Did the East deviate from the fathers on remarriage?

[SemperFidelis]

Ah, yes because your one short sentence on it on page one really did the trick. Since Rome has the Primacy, I’ll stick with them.

Two short sentences, excuse me.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So I guess the street’s one way for you then? The Orthodox can abuse divorce, but God forbid that the “Latins” do it with annulments.

I condemn both. I don’t think of the Orthodox position on recognition of divorce as a “selling point,” and wouldn’t think of bringing it up when giving a description or defense of the

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…

the example I gave stated that the couple’s thoughts on the matter are irrelevant.

In the Latin “anulment” they are all important: they look to see why they aren’t married, ie. why the civil divorce is correct.

If it walks like a divorce and talks like a divorce (and stinks like a divorce)…

Not that it matters to you, because you wouldn’t recognize it, try reading the parts of Trent that discuss the indissolubility of marriage.

So this is when all the anullment stuff dates from? All the way back to Trent? Almost a thousand years after Quinsext?

Ah, yes because your one short sentence on it on page one really did the trick.

That’s all that was required.

Since Rome has the Primacy,

sure does, just ask him

I’ll stick with them.

Can you produce an exegesis on these verses that supports the anullment scheme, that has some claim on antiquity?

And some explanation how our Lord missed this in Matthew?

 

[SemperFidelis]

So says the Lord.

I didn’t know you had the authority of the Lord to say such things for him. In reality: so says you.

So they can read them with crystal clarity decades later.

I guess you’ve never heard of hindsight being 20/20…

Perhaps the best way to stop is not to start.

I could say the same thing about the Orthodox.

I’ve always found it odd to decide a church based on what it says is bad things (the Latin church does say anullments are bad, like the Orthodox say divorce is bad, nay evil, no?)

Well, in my quest to find the one, true, Church, I found it quite problematic that once upon a time, the East allowed divorce only due to adultery, and now you can get a divorce for whatever reason. THIS IS THE OFFICIAL STANCE OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. This in no way compares to the “liberalization” of annulments granted by the Catholic Church today. The West doesn’t even recognize the Council in Trullo as Ecumenical, so the fact that that Council deviated from the Early Church Fathers (which it did with the exception of St. Basil) is of no consequence to the West, but it most certaintly is to the East since they’re the ones who deviated. That sounds like a problem to me.

Not anymore. We’re in non-Catholic territory now.

Yes, but a territory that is nonetheless aimed at discussing issues between Catholics and non-Catholics since it falls under a Catholic forum. This forum wasn’t designed so you could be left to your own devices.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I condemn both. I don’t think of the Orthodox position on recognition of divorce as a “selling point,” and wouldn’t think of bringing it up when giving a description or defense of the

Fair enough…

If it walks like a divorce and talks like a divorce (and stinks like a divorce)…

While I don’t think it walks like a divorce or talks like a divorce, so I guess the Catholic Church is in the clear.

So this is when all the anullment stuff dates from? All the way back to Trent? Almost a thousand years after Quinsext?

No, that’s the first Dogmatic pronouncement. Read these:

The Council of Elvira (300 A.D.) - Canon IX

The Council of Arles (314 A.D.)

The Second Council of Mileve (416 A.D.) - Canon XVII.

The Council of Hereford (673 A.D.) - Canon X.

The Council of Fruili - (791 A.D.) - Canon X.

 

[Woodstock]

Isa,

I outlined how I believe the Orthodox model is not consistent with itself. Can we please work only within the Orthodox tradition, with no references to the Latin model, to discuss how divorce and remarriage is consistent or inconsistent with the Orthodox faith?

 

[Alexius]

Sorry, I was trying to put the topic to sleep…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Sorry, I was trying to put the topic to sleep…

How about beat it to death?

 

[Woodstock]

How about beat it to death?

You haven’t even addressed it once and I’ve only posted twice. Either way, you are Orthodox. Marriage exists after death.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Fair enough…

While I don’t think it walks like a divorce or talks like a divorce, so I guess the Catholic Church is in the clear.

Denial always works so well.

