cc46 - Here is an excerpt from the Commentaries on the Westminster Confession that may more directly answer your question regarding divorce "according to the Scripture and God's will in the matter." In any event, perhaps it will give you more information to think about.

[Note: the number in parenthesis in the text refer to the biblical passages listed in Section 6]


Section 5 of the Confession

ADULTERY or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.(11) In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce,(12) and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.(13)


Section 6 of the Confession

ALTHOUGH the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage;(14) wherein a public an orderly course of proceeding is to be observed, and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.(15)

(8) Lev. 17:; 1 Cor. 5:1; Amos 2:7. (9) Mark 6:18; Lev. 18:24–28. (10) Lev. 20:19–21. (11) Matt. 1:18–20. (12) Matt. 5:31,32. (13) Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2,3. (14) Matt. 19:8,9; 1 Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6. (15) Deut. 24:1–4.

These sections teach the divine law of marriage as to incest and as to divorce.

1. INCEST consists of sexual intercourse between parties forbidden by the divine law to marry, because of their relationship. Marriage between these parties is impossible; and no matter what may be the provisions of human laws or the decisions of human courts, such pretended marriages are void ab initio —invalid in essence as well as improper and injurious. Since the degrees of relationship within which marriage is excluded differ in nearness, so the crime of incest differs, according to these varying degrees, from the highest to the least measure of criminality. The obligation to avoid intermarriage between near blood–relations is a dictate of nature as well as of the Word of God.

The only law on this subject in the Scriptures is the Levitical law recorded in (Lev. 18:6–23; 20:10–21.) If this law is still binding, it carries with it the principle that it is incest for a man to cohabit with any one of his deceased wife relations nearer in blood than it is lawful for him to do of his own. If this law is not binding now, there is no other law of God remaining on the subject of incest except the law of nature.

The Greek and Roman Catholic Churches agree in holding that this law is still binding, since the reason of the law rests upon permanent relationships, and not upon any special circumstances peculiar to society among the Jews.

All branches of the Protestant Church—Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian—have maintained the same principle in their Confessions of Faith or canons of discipline. It is asserted in these sections of our Confession.

2. The divine law as to DIVORCE is, that marriage is a contract for life between one man and one woman, and that it is, ipso facto, dissolved only by death (Rom. 7:2,3); and that the only causes upon which any, civil authority can dissolve the union of those whom God has joined together are (a) adultery, (b) willful, causeless, and incurable desertion.

(1) The only causes upon which it is lawful to grant a divorce are—
(a) adultery; this is explicitly allowed by Christ (Matt. 5:31,32; 19:9); and
(b) willful, causeless, and incurable desertion. This is allowed by Paul to the Christian husband or wife deserted by their heathen partner. 1 Cor. 7:16. The reason in the case is also self–evident, since such desertion, being total and incurable, makes the marriage an empty name, void of all reality; and, being causeless, leaves the deserting party without remaining rights to be defended.

(2) Such causes, however, do not, ipso facto, dissolve the marriage bond, but only give the right to the innocent party, if they so elect, to demand that it shall be dissolved by competent authority. And if they do demand the dissolution, they are not left to their own discretion in the case, but they must seek for the vindication of their rights at the hands of the public authorities and according to the law of the land.

(3) The civil law, however, has no authority to grant divorces upon any other grounds than those above defined as allowed by the law of God. Whenever they do so, as is constantly done in fact, the civil authorities put themselves into direct conflict with the law of God in the case. Hence all Christians and church courts are bound in such cases to disregard the judgment of the civil authority, and to regard and treat such unlawful divorces as null and void. And if the parties to a marriage unrighteously dissolved marry again, they are to be regarded and treated by those who fear God as living in those new marriages in the sin of adultery. (Matt. 19:8,9; Acts 4:19; 5:29

And therein lies the crux of the disagreements. Sola Scriptura, or not. That is what led to the Reformation.

Thank you everyone for their opinion.

It was not my intention to start a debate. In this subject there are always different opinions and points of view. Unfortunately that is also true of Churches, religions, priests etc.

