Message from @Wrath

Discord ID: 602932505103826957


2019-07-22 18:26:33 UTC  

here, have fun

2019-07-22 18:27:02 UTC  

it doesn't matter the translation

2019-07-22 18:27:22 UTC  

(when it comes to this)

2019-07-22 18:28:24 UTC  

Sounds pretty ableist :^)

2019-07-22 18:29:51 UTC  

I'm referring to Luke 16:18 for reference

2019-07-22 18:29:52 UTC  

**Luke 16:18 - Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)**

```Dust


<18> Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. ```

2019-07-22 18:31:59 UTC  

But anyways, I think we all agree that nobody is really in favor of divorce. We just a have a difference in the legitimacy of it.

2019-07-22 18:32:17 UTC  

I disagree with annulment too tbh

2019-07-22 18:32:52 UTC  

Unless the circumstances are dire, like forced marriage and such

2019-07-22 18:33:18 UTC  

I'm not familiar with it, but my Uncle (Catholic) married an Orthodox woman. Their divorce was and still is a shit show

2019-07-22 18:35:06 UTC  

Annulments are usually rarely given for a reason.

2019-07-22 18:35:10 UTC  

I mean, think about it.

2019-07-22 18:35:37 UTC  

The Vatican would rather Henry VIII schism'd from The Church than grant him an annulment.

2019-07-22 18:35:51 UTC  

That was political though

2019-07-22 18:35:52 UTC  

Because the conditions of his marriage didn't meet requirement for an annulment

2019-07-22 18:35:58 UTC  

It's that important.

2019-07-22 18:36:03 UTC  

Bullshit it was politicl

2019-07-22 18:36:18 UTC  

Yoou can argue the HRE as much as you want, the simple fact of the matter was, politics or not:

Henry and Catherine's marriage was valid and there was no case for an annulment.

2019-07-22 18:36:33 UTC  

They gave him how many annulments?

2019-07-22 18:36:39 UTC  

it was also not long after the council in florence which outlawed divorce and remarriage.
which, while uncommon, happened in western europe

2019-07-22 18:38:31 UTC  

Just because a council clarifies and codifies something, doesn't mean it wasn't that before.

2019-07-22 18:38:36 UTC  

any historical source will tell you that it did happen and was allowed by the church, if rarely

2019-07-22 18:38:43 UTC  

ok, but why was it happening

2019-07-22 18:38:47 UTC  

Otherwise why did the councils have to speak out against heresy

2019-07-22 18:38:54 UTC  

Because it was needed at the time

2019-07-22 18:39:04 UTC  

divorce and remarriage?

2019-07-22 18:39:46 UTC  

It obviously needed to be clarified, because even though the bible is pretty clear on it, some people still don't get the message.

2019-07-22 18:39:51 UTC  

church fathers arent exactly unanimous on it either.

2019-07-22 18:40:10 UTC  

lmao the bible is prettt clear on it

2019-07-22 18:40:25 UTC  

which one, the douai rheymes?

2019-07-22 18:40:32 UTC  

or the eternal kjv

2019-07-22 18:40:59 UTC  

The Bible is very clear indeed:

1) Don't put away except for the cause of fornication
2) If you put away your husband/wife, don't remarry, because it is adultery

2019-07-22 18:41:51 UTC  

second point is nowhere near clear

2019-07-22 18:42:21 UTC  

Okay, then prove it. Because as I see it, it reads incredibly clearly.

2019-07-22 18:42:26 UTC  

i never would have thought you can read it that way before i got in touch with the wonderful world of internet zealotry

2019-07-22 18:42:53 UTC  

dasick post scripture

2019-07-22 18:43:04 UTC  

lol prove it, how? that my reading comprehension is above 75%?

2019-07-22 18:43:18 UTC  

How pompous

2019-07-22 18:43:39 UTC  

just show us where you think it's not clear, is it Luke?

2019-07-22 18:46:05 UTC  

matthew 19:9

2019-07-22 18:46:07 UTC  

**Matthew 19:9 - Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)**

```Dust


<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. ```