No, that’s the first Dogmatic pronouncement. Read these:

OK

The Council of Elvira (300 A.D.) - Canon IX

1.   If a Christian completes penance for a sexual offense and then again commits fornication, he or she may not receive communion even when death approaches.

[Enforced?]

1.   Women who without acceptable cause leave their husbands and join another man may not receive communion even when death approaches.

[Enforced, against the woman that is? Cf. St. Basil]

1.   A baptized woman who leaves an adulterous husband who has been baptized, for another man, may not marry him.  If she does, she may not receive communion until her former husband dies, unless she is seriously ill.

[Sooo the man is in the clear I see. Doesn’t say anything about a man leaving an adulterous woman. Doesn’t say if her former husband dies, she can marry the other man, current Latin practice].

1. If an unbaptized woman marries another man after being deserted by her husband who was a catechumen, she may still be baptized.  This is also true for female catechumens.  If a Christian woman marries a man in the knowledge that he deserted his former wife without cause, she may receive communion only at the time of her death.

[Nothing again about the man].

1. If a female catechumen marries a man in the knowledge that he deserted his former wife without cause, she may not be baptized for five years unless she becomes seriously ill.

[Ditto]

1. Christian girls are not to marry pagans, no matter how few eligible men there are, for such marriages lead to adultery of the soul.

[Hmmm. Present Latin canon allows this, with proper dispensation, of course]

1. Heretics shall not be joined in marriage with Catholic girls unless they accept the Catholic faith.  Catholic girls may not marry Jews or heretics, because they cannot find a unity when the faithful and the unfaithful are joined.  Parents who allow this to happen shall not commune for five years.

1. If people fall from the Catholic church into heresy and then return, let them not be denied penance, since they have acknowledged their sin.  Let them be given communion after ten years' penance.  If children have been led into heresy, it is not their own fault, and they should be received back immediately.

[Present Latin practice is simple confession, no?]

cont…*

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1. Those who sinned sexually as youth may not be ordained as subdeacons. This will guard against their being promoted to higher offices later on. If they have already been ordained, they shall be removed from their office.

[No comment]

1. Young men who have been baptized and then are involved in sexual immorality may be admitted to communion when they marry if they have fulfilled the required penance.

2. Anyone who has fallen into mortal ruin because of sin must seek penance from the bishop and not a presbyter.  In extreme illness a presbyter may offer communion or may direct a deacon to do so.

3. Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children.  If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.

[You will be removing all those married priests, no? I mean those in the East, and under the pastoral provision. Then again, isnt’ the instruments of union and the pastoral provisions violating this canon? ]

1. Candles are not to be burned in a cemetery during the day.  This practice is related to paganism and is harmful to Christians.  Those who do this are to be denied the communion of the church.

[See this all the time now. Are they excommunicated?]

1. Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.

[Guess that voided the Seventh Ecumenical Council]

1. If a baptized married man commits adultery repeatedly, he is to be asked as he nears death whether or not he will reform should he recover.  If he so promises, he may receive communion.  If he recovers and commits adultery again, he may not commune again, even as death approaches.

[Ah, at last something that deals with mans adultery, but it has to be repeatedly].

1. If any cleric or layperson eats with Jews, he or she shall be kept from communion as a way of correction.

[So JP II the Great should have died in excommunication].

1. If a baptized person has come from heresy, he must not become a cleric.  One who has already been ordained is to be removed from office immediately.

[All those priests under the pastoral provision, and ordinary converts have got to go]

1. A man who, after his wife's death, marries her baptized sister may not commune for five years unless illness requires that reconciliation be offered sooner.

[Under present Latin practice, he can marry the sister as soon as she breathes her last, proper dispensation obtained, if needed].

1. If a cleric knows of his wife's adultery and continues to live with her, he shall not receive communion even before death in order not to let it appear that one who is to exemplify a good life has condoned sin.

[Enforced?]

1. A married person who commits adultery once may be reconciled after five years' penance unless illness necessitates an earlier reconciliation.

[Enforced?]

1. A husband who knows of his wife's adultery and who remains with her may not commune even prior to death.  If he lived with his wife for a period of time after her adultery and then left her, he may not commune for ten years.

