Binding and Loosing? looking for clarification

[bobzills]

Well, Bob, I’m in the middle of moving and don’t have the time to pick up that book from the library right now.

However. . .what you ‘read’ on CAF you need to show, in context (link to the thread or to wherever you saw it, please).

Furthermore, what you read in that book does not necessarily reflect the accuracy of what the Church teaches.

Now if you could show me in the Catechism, or in Canon Law, or in, say, some authoritative document from the Church that, again, not only were the “Eastern Churches” permitting divorce --and I mean by this not the Petrine or Pauline privilege or but divorce from what was known to be a valid marriage, AND that after this the parties were ‘free to remarry in the church’ --AND that “Rome” not only knew it but approved it, and actually sent documentation to the Eastern Churches confirming the practice. . .

But I do not think you will find anything of the kind.

Even today, while the Church does not ‘accept’ divorce in the sense that a person can divorce a spouse in a valid marriage and go on to remarry somebody else–the Church does understand that for the protection of a spouse and/or children, a civil divorce might not be gravely sinful in such case–BUT the spouse is to live ‘separate’ and not to consider himself/herself as ‘free to marry’.

That is the difference between ‘accepting divorce’ as something which is either morally neutral or even ‘good’, and accepting ‘remarriage’ as perfectly fine–which many of our separated brethren do, along with secular people. . .

and the Church’s position that divorce is a grave evil which only in very specific circumstances can be sought by an innocent party for their and their children’s protection from an abusive spouse, in which while the spouses live ‘separately’ they are still considered legally ‘married’ to each other and may not ‘remarry’ other people after the CIVIL divorce.

I hope I have made things clear?

The Western Church teaches that divorce is wrong, but this has not the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Let me rephrase it differently. When Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunications that were imposed in 1054 against the Orthodox, did he at all mention the practice of the East on the issue of divorce? If there were to be a reunion between East and West, would the East be required to change its teaching on divorce?
And why would you say that this book is not objective in its discussion?

 

[rwoehmke]

The Western Church teaches that divorce is wrong, but this has not the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Let me rephrase it differently. When Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunications that were imposed in 1054 against the Orthodox, did he at all mention the practice of the East on the issue of divorce? If there were to be a reunion between East and West, would the East be required to change its teaching on divorce?
And why would you say that this book is not objective in its discussion?

Removing the excommunications (the eastern Churches had excommunicated the Pope and the Pope had excommunicated them.} was in my opinion a political move to smooth the way for dialogue that it might be hoped would in the future lead to reunification of East and West. The removal had nothing to do with suddenly recognizing every thing Eastern teaching and practice as acceptable. If you have hopes for a change in the Western church’s stance on divorce, I would certainly not recommend you hold your breath.

 

[bobzills]

Removing the excommunications (the eastern Churches had excommunicated the Pope and the Pope had excommunicated them.} was in my opinion a political move to smooth the way for dialogue that it might be hoped would in the future lead to reunification of East and West. The removal had nothing to do with suddenly recognizing every thing Eastern teaching and practice as acceptable. If you have hopes for a change in the Western church’s stance on divorce, I would certainly not recommend you hold your breath.

Actually, it has been argued that a change in the Western teaching on the recognition of a breakup in marriage has already taken place since Vatican II. Just compare the number of marriage annulments handed out in 1930 in the USA (9 per year) with what happened after Vatican II ( recently there were more than 60000 marriage annulments per year). That’s a pretty large increase in the number of marriage annulments.
Anyway, the question is whether the Eastern Orthodox Church had approved of divorces in certain cases, even before 1054.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Annulments (or ‘decree of nullity’ to be precise) are not ‘divorce’.

That there have been more invalid marriages made (right at the beginning, it must be said, as the decree means that there was never a valid marriage to start with, as opposed to divorce which says that somewhere ‘afterward’ the marriage, valid to start, ‘fails’) in the last few decades does not ‘invalidate’ the timeless and unchanging teaching that divorce is wrong.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Actually, it has been argued that a change in the Western teaching on the recognition of a breakup in marriage has already taken place since Vatican II. Just compare the number of marriage annulments handed out in 1930 in the USA (9 per year) with what happened after Vatican II ( recently there were more than 60000 marriage annulments per year). That’s a pretty large increase in the number of marriage annulments. . . .

It may just be a reflection of poor marriage preparation since VII.

