D
dvdjs
Guest
Can we settle one thing at a time?That distinction which is brought up is unimportant.
We have discussed this matter before, including a recommendation of Meyerndorff. The fact is that there is nothing in the passage of St. Basil that is contrary to what I wrote in post #94. That is important.
I would rather that we deal with history and fact, rather than have as discussion conditioned on " if we are to hold that what you say is true". The facts are important. Nonetheless, I don’t think that the quoted comment follows immediately from the writings of St. Basil. This has also been discussed in previous threads - with excellent comments by Ghosty. Does pardonable mean that there was no sin of adultery? Under what conditions were the excommunicated received back into communion?The fact that St. Basil deems a marriage obtained outside of the Church by a divorced baptized Christian (if we are to hold that what you say is true) not to be adulterous should already indicate that he held a rather different definition of marriage.
I don’t understand the relevance of the question. I am just trying to get to the facts of the EO developments on divorce. Why value does a comparison to Catholic practice have in answering that question?Is then, the Catholic rejection of civil remarriage (without concern for whether one was wrongfully divorced or abandoned) somehow more faithful to the patristic mindset than the Orthodox allowance for performing a second marriage, given St. Basil’s view on the matter?