[Soo, what’s he gonna do? I guess the male exception under canon 9 comes into play].

1. Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1. If a widow has intercourse and then marries the man, she may only commune after five years' penance.  If she marries another man instead, she is excluded from communion even at the time of death. If the man she marries is a Christian, she may not receive communion until completing ten years' penance, unless illness makes earlier communion advisable.

[What’s the problem. First husband’s dead. I like how the penalty is twice if the man is Christian. In favor of the Faith?]

1. Those who are false witnesses commit a crime and are to be excluded. If their action did not bring about death, and they explain the reasons for their testimony, they shall be excluded for two years.  If their explanation is not accepted by the assembled clergy, they are excluded for five years.

1. If a Christian confesses adultery with a Jewish or pagan woman, he is denied communion for some time.  If his sin is exposed by someone else, he must complete five years' penance before receiving the Sunday communion.

[Enforced?]

1. A woman may not write to other lay Christians without her husband's consent.  A woman may not receive letters of friendship addressed to her only and not to her husband as well.

[Enforced]

I’m afraid space and now time constraints (school starts today, I have responsibilties towards my sons, etc, so I won’t be able to post as much for a while) I don’t think I’ll be able to go through the rest of your canons. I don’t think the result would be much different: context is the key.*

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I won’t be able to answer at length. My time as I said is short, and I wasn’t able to answer this when I first saw it.

The West believes that marriage is contractual between the parties and the bride and groom are the ministers of the sacrament. The Church requires witnesses from the Church to safeguard and protect the sacrament and the people from abuse, not for validity.

I know of witnesses who knew of impediments of invalidity when they witnessed the wedding. So much for protection.

The West also has a concept of validity and licitity. Something that is valid meets the most primitive requirements while something that is licit also meets the conventional governing rules.

We have no such concept.

A contractual understanding of marriage means a presumably valid contract might not have met the validity requirements and if that is later discovered, the contract is null and void and neither party is bound to it. Canon law presumes validity unless determined otherwise and recognizes that there are putitive marriages which are presumed valid but in unknown actuality invalid. In this set-up, if the contract is valid and the wedding is licit and the marriage sacramental, then there can be no breaking it.

So there are those walking around in non-sacramental marriages who don’t know it. For us this is an oxymoron.

The Eastern concept of marriage is more top-down. When the proper priest presides in the proper church with the proper ceremony then the wedding is valid before God and therefore eternal. The emphasis is not on the couple, but on the wedding’s validity. They must adhere to what they know and what has been passed down. It is possible to invalidate an Orthodox wedding with an annulment, like for consanguinity, but less likely. With this definity, there is no process in place to recognize an end to a marriage which was done with the correct legalities and the Orthodox continue to recognize its validity even after death.

I’ll add, that the marriage doesn’t have to be consumated to be valid. Once the priest places their hands together, that’s it.

At the same time, the East has a concept of law and economy. Anything done short of the law is not known to fulfill the law and they hope that the Lord will take mercy and make up for any deficiencies they are unable to address themselves, but it is not guaranteed. The East can apply this concept to any law, including marital laws, if they feel the parties were unable to do better and are seeking through some sub-standard way to do the will of God. They can say that it doesn’t meet the legal criteria, but they hope that God will make up the remainder and accept what they are doing. It’s got to be better for them to be seeking to do God’s will, even if they fall short, than not seeking it at all, right? And so they now accept divorce and remarriage with economy, as well as the marriages of converts, hoping God will have mercy and supply an overabundance of faith.

The now part is the problem: the praxis is ancient.

Both East and West are legalistic and both purpose to address when sinners fall short, as we inevitably will.

Always a problem, as Christianity is not legalistic.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I can understand the compassion of the Latin approach within its system. The contract you entered into didn’t work like it was supposed to, so they say, “well, let’s make sure the contract was valid first.” If it was, they say that there is nothing more they can do in that regard as God sees the person as married and offer social services to help the person best fulfill the will of God through the current circumstances.

I don’t understand the Orthodox response, though. The entire premise is that one must stay within the bounds of what is known and what has been handed on. It is my query how Orthodox priests can apply economy with good faith, hoping the Lord will accept a second or third remarriage, when the early church fathers were clear about that not being an option.