My position on ALL serious questions is always to find out as much as I can before making a decision.

Because the decision is ultimately MINE and I will have to live with it.

In this case, my PERSONAL relationship with God is very important.

The "parish priest" is not an option. This is a small country and THAT FACT means alot. It means for example, that I cannot move from this city because there are no jobs in the rest of the country. Nor could WH.

It means that you might have a parish priest but when he's on holidays there is no one. You who live in countries with many millions cannot imagine the diffrenece it makes when there are so few people. You have to be careful about a lot of things because it is most probable that you will meet the same people in different circumstances again and again.
Our lives are intertwined because we are so few.

Anyway, I thank you all and I will read everything. You never know what will make you have that lightbulb moment! And I'm taking this very seriuosly so I will not make rash decisions.

I couldn't even if I wanted to. My chosen priest is very busy with Holy Week coming up and if he's normally hard to talk to, it's even worse now. On the other hand I don't want to ruin his Holy Week with this problem. There's no need and I have that special week to think about what to do. God will let me know.

Ultimately it IS a personal decision. And I am responsible for MY decisions.

But I thank you all for your help. I didn't know where to start to inform myself and to get the relevant information to be able to solve this desire and need I have of eventually undoing the bond I have with WH.

I will let you all know what happens.

foreverhers..

cc is on a spirtual journey seeking something not even clearly defined at this point...

your conclusion inspite of her journey is to make sure you have the platform to debunk and defile Catholic beliefs..

well done...
in Christlike love at all times...

ARK^^

Post deleted by Cherished

Hey cherished ~ cc46 was asking about a religious divorce. The distinction btween civil and religious was made at the beginning of the thread.

cc46 ~ http://www.nacsdc.org/mainindex.html is a Divorced Catholic support site - they offer to answer questions via email.

I found this little article too, I thought it was beautiful: http://wordbytes.org/family/divorce.htm

And here is a transcript of the late Pope John Paul's address on Marriage:

http://wordbytes.org/family/divorce-pope.htm

Hope these help.

Post deleted by Cherished

Thank you BR. I loved reading John Paul's discussion of marriage. I particularly loved this quote as those who know me might expect...



This is also my belief that underlies my actions and viewpoints here:



Beautiful words, IMO...

Sure they can! I've witnessed my re-married XW and her OM (also previously married and divorced) receive communion! Seen it with my own eyes. (Oh, BTW - they married in a Catholic Church without anullment of OM's prior "Catholic" marriage.)

I fully understand they're not supposed to receive commumion or even be spiritually married. But because they do and they are, they're as much "Catholic" as the next person in the communion line. Stealth Catholics. Oh, I know the "answer" - they'll get theirs on Judgement Day. Just like I will for not buying the "official" dogma. In the meantime they can be successful making a mockery of the institution yet I'm not a hypocrite.

This takes me back to my argument to cc, above. Her relationship with her God is her doing. There's obviously oodles of ways individuals and groups of individuals weigh the "word" - just read the views on this thread alone. This allows adulterers to rationalize their consciences. I believe cc can find her peace on her own without need for official sanction. If she's at peace with her God, how can a guy in a robe know better?

WAT
--------------
Our plumbing is a complicated mess, but it works just as well as it needs to.

ark, with all due respect, you attack in order to "debunk and defile Protestant beliefs" in general and MY beliefs in particular. You make disrespectful judgments and then go on the attack.

Nowhere I am "attacking" Catholic beliefs. I believe some of them are wrong. That is NOT the same thing as attacking. I base my "opinions" upon the Scripture. As was said earlier by a Catholic, the Catholic belief does NOT base it's positions solely upon the Word of God, they "add in" and "take on" the "ways of Man."

AS the selling of indulgences, among other things, was wrong and "opposed" by Martin Luther, so I believe Scripture teaches that the idea of an "unlawful" marriage as the SOLE grounds for a divorce is wrong, and the subsequent "right" to participate in Communion ONLY if the marriage is Annulled, is wrong and contrary to what Scripture teaches. That is NOT an attack. That is telling cc46, or anyone else who is interested, what the "non-Catholic" interpretation (translation) of the Scripture is. It is offered to cc46, not to you or Bramblerose or anyone else. This is cc46's thread. She stated categorically that she considers her marriage to have been "legal" and is NOT interested in a "Church defined" annulment of her valid marriage. She IS looking for understanding as to HOW God can grant her a divorce that IS consistant with God's will.