Also, many of the declarations of nullity are for those coming into the Church who were married in non-Catholic ceremonies. I think that many current non-Catholic marriages lack a total commitment. The participants often expect to divorce if it doesn’t work out. That expectation would invalidate the marriage.

 

[bobzills]

It may just be a reflection of poor marriage preparation since VII. .

Maybe, but consider the fact that the Church tribunals require that the couple get a civil divorce before applying for the annulment (in the USA).
Annulments are given for what appear to be less than serious reasons.

 

[bobzills]

Annulments (or ‘decree of nullity’ to be precise) are not ‘divorce’.

That there have been more invalid marriages made (right at the beginning, it must be said, as the decree means that there was never a valid marriage to start with, as opposed to divorce which says that somewhere ‘afterward’ the marriage, valid to start, ‘fails’) in the last few decades does not ‘invalidate’ the timeless and unchanging teaching that divorce is wrong.

Why in 1930 in the USA, there were only 9 annulments per year, whereas recently they have been running as high as 60000 per year.

 

[rwoehmke]

Why in 1930 in the USA, there were only 9 annulments per year, whereas recently they have been running as high as 60000 per year.

Consider the changes in sexual mores. Many Catholics after Paul VI encyclical on Human Life decided the Church did not know much about human sexuality and ignored much of the teaching. With such a mindset, the plausibility that the Church doesn’t know much about divorce and remarriage becomes stronger. Hence more divorces among Catholics.

Also before Vatican II, at least in the East and Upper Midwest mixed marriages between Catholic and Protestant were relatively few. Now there are a great many and perhaps the majority that are mixed.

So different mindset, differing ways of understanding the in-dissolubility of marriage, along with a decrease in the numbers of cradle Catholics who see Catholicism as the only true Faith and we reap the whirlwind. That along with a deeper understanding of what it takes in terms of mental/emotional maturity and health to make a valid committment. The Tribunals are left with trying to pick up the pieces of many more split marriages than before.

 

[bobzills]

Consider the changes in sexual mores. Many Catholics after Paul VI encyclical on Human Life decided the Church did not know much about human sexuality and ignored much of the teaching. With such a mindset, the plausibility that the Church doesn’t know much about divorce and remarriage becomes stronger. Hence more divorces among Catholics.

Also before Vatican II, at least in the East and Upper Midwest mixed marriages between Catholic and Protestant were relatively few. Now there are a great many and perhaps the majority that are mixed.

So different mindset, differing ways of understanding the in-dissolubility of marriage, along with a decrease in the numbers of cradle Catholics who see Catholicism as the only true Faith and we reap the whirlwind. That along with a deeper understanding of what it takes in terms of mental/emotional maturity and health to make a valid committment. The Tribunals are left with trying to pick up the pieces of many more split marriages than before.

But if you compare the number of divorces with the number of annulments in the USA you will see that the number of Catholic annulments has incresed hundreds of times more than the increase in the number of divorces. If it were merely a cultural thing, then you would see that divorces and annulments would be increasing are roughly the same rate.

 

[DebChris]

what exactly does that mean to bind and to loose. what do they refer to?
i was never sure what that piece of scripture meant.

Generally speaking, the verse applies to the role of the priest to bind and loose within the Sacrament of Reconciliation

I learned about a different way to look at this verse as it applies to our daily life. When we pray the Our Father, we say “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.”
When we hold the sins of another person against them, when we fail to forgive, we carry that person with us. We bind them to ourself. If we forgive, we release them; we loose them from having control over our life. This loosing, this forgiveness increases our ability to experience the forgiveness of Jesus Christ that we have already received.

 

[NotWorthy]

Has anyone considered that the terms “bind and loose” were already in use in ancient Judaism? Shouldn’t we look at these terms in that context in order to further understand what Jesus meant?

 

[NotWorthy]

“Binding and loosing”, was a term used for the Phariseeic law-making. As a matter of fact, it had gotten out of control by the time of Jesus, with one group of Pharisees making something binding, and then a rival group of Pharisees releasing this.

In regards to the early Church in Scripture exercising this authority, the 4 Noahide Laws that James makes binding on the Gentile Converts is something that immediately comes to mind. This law is lifted, as is evidenced by St. Paul in Galatians.

So, either the Bible contradicts itself, or the early Church had the authority to Bind and Loose.

Head coverings for women in Mass is another example, I would presume.