Combox for:
Biblical Evidence For the Sacrament of Matrimony
[12 May 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ment-
of_12.html
These comments from Dave tie in nicely to what Pope Benedict has recently said on Humanae Vitae on issues such as the degredation of sex outside of the bounds of marriage and so on.
___________________
R.E. Aguirre
- regulafide@blogspot.com
Dave,
That's a good summary gathering together all the relevant verses for marriage.
You have the verses for truth and being Biblical and right; now provide some argument that it is a sacrament in the same way that baptism and the Lord's supper are.
But what makes it a sacrament?
Does not God the Father and Jesus honor all marriages in all cultures? (Genesis 1, 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10 )
Does it not go back to a creation ordinance rather than a sacrament of the church?
Otherwise, cannot converts who come from pagan or another religion argue that, "Since my marriage was not a Christian marriage ( for example, a Buddhist or Islamic wedding and marriage); then God did not put it together, because we were not Christians at that time; therefore it is null and void as a real marriage; therefore I don't have to seek to reconcile with my ex-wife (they are now divorced) and so I am now free to remarry; and this time a Christian woman in the church. ??
This is how some people have tried to argue against me and other church leaders when we tried to encourage them to reconcile with their wives. (They got divorced before becoming Christians, then they came to Christ, and then we were trying to encourage them to get back together.)
I understand that John 2 is supposed to make it sacramental, but do all cultures who have marriage make it all valid ? (and they all seem to; in various forms, even pagans and polygamy); are they not based on creation and all valid?
Seems so according to Jesus basing it on creation in Genesis 2. (Matthew 19 and mark 10)
Some of the verses are about priests, who had special laws for them, like the Ezekiel 44:22 passage -- seems like you should include a comment on the context of those verses that are not universal but were for Jewish Levitical priests only. (Ezekiel 44:15 ff)
It's a physical means to obtain grace. It helps one become closer to God because each is called to his state in life: either married or celibate in order to "marry" God.
Does not God the Father and Jesus honor all marriages in all cultures? (Genesis 1, 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10 )
Indeed. That's why we regard Protestant marriages as sacramental. I'm not sure about non-Christian marriages. I'd have to check that.
Does it not go back to a creation ordinance rather than a sacrament of the church?
To some extent, but Jesus made the requirements more strict, and took out the divorce that the existing rabbinic schools allowed, and introduced indissolubility, that now is held pretty much by the Catholic Church alone.
You raise many other good points. I'll try to get to them, as I am busy with some things right now, and behind. I'm sure others can and will comment too.
Arguably, Paul calls marriage a sacrament in Eph 5:32 ("mystery" = Latin, sacramentum). If marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church, then it gives grace just as the relationship with God does. The oneness in marriage, and procreation, mirror the oneness of the Trinity and creation.
Where does it say that marriage "gives grace"?
Do pagan marriages and Muslim marriages "give grace"?
Does that grace save or lead to salvation?
Using the Latin translation to get the meaning of the Greek word, musterion is anachronistic and eisegesis; so that is wrong.
Where is baptism and the Lord's supper also described as a "mystery"? Seems that in order to establish mystery and sacrament with those 2 clear ones of the Lord's words, the word musterion must be used in reference to baptism and the Lord's supper also. Where is it?
Why would the word "mystery" necessarily have to be used? It is enough that Our Lord commissioned the practice and that His apostles passed it down to posterity. I trust the Apostles to remember (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) what they were taught by the Incarnate God.
It is enough that Our Lord commissioned the practice and that His apostles passed it down to posterity. I trust the Apostles to remember (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) what they were taught by the Incarnate God.
Yes, it is enough for the Protestant position; but it is not enough for your RCC position; because the entire subject of sacraments is based on the Latin word in the Ephesians 5 passage and it is about marriage, which is a creation ordiance/institution among all nations from beginning of time. (Genesis 2)
It's not all based on one word. That is your fallacy. It's based on the overall picture and development of doctrine. I've given more than enough biblical evidence for all these sacraments. I didn't expect you as a Protestant apologist to accept it. But it is valid, nonetheless, and others can be persuaded by this information.
Hi Ken, having been married for 25 years, I have certainly seen my marriage as a channel for grace for me. It is a sacrament not only because marriage symbolizes the union between Christ and His Church, but it is a sacrament because it provides a special means to obtain grace by allowing us to participate in that union through the sharing of ourselves with each other and through our children. We come closer to Christ through the life we share with each other.