As St. Basil, and the other Fathers in the Pedalion show, that option was taken. It is the abuse today that is the problem.

I do not understand how they can justify teaching that it is an option or regularly performing second and third marriages knowing that it is not within the bounds of the faith that was passed on to them.

Even the hard core Athonites saw it as the bounds of the faith as passed on to them. Hence why the issue is treated as it is, the Orthodox praxis, in the Pedalion.

To perform a second marriage under these circumstances has zero certainty of finding favor with the Lord, questionably rests on mercy and grace, and goes against what has been passed down to them as being God’s will. Instead of calling people to do what God wills for them, it puts a stamp of approval on what is known to be contrary to God’s will and encourages people to strive for nothing more. It is only social convention which overrides to embarrass a person into not taking advantage of the leniency of the Church.

If you are claiming that they cannot for grounds (i.e. adultery), then you are clearly wrong, based on the Fathers.

If you mean the abuses today, I’m not going to defend that, except that it’s honest.

The Pauline and Petrine Privileges can be contrasted with that because the purpose is to move someone out of a non-Christian and non-sacramental (not recognized by God) marriage into a sacramental Christian marriage which will be bringing the person closer to the Lord with certainty under the Latin model.

The Pauline and Petrine privileges dissolve, not invalidate, a marriage, as the impedient has to be removed beforehand. Otherwise it’s an ipso facto prima facie anulment.

Under the Orthodox model, a second or third marriage is known to be taking a person away from God and a determination is made to overlook this, supposedly in favor of his ultimate salvation. It isn’t going to get him back to his wife or fully living his vows, so I don’t understand how, outside of death of a spouse, this can be reasonably, much less casually, recommended or allowed.

And a succession of anullments (and it does happen) is a better model?

 

[SemperFidelis]

I’m afraid space and now time constraints (school starts today, I have responsibilties towards my sons, etc, so I won’t be able to post as much for a while) I don’t think I’ll be able to go through the rest of your canons. I don’t think the result would be much different: context is the key.

Your above posts just prove my point that an Orthodox can only defend their untenable position on divorce by trying to point to “flaws” in the way the “Latins” do things. I never once said all the above canons are infallible canons from an Ecumenical Council. I just posted them to show where the Catholic Church gets its theology from regarding marriage and divorce, and its Dogma regarding the indissolubility of marriage. As soon as your church starts applying and practicing all its canons, maybe then we can talk. It just goes to show it’s a one way street for ya’ll. Now, can you successfully defend the Orthodox position or not, because so far you haven’t done anything but try and point out what you perceive to be flaws in the Western ideas on divorce? This is after all the non-Catholic forum right? Do St. Basil’s canons, which weren’t accepted by the West as ecumenical, contradict the position of the rest of the Early Church Fathers on divorce? And is Orthodox divorce, as currently practiced, contradictory to those canons?

 

[Woodstock]

The Pauline and Petrine privileges dissolve, not invalidate, a marriage, as the impedient has to be removed beforehand. Otherwise it’s an ipso facto prima facie anulment.

And a succession of anullments (and it does happen) is a better model?

What I argued was not that the Latin model is right or wrong, better or worse, but that it is consistent. It is consistent within itself to say a valid sacramental wedding may not be dissolved and to allow the dissolution of non-sacramental weddings in favor of entering into sacramental weddings. I further argued that the Orthodox model is inconsistent within itself.

I know of an Orthodox couple where she was married, had a child, and divorced after growing apart. She was emotionally and financially fine. She soon started dating and fell in love with another guy. Their priest, who is known to be conservative, was joyous and quickly said her previous marriage posed no problem to a subsequent one. He told her they’d even do the non-penitential first wedding service out of respect for the groom’s first marriage and told her she “only” had one more try after this so she should do what she can to make it work. The take-home message was that an Orthodox person has three strikes before they are out and she was on her second try.

However, he would not marry them during Advent as they wished and would not consider marrying them outside of an Orthodox church building. He said he was not able to because it was outside of the bounds of the faith that has been handed on to him.