When someone is on a "spiritual journey" for truth, it must be remembered that there is ONLY one truth for Christians, and we know that truth because it has been revealed by God to us in the Scripture so that we can know what the truth is. "All Scripture is God-breathed [inspired] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV, emphasis added)

And yes, ark, that IS in "Christlike love" for our fellow man and woman, despite your sarcasm. Or perhaps you are advocating that all religions are equally fine with respect to God and the truth, or perhaps that none of them are true but are merely a neat psychological crutch that "helps" the needy.

Regardless, if the Catholic church's position is NOT sufficient for her needs, then my suggestion is to go directly to the Word of God herself and evaluate the various commentaries concerning this issue. Do NOT take FH's word for it. Do NOT take Bramblerose's word for it. Do NOT take Ark's word for it. Do NOT take anyone's word for it when God's Word for it is clearly defined in the Scripture and IS the "definitive word" on the subject.

I understand those who do NOT want the Scripture to be authoritative. Remove the Scripture and ANYTHING "Man" wants to dream up will be sufficient, just as it was with the Pharisees' use of Moses to "justify" any and all divorce.

There ARE things that I also believe the Catholic church has "gotten right," but they are not the subject of this thread. To name just one thing, as an example, the RCC's position AGAINST abortion is one that I agree with and that I believe IS consistant with Scripture.

So why not expend your energy trying to help provide information to cc46 to ponder and digest in her "spiritual journey toward truth," instead of wasting it in a frivolous attack on me?

Post deleted by Cherished

Post deleted by Cherished

Cherished -
It obviously doesn't work.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough - despite all "rules" to the contrary, just like your H and my XW and her OM, people will find a way to rationalize their particular situations and either delude themselves that they're NOT wrong or knowingly be stealth adherants. Official sanctions are useful only for those aware and the ethical.

Conscience is a powerful force. But it works both ways. Coupled with denial, delusion, arrogance, or any other form of unreality, it can result in Hitlers. Coupled with true reality - or true belief as "believers" might argue - one might describe it as God's will. The latter was my suggestion to cc.

WAT

Post deleted by Cherished

I couldn't agree more - if you said "An idea of Church law........"

As is the case with civil laws or personal moral ethics.

I don't follow any Church laws (except by coincidence), yet you might mistake me for a Christian! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Church and civil laws can be successfully violated and go undetected and uncorrected. There are ample examples of both.

In the end, I'll argue, personal conscience is the most reliable enforcer. What is it's source? Personal morals or divine message? Does it matter?

WAT

Post deleted by Cherished

cc-

Not normally one to jump into debates that are destined to do nothing except to polarize...I do feel inclined to say the following:

I am not a Catholic. I do have some issues with various Catholic teachings, but I certainly do recognize Catholicism as patently "Christian". I have never, and still don't, see myself within the confines of a denomination. I am a "Christian". I now attend a Methodist church, but I don't consider myself a Methodist. I formerly attended a Baptist church, but I didn't consider myself a Baptist. I see myself as a Christian.

The point is...

There are some things being posted here that I take strong...very strong...exception to. However, I'm not going to jump into the pit and "threadjack", especially when it's to no avail.

Let me just say this much. Either God is...or He isn't. Whether or not we choose to believe He exists is a moot point.

I refer you back to my earlier post. This is between you and God.

Georgia

Georgia:

Not fair..I want to know what you have to say. There are problems with this conflict avoidance. You have as much right to your opinion as anyone else....You have left me hanging here....

Pooh..Pooh..on you for this...

mimi -

prediction - she's gonna agree with me.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
WAT

WAT:

I love hearing what all of you have to say!!!

I learn so much from all of you!!!

THANKS!!!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />