That is exactly what those canons say. And if we are to trust that the second canon of Trullo is clarifying which canons have been given such authority, then they did in fact include some councils from the West in that listing, such as canons from several councils of Carthage.That doesn’t mean that regional councils and the canons which they produced are accepted as ecumenical, i.e., what you’ve posted above doesn’t say that all local/regional canons (especially those concerning disciplines/customs) must be accepted at an ecumenical level or rather raised to an ecumenical standard. If this were the case then all regional councils and their respective canons, including those from the West, would also be ecumenical too, then where would we be? :whacky:
Great discussion on this point for second marriages over at byzcath. Bottom line: there was great disagreement as to whether or not a second marriage is sacramental, and if so, when the Eastern church adopted that innovation.No. … Christian understanding of marriage as a sacrament.’
It is found in the canons of St. Basil the Great. Your scriptural proof-text is of no avail, for the Fathers were far more well-read in the scriptures, yet saw no contradiction between those canons assigning a penance to those who contracted second and third marriages and the scriptures, and we as followers of the Tradition are to defer to the opinions of the Fathers when interpreting scripture, and not to elevate our own private interpretations above their interpretations and teachings.If it were true that a Christian should not be free to remarry after the death of their spouse why would this teaching be absent from every ecumenical council known to the Church? What reason would there be for such a rule? It contradicts the gospels because if it were true that one is not free to remarry after the death of their spouse then Jesus would not have answered the Sad’ducees by saying, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” - Matt. 22:30
How would you have answered the question that the Sad’ducees asked Jesus about remarriage after the death of a spouse?
Matthew 22
23 The same day Sad’ducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question,
24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, `If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’
25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother.
26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh.
27 After them all, the woman died.
28 In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all had her.”
29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
When did the Western Church adopt the innovation of sacramental third marriages, which according to the fathers are sinful?Great discussion on this point for second marriages over at byzcath. Bottom line: there was great disagreement as to whether or not a second marriage is sacramental, and if so, when the Eastern church adopted that innovation.
Is it not the case that the Western practice, in effect, antedated that Eastern rule of three marriages? Do you have an example of four Catholic marriages in practice?When did the Western Church adopt the innovation of sacramental third marriages, which according to the fathers are sinful?
Do you have an example of people who are thrice divorced in practice? Both, I am sure, are exceedingly rare. Yet the first is excusable while the latter is not, why? Because the icky Orthodox do the second while the good Latins do the first?Is it not the case that the Western practice, in effect, antedated that Eastern rule of three marriages? Do you have an example of four Catholic marriages in practice?
… assigning a penance to those who contracted second and third marriages …
Not the answer I would have given.Do you have an example of people who are thrice divorced in practice? Both, I am sure, are exceedingly rare. Yet the first is excusable while the latter is not, why? Because the icky Orthodox do the second while the good Latins do the first?
Later interpreters of those canons interpret them to mean precisely that the two were admitted without dissolving their marriage. Unless we are to question the validity of the concept of an interpretative tradition (which would be madness, for if interpretative traditions are invalid, then we might as well all become Protestants and interpret Christianity however we want) there is no reason to read the canons in any other way.
- So this practice was not considered consonant with the scripture but required penance.
- In fact, at the time of St Basil these marriages for divorced people were secular only; the church did not perform second marriages for divorced people.
- It is not at all clear that, at the time of St. Basil, the reintroduction of Christians excommunicated for remarriage, did not involve turning away from that sinful life.
His points are valid.Not the answer I would have given.
I would not have given that answer; it really can’t be put into my mouth.His points are valid.
There is this unfortunate view in the Latin Church that
oikonomia=license
This is not the case at all, and as someone who claims our tradition I thought you would understand that more.
The nightmare is the epic proportions of divorce - not whether it is pastorally accommodated or not.Your Communion is suffering a pastoral nightmare of epic proportions over this issue.
Jesus said that someone can marry after their spouse dies. He wasn’t speaking in riddles or parables when he said this. The only exception to this the Catholic Church makes is for a married man who received ordination. An example would be a deacon. If a married deacon’s wife dies he can’t get married again because a man can get ordained after marriage, but he can’t get married after ordination. Catholics believe that no one’s opinion outranks the Lord. Catholics don’t even say that the Pope can go against what Jesus has plainly taught. Nothing about the Catholic faith ever contradicts Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church says no to divorce and remarriage (without an annulment) because Jesus said no to it. And the Catholic Church says yes to marriage after the death of a spouse because Jesus said he had no problem with it. The Catholic faith places Jesus as the standard by which the all others must conform to.It is found in the canons of St. Basil the Great. Your scriptural proof-text is of no avail, for the Fathers were far more well-read in the scriptures, yet saw no contradiction between those canons assigning a penance to those who contracted second and third marriages and the scriptures, and we as followers of the Tradition are to defer to the opinions of the Fathers when interpreting scripture, and not to elevate our own private interpretations above their interpretations and teachings.
I was attempting to be inclusive. Do not Eastern Catholics claim the patrimony of the East?I would not have given that answer; it really can’t be put into my mouth.
As far as tradition goes: I claim my tradition. My family and ancestors have been part of the Byzantine Slavonic church quite probably from its very inception, with clear documentary evidence as far back as three centuries.
The nightmare is the epic proportions of divorce - not whether it is pastorally accommodated or not.
No, he doesn’t. St. Paul does, and where he does, it is in the context of making a concession to human weakness.Jesus said that someone can marry after their spouse dies. He wasn’t speaking in riddles or parables when he said this. No one’s opinion outranks the Lord. Catholics don’t even say that the Pope can go against what Jesus has plainly taught.
What of the Apostolic Tradition? Sola Scriptura is a heresy.Jesus said that someone can marry after their spouse dies. He wasn’t speaking in riddles or parables when he said this. The only exception to this the Catholic Church makes is for a married man who received ordination. An example would be a deacon. If a married deacon’s wife dies he can’t get married again because a man can get ordained after marriage, but he can’t get married after ordination. Catholics believe that no one’s opinion outranks the Lord. Catholics don’t even say that the Pope can go against what Jesus has plainly taught. Nothing about the Catholic faith ever contradicts Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church says no to divorce and remarriage (without an annulment) because Jesus said no to it. And the Catholic Church says yes to marriage after the death of a spouse because Jesus said he had no problem with it. The Catholic faith places Jesus as the standard by which the all others must conform to.
I am happy to talk about the patrimony of the East, but not as happy to respond to a phrase that suggests that anyone has a claim to that patrimony that exceeds mine.I was attempting to be inclusive. Do not Eastern Catholics claim the patrimony of the East?
So you do not view us as your Mother Church and Mother Tradition?
By us I mean Orthodoxy.
By your use of the word inception do you view your tradition as a new creation?
Would this not confirm the U word model?
Jesus said that someone can marry after their spouse dies.
The Sad’ducees clearly are asking about a situation where someone’s spouse dies and they remarry. Does Jesus tell them a person can’t do that? Does he say it would be a sin for this woman to marry again and again after each of her husbands has died? No. He treats marriage after the death of a spouse totally different than he does with divorce where he says that if someone divorces and remarries they commit adultery.No, he doesn’t. St. Paul does, and where he does, it is in the context of making a concession to human weakness.