This is not internally consistent. That same faith doesn’t say grow bored of your husband and ditch him for another guy who makes you feel better, either, but the Orthodox Church supported her doing that and called it economy. He could apply economy when it meant divorcing and remarrying and the subsequent pain it would cause many, including a child, but he couldn’t apply it for smaller liturgical matters like what date they could marry.

I understand that this is one couple and one priest, but this is how I understand the Orthodox model to play out. The only thing which would stop this from happening is social pressure to remain married. How is it internally consistent to say a marriage must follow these rules (proper church, proper priest, proper ceremony) to be recognized under the law and nothing else may suffice, and if they are recognized then they are eternal, and to also say that the requirement to marry only once may be set aside up to three times with economy?

How is it consistent to have teachings strongly discouraging widowers from remarrying and only tolerating it if they are unable to control themselves otherwise, and to tell people who divorce that they have two more tries?

How is it consistent to say that a proper marriage is eternal and to also allow widowers or abandoned spouses or divorcees to remarry?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa,

I outlined how I believe the Orthodox model is not consistent with itself. Can we please work only within the Orthodox tradition, with no references to the Latin model, to discuss how divorce and remarriage is consistent or inconsistent with the Orthodox faith?

This will have to be all too brief. Hopefully one day I will be able to return to it, or better, it won’t be necessary.

As you pointed out the principle of economy/strictness is involved in the Church’s governance/regulation of the Holy Mysteries.

Divorce is an issue regarding marrige, but remarriage is the providence of confession/reconciliation/penance.

No matter what the cause of seperation, the priest is bound to try to try to reconcile the couple (this goes against the canons on the books which demand a man put away his adulterous wife, but the context in which the canons were written is not that of today, e.g. the sex saturation, internet, etc.-the society of the Fathers had a lot of brakes on occasions for sin). This is consitent with the essence of the Holy Mystery in Christ reconciling Himself with the sinners of the Church.

If this is not possible, and the marriage is as empty as a priest who teaches heresy, a confessor who is committing presumption, baptism and chrismation for social reason etc., the marriage is not fullfiling its essence, as so as the priest must be defrocked/deposed (happens today), absolution withheld (I’ve witnessed this), baptism and christmation withheld (witnessed that as well), so too what is for the good for building up the Church (the main concern of economy) and for the salvation of the parities is the decision/descretion of the Church.

For instance, keeping a man or woman in a relationship where they are likely to be killed is violating another commandment.

Which brings up the next problem: once adultery enters the picture a serious destruction of the mystery has occured. similiarly apostacy, a violation of the First Comandment. Situation occurs, as I mentioned, where the Sixth Comandment becomes a concern.

Add to that St. Paul’s admonition about burning. Just because I spouse deserts you/commits adultery (same thing), doesn’t mean that somehow you are given the gift of celibacy.

So there are a myriad of issues that become involved. As the New Testament is not a Law, as was the OT, the procedures do not resemple them. Hence the canons are not like the commandments of the Torah.

The main object of the Church is to come up with a solution that 1) preserves the sign of marriage (something that one in discord will not), 2) create a situation with assists the salvation of the parties.

Hence why remarriage is a question of penance. Even the innocent party usually has a year’s penance without communion, as a serious rupture has occured in their relationship with the Church, the thrid party of the marriage (and in many ways the most important party). After a divorce, not both parties automatically may remarry. Sometimes the decision is neither may.

And the same issues are raised when the marriage is broken by death. A second marriage in this case also cannot fulfill the sign of Matrimony as a first marriage can, and has a penitential character to it (the Fathers speak much on digamy. It took me a while to get used to that they were not speaking of what we consider “polygamy.”).

The idea of remarriage is like any penance, and is done with a view of reconciliation with the Church.

Now, if that is abused at present at perhaps unprecedented rates (and I think it is), there are still priests, bishops, etc. who insist on the spirit of the law as well as the letter. Hence the recent directive of the Antiochean Archdiocese to first ascertain if a second marriage is the result of adultery in the first (in which case no marriage can take place).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I didn’t know you had the authority of the Lord to say such things for him. In reality: so says you.

I don’t.

