“The Church (His Bride) is given the authority to bind and loose from Christ himself. (Matt )To protect the truth, to uphold the dignity of the sacrament, and to avoid scandal (confusion, misinformation, wrong teaching) to the rest of the Body, The Church has made the best way clear and lives up to her faithfulness to Christ to keep us safe.All marriages between one man and one woman who exchanged consent (I do) are presumed to be valid including between the baptized (sacramental marriage) or un-baptized (natural marriage) until proved otherwise.Well, what does Jesus say, for that is really all that matters for those who are his disciples. -25), wherein a man and a woman come together for the purpose of lifelong companionship for each other, with the primary purpose of knowing their Father and doing what His Son says. The "coming together" of the man and woman is comprised of two elements.First, the commitment of relationship (lifelong faithfulness) to each other, in the roles God has called each to - husband as the loving guide, wife as the loving supporter (link to The Role of Women Disciples of Jesus).
The Vatican City is an ecclesiastical state, which has no procedure for divorce.
I have recently come to the conclusion that the exception clause in Matthew and 19:9 is not intended to provide a loophole for divorce and remarriage when one of the partners commits adultery.
I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus’s denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark –12 (“And he said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery against him’”) and Luke (“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery”) is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage.
I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.
Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions?
This is usually done by a competent church authority (tribunal/Bishop) but sometimes by the Pope.