You asked whether non-Christian marriages would be considered a sacrament. As I understand it, they would not be considered so because such a ritual does not confer grace either in conjunction with it (what you would call an ordinance or we would call a sacramental) or through it (which is what makes a sacament and not something else). That is why we would recognize the validity of a Protestant marriage and not a Buddhist one if the people were to try to get married to someone in the Church especially if both parties' baptisms were something that we would recognize as valid. As you stated, you look upon marriage as an "ordinance" which I understand recognizes that a person receives grace in conjunction with their marriage to the extent of their devotion to it.
Good thoughts, Paul -- thanks for your comments.
So, do two Buddhists (a husband and wife) who convert to RC need to be married again in the RC church?
Hi Ken, You are welcome!
You asked, "So, do two Buddhists (a husband and wife) who convert to RC need to be married again in the RC church?"
No, but they would need to have it convalidated. I am not a canon lawyer so I can't give advice on how this is done, but I understand that there is a process that Pope John Paul II set up in the 1980's that makes it easier for the formerly non-Christian married couples to get their marriages recognized to be valid. It is not the wedding that makes it a sacrament, it is the relationship. The wedding is merely an outward public sign of what the couple share in their hearts.
Paul,
that would seem to cause lots of confusion for people on their original marriage.
What if a Muslim comes to faith in Christ, but before his faith, he married and divorced?
He can claim, "the marriage was not real, since we were both Muslims, so now I am free to remarry"
- rather than working to reconcile that marriage.
Several have actually made that case with me and they quoted Matthew 19 and said, "The true God of the bible did not put our marriage together; therefore it was not valid", etc.
Amazing how many practical issues require a Roman Catholic canon lawyer. Where is that stuff in the bible? and how does the RCC practice "canon law" in the face of secular, US law when there is a conflict?
One of Rod Bennett's arguments against Protestantism in his "Asking the Right Questions" at his blog; is on the "practical" issue of marriage and divorce. He makes the case that the RC view is easier because it is unified, but in Evangelicalism, there are different views on divorce and remarriage, etc. the sheep need to know what to do; etc.
seems to me the "canon law" stuff makes it all more complicated.
I will give the URL to Rod's article on the next post.
Rod Bennett's argument against Evangelical Protestantism, "Asking the Right Questions"
Scroll down to March 13, it is in 3 Parts
http://
rodbennettblog.blogspot.c...01_archive.html
It appears he won't allow my comments on it. (he has a function "upon approval of the blog master", etc.) I sent other ones on Chesterton's America, and they were allowed; but my comment on "Asking the Right Questions" was not yet allowed; but others have been since on different topic.
So, I will post a simple question here,
How do you know that you are asking the right questions?
Hi Ken, the RC system is unified. The questions that you are posing are handled routinely through a diocesan office which is staffed with knowledgeable people who do know the answer. We also have a canon law that spells things like this out. Please don't project my ignorance into an indictment of the views of the Catholic Church when it comes to marriage.
That being said, it appears that you have a misapprehension of what canon law is about. From Dr. Peter's website (http://www.canonlaw.info/) one may find this:
"Canon Law, the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the western world, is the internal legal system of the Catholic Church. It affects virtually every aspect of the faith life of some one billion Catholic Christians throughout the world. But, as Pope John Paul II explained when he signed the 1983 Code into law, canon law "is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy love, grace, and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it." See ap. con. Sacrae disciplinae leges, para.16."
Reviewing the 1983 canon law, it appears that Canons 1143-1146 specifically addresses your issue. 1143 expressly provides that the marriage in your example is dissolved by Pauline privilege if the nonbaptized person departed from it. 1146 then addresses when a baptized person can remarry. If the baptized person and the non-Christian continue to live together a husband and wife after baptism then their marriage is still valid as I read 1144 and 1145. (disclaimer-I am not a canon lawyer and this comment is not the rendering of professional advice-I had to say this to keep from running afoul of my state's canons of ethics.)
I hope that helps.
1143 expressly provides that the marriage in your example is dissolved by Pauline privilege if the nonbaptized person departed from it.
Thanks Paul,
That's pretty much the same principle that Evangelicals follow, per I Cor. 7:15, "If the unbeliever leaves, let him. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."
This is practically the same thing; except calling it a valid, Biblical divorce.
In this case, the Scriptures were clear enough for guidance.
Interesting.
Commenting by HaloScan
