Say what?! 

Let's just consider the Pauline privilege. Paul explicitly invoked the command of Jesus against divorce before contradicting that command with his privilege. The only way that passage can be understood is that Paul construed the divine prohibition against divorce as applying to Roman pagan marriage. He is very clear that if the pagan spouse is willing to remain in the marriage with the Christian spouse, then the Christian spouse may not divorce. If Paul regarded Jesus prohibition of the marriage as only applying to two Christians getting married (what we centuries later came to call sacramental marriage), then there would be no reason for him to overrule the Lord with his privilege. 

Given current canon law, a spouse in a civil marriage is totally free to divorce, get baptised, and then marry a Christian. Paul presumed otherwise. Our rejection of civil marriage is unPauline 

Binding and loosing has NEVER been construed as you construe it. Come on Trid, your know better.