The Evangelist does.

I guess you’ve never heard of hindsight being 20/20…

I’ve also grasped the concept of a statute of limitation.

Well, in my quest to find the one, true, Church, I found it quite problematic that once upon a time, the East allowed divorce only due to adultery, and now you can get a divorce for whatever reason. THIS IS THE OFFICIAL STANCE OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH.

And you can provided the “Offiicial” source for this outrageious statment?

This in no way compares to the “liberalization” of annulments granted by the Catholic Church today.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

The West doesn’t even recognize the Council in Trullo as Ecumenical,

yes, another change in the West’s stance.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council (the one that your council of Elvira seems to be at odds with) recognized it. Are you going to drop your recognition of that council too?

so the fact that that Council deviated from the Early Church Fathers (which it did with the exception of St. Basil)

It actually officially collects the decrees of various councils, Fathers, etc. which had been the basis of practice for centuries (your Elvira and other councils didn’t make the list).

is of no consequence to the West, but it most certaintly is to the East since they’re the ones who deviated.

It’s the basis of your Eastern lung’s praxis, so unless you don’t care what they do, it’s your “problem.”

You seem rather selectly on what canons you have that you want to follow and enforce, without stating the underlying principle (of course, I forgot, “the pope says so…”).

That sounds like a problem to me.

Sounds like an echo to me.

Yes, but a territory that is nonetheless aimed at discussing issues between Catholics and non-Catholics since it falls under a Catholic forum. This forum wasn’t designed so you could be left to your own devices.

And I haven’t. Now we can talk Catholic to Latin.

 

[TheWhim]

Isa Almisry,

let’s postulate a controversial thesis:

since the regulation of marriage was enteriley placed into the hands of the Curch, that is, since the civil marriage was so to say abolished, the Church blessed adulterous(i.e. second) marriages in rite; beforehand, they were contracted outside the Church, just civilly. That is, due to the mixture of Church and State the doctrine of the church was confounded; what was merely tolerated by the bishops beforehand, namely a second marriage, then received blessing of the Church in ceremony. This, again, lead to a confusion of theology and to the forgetting of the strong stance of the fathers against remarriage, Clement Alexnadria, Origen, Basil included.

Okay, this has been my thesis. I now found a flagrant paper on the Internet that actually addresses the problem of second marriages with the clergy but also makes some fascinating remarks about the evolution of the divorce-practice in the East that wholly comply with my thesis:

Here the link:
holy-trinity.org/morality/troitsky.html

The important text I supply here:

If the Church later permitted the marriages of digamists, this was not as a result of a change in its teaching about such marriages but as a result of civil orderly procedure. At first the marriage of digamists was a manifestation of illegal pressures upon the Church on the part of the State. Theodore Studite thinks that the practice of marrying digamists began during the reign of the dishonorable Constantine Copronymus and iconoclast (741-775) as a result of his trigamy since “it was not so before that.” For a long time marriage of digamists was a rare exception and there were patriarchs who with their own hands prevented twice-married emperors from entering the Church, there were pastors, according to Theodore Studite, who would rather sacrifice their whole life, confront danger, exile or death rather than agree to dishonor and violate Christ’s gospel and marry a digamist, and Emperor Leo III’s fourth marriage brought about a lengthy discord between the Church and the State, ending in the year 921 with the proclamation of the “Tome of Union” which would be read from the Church’s cathedras every July and which sharply spelled out the Church’s position on subsequent marriages. However there were patriarchs who feasted at an emperor’s second marriage which Balsamon notes with great sadness.
**It was only when a church wedding was mandated by imperial law to make a marriage valid **and as a result of which a refusal of a wedding ceremony was tantamount to the declaration of the union as simple adultery, did the Church permit the marriage of digamists and at first this was allowed only in Constantinople and this special rite was not found in other churches even in the XIII c. and it is not known in Rome to this day.

 

[TheWhim]

I want to draw attention, Isa Almisry, to two of your remarks that are, I believe, quite misguided.

Taking for instance, St. Basil’s canon: he formulated it centuries before civil marriage was abolished (btw, it then became the betrothal service). I’m still not sure of when it was abolished, but it was after Justinanian I remember (Leo III?, Basil the Macedonian?, Leo IV?). At most, the abolition codied what had been practiced according to canon.

