So you think the Church condoned things that clearly violate the word of God?When have I ever said they should be a cause for seperation? In fact, I said just the opposite in the ongoing reunification poll-thread.
Iām simply saying that the practice canāt be morally justified, and that it goes against the very clear words of God on the matter.
Peace and God bless!
Well in the Philippines which is mostly Roman Catholic, most of those who separate just separate. No legal action (divorce is not legal but there are legal annulments), no Church annulments. They just part ways and find other partners and just live with those other partners. In a way I would applaud more those who actually get annulments than those who donāt and do what I described. At least they show that they care about recognition of their marriage by the Church, and that they have access to the Eucharist.
The Church as a whole, no. People within the Church, certainly.
Iāve never understood why St. Basil is often used to support the principle of second marriage while the other spouse is still alive.
Got to go to work but here is the canon in question.
That Canon doesnāt say that they new couple can remain together. For example, a following Canon says this:
Does this imply that polygamy is accepted after the penance? In fact, a later Canon, which seems to refer to the whole list, says this:
So the implication seems to be that the foregoing penances assume that the people turn away from the lifestyle that got them into trouble in the first place, and if they donāt turn away they are excommunicated. There doesnāt seem to be any ground for allowing continued adultery in remarriage, for example.
Very true!
St Basil morally justified it to the extent that to would be immoral to not allow it is certain cases. He re-affirmed the practice that had preseeded him with regard to a 2nd marriage and established the economy for a 3rd marriage. To disagree with such a major Church Father on the basis of a private interpretation of scripture is much the same as what Protestants do.
Thanks for providing a broader context of these canons. They really donāt seem to be saying what people commonly allege.He was speaking of remarriage after the death of the spouse, or possibly after divorce because of fornication, not after divorce in general. Furthermore, he doesnāt say that itās ok to marry a second and third time, but rather details the penances attached to such action; he also details the penances attached to murder, so are we to suppose that he allowed for murder? It is just as likely that heās referring to those who have turned away from those marriages, and the penances that remain afterwards.
and this:
These are from St. Basil letters to Bp. Amphilocius of Iconium, and it is from these letters that the aforementioned Canons are drawn. These (and several more pertinant citations that I didnāt have time to type up) can be found in the second volume of Jurgenās āThe Faith of the Early Fathersā.
So, again, apart from adultery there are no grounds for divorce and remarriage.
Interestingly, St. Basil mentions this in his actual letter. He says (copying from the aforementioned Jurgens work):
It seems St. Basil was simply relating the common practice, while acknowledging that it didnāt seem to fit.
But the woman who marries the deserted man is guilty of adultery! You are right, the canons are rather biased against women. In another canon (I forget which one), St. Basil admits that he does not know of a canon which would treat the man as an adulterer. But I think itās obvious that by divine law, the man actually is an adulterer.
It seems odd to me that āSt. Basil admits that he does not know of a canon which would treat the man as an adulterer,ā in light of Mark 10:11-12 (Rheims-Challoner):
Thank you for your response. I think I can follow your logic. Iām just trying to picture how this would work out in pastoral situations.
Of estranged spouses, of course!
).Really? How often do you think married people with children come together (ummm - without the aid of pills
). I canāt speak for your experience, but in my circle of married friends, we men are thankful if we have sex maybe once every two weeks! Please, nobody laugh!
Is it so impossible to imagine a situation where a man and woman - faithful Catholics - try to live by Grace as brother and sister knowing that their marriage is not valid? If they fail, they avail themselves of the mercy of God at confession.
Of estranged spouses, of course!
(jk, though it certainly would clear the path for re-marriage
Absolutely not true! Just like the Roman creed attributed to St Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria was only attributed to him to make it sound orthodox, when in fact he never had anything to do with its writing, so now it seems the Roman practice (unique to Rome alone!) of refusing to commune with those who have been twice married is beginning to be falsely attributed to St Basil. This is nothing less than courting separation for the Church.
Another common problem is to assume that the church was somehow involved in conducts econd marriages. That involvement did not begin for centuries after St Basil. With repentance St. Basil would allow those who had contracted civil marriage after a divorce to return to communion. But there was no such thing as a second marriage ceremony in his church.
ā¦ over the years, down the slippery slope to a practice that is very far removed from that of the fathers.
Dear [user]Ghosty[/user]
Show us some quotes of St. Basil where he makes the allowances you are saying he does, because Iām just not finding them. I even cited the Canon that says that those who donāt turn away from their activities are to be excommunicated.