceptions. So in your "clearer" interpretation, Our Lord will now "backtrack" and tell the Jews, "ah yes what God has joined together men can put asunder, if the wife is unfaithful"
The Catholic Church has always held that a valid and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved for any reason and she justifies her position on this and the other parallel passages in S.S. Where our Lord tells it like it is.