On this one our Mardukm asks for one canon that shows that a ECF allowed remarriage when the first spouse was alive. I posted the canon of St. Basil above.

The later development, or, if we may more properly say so, deviation from apostolic Orthopraxy, that second, adulterous marriages were blessed in Church-rite, can in no way whatsoever be justified by the canon of Basil. What the canon of Basil really means we may grasp when comparing it to similar declarations of the early Church, such as you already diligently offered:

1. Women who without acceptable cause leave their husbands and join another man may not receive communion even when death approaches.

1. A baptized woman who leaves an adulterous husband who has been baptized, for another man, may not marry him. If she does, she may not receive communion until her former husband dies, unless she is seriously ill.

1. If an unbaptized woman marries another man after being deserted by her husband who was a catechumen, she may still be baptized. This is also true for female catechumens. If a Christian woman marries a man in the knowledge that he deserted his former wife without cause, she may receive communion only at the time of her death.

1. If a female catechumen marries a man in the knowledge that he deserted his former wife without cause, she may not be baptized for five years unless she becomes seriously ill.

Do you really think, Isa, that the Church strictly forbade such marriages in theory(cf. my original post), but then celebrated such marriages in Church, only to severely punish such marriages afterwards with the exclusion from Communion even in death?
St. Basil’s canon addresses the same problem. Civil adulterous marriages have taken place outside the Church and now the Church has to deal with this problem. St. Basil takes a less strict stance viz. punishment, but he never would be the one to bless such marriages.

Only later, when civil marriages were abolished, were the early canons misinterpreted and AFTER the adulterous marriage haven taken place in Church, penance was commanded.

This is, I hink, quite irrefutable. Well, what are we to make about it?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Your above posts just prove my point that an Orthodox can only defend their untenable position on divorce by trying to point to “flaws” in the way the “Latins” do things.

I gave you a few canons without reference to the Latin way of doing things (which didn’t exist at the time). Now see my response to woodstock.

I never once said all the above canons are infallible canons from an Ecumenical Council.

1. canons aren’t infallible (though you do make that claim) 2) they aren’t recognized or used by an Ecumenical Council.

I just posted them to show where the Catholic Church gets its theology from regarding marriage and divorce, and its Dogma regarding the indissolubility of marriage.

From fallible, local councils. Interesting.

As soon as your church starts applying and practicing all its canons, maybe then we can talk.

with your legalism, or our praxis, that of the Fathers.

It just goes to show it’s a one way street for ya’ll.

yes, with a narrow gate.

Now, can you successfully defend the Orthodox position or not, because so far you haven’t done anything but try and point out what you perceive to be flaws in the Western ideas on divorce?

My first post:

As for the Latins, look up Petrine privilege, to see that indeed the pope dissolves a valid marriage.

Yes, second marriage means one in Church. For one thing, the Council of Trullo adopted St. Basil’s canons on this, and I believe (I have to check this though, but I can’t right now) by this time the emperor had abolished civil marriage entirely.

A problem with the patrisitics, they (nor the Church today) makes a stark distinction between a marriage dissoled by death or divorce (on grounds, i.e. adultery). Patriarch Teoctist reiterated this when he stopped the Romanian parliament a few years ago from loosening up the divorce laws.

The Pedalion’s section on this would give you the relevant canons, including the ban on someone marrying a “lover” even when the original spouse dies.

The reference to the Petrince privilege carried over from a post I made in the thread on the Council of Jerusalem and blood.

The rest has nothing to do with, nor mentions, the Latins.

This is after all the non-Catholic forum right? Do St. Basil’s canons, which weren’t accepted by the West

you mean the West changed their mind.

as ecumenical,

The Ecumenical Councils saw them as ecumenical.

contradict the position of the rest of the Early Church Fathers on divorce?

No.

And is Orthodox divorce, as currently practiced, contradictory to those canons?

Do you mean the abuses, or the alleged “official” position.

The abuses operated at the time the canons were written, and the Fathers refer to such abuses.