Divorce in the Catholic Church, Infallibility

[HibernoNorse]

This is an honest question. I was a convert to the Roman Catholic Church out of Episcopalianism, but am now converting to Orthodoxy in part due to this problem.

For reference, google the eastern Catholic practice of ecclesiastical divorce, which was practiced from those rites entrance into communion with Rome up in to the 20th century. I’d post a link, but this page prevents me from doing so.

Yes - eastern Catholics practiced divorce and remarriage, while being in communion with Rome, up until the 20th century - well before Vatican II, under many traditional, anti-modernist Popes and bishops.

I can only derive two conclusions: that a) the Roman Catholic Church taught error, and allowed some of its members to commit adultery for centuries or b) the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on divorce in remarriage is wrong, and that it has been teaching error and continues to.

I understand the theology behind both the Roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox views on the matter. But what I am asking, is there a third option? Because if either of these two options are correct, I fail to see that the Roman Catholic claims to truth are valid. If this was a “development of doctrine” situation, then how do we know that morality can’t change? Please do not insult me, because I usually get insulted when I bring up inconsistencies like this.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This is not the only doctrine where the Catholic Church (including Her Eastern Rites) and the Orthodox Churches differ.

When they come to an agreement on this, we will be one step closer to unity.

As a Catholic Convert who did look into Orthodoxy, I found the Catholic position on this (and other) issues to be true.

Yes - eastern Catholics practiced divorce and remarriage, while being in communion with Rome, up until the 20th century - well before Vatican II, under many traditional, anti-modernist Popes and bishops.

And the Church put an end to what was considered an abuse.

 

[HibernoNorse]

Why did all those Popes and bishops - many of them Roman Catholic saints - knew it was occurring - for centuries - yet did not do anything to correct it? Why did they permit adultery for so long?

 

[tafan2]

I sometimes wonder if it’s not the most significant. Most of the others can be attributed to language or perhaps one side or the other developing a theology in a different direction based on the same underlying truth. This seems to be nit to fall into those categories. It seems to be that the words “let no man out asunder” are interpretted by the Catholic Church to mean it’s impossible for man to do, while the Eastern Orthodox interpreted it as a commandment, like other commandments can be violated.

 

[TheLittleLady]

We look back with modern eyes. The world was vast at that time.

Today, let one priest in some remote place do something that is incorrect, it is all over the Diocese and world by the end of 24 hours. Then, correction can take place with an email or phone call.

In the 18th Century and before, there were wars and pandemics and even the Vatican could not be watching everything at every moment.

 

[Genesis315]

Toleration of an error does not mean acceptance of it or the formal proposition of it.

As Pope Innocent I wrote in Epistle 17.6, as quoted in St. Peter Damian’s Letter 40:

“As often,as a sin is committed by whole peoples or by a large group, since it cannot be avenged on all because of their great number, one usually lets it go unpunished.”

This was not unheard of in the early Church. For example, Pope St. Stephen I wanted to excommunicate all who practiced re-baptism, but Pope St. Sixtus II, while upholding the dogma, decided it was better to tolerate its practice (which ultimately proved the better course). We see the same in the later centuries at certain points with regard to simony.

The Council of Trent deliberately worded its anathema on this subject to apply to those who attacked the Church by claiming she erred by teaching the indissolubility of marriage, while tolerating those who practiced otherwise (they had in mind certain recently re-united Greek Catholics in Italy who were still adjusting and to whom the Church wanted to be mild).

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.

The EOs have much more substantial problems, both in their ecclesiology and their flip flopping on other issues, like original sin.

A couple recent posts that might be helpful:

If I convert to orthodoxy will I go to hell? Non-Catholic Religions

For the OP, just something on the EO Churches in general offered for your consideration. They simply are not one as we profess in the Creed. Many of their theologians even admit that the an ecclesiology that acknowledges one universal Church necessitates the primacy, which is why they try and defend a purely Eucharistic ecclesiology. They are simply a collection of particular Churches (a particular Church being defined as a bishop and flock celebrating a common Eucharist) organized as national …

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church correct Non-Catholic Religions

The Eastern Orthodox churches used to agree with us on original sin–notice it was never an issue at the reunion Councils, whereas much more minor topics like purgatorial fire were. Their new idea (although it is certainly not universal among EOs) is a novelty that grew from an anti-Latin, anti-Augustine element of the Neo-Palamite movement of the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, the EO patriarchates agreed to the following justification of…

 

[po18guy]

If no other answer satisfies, it may indeed have been the power of binding and loosing. However, those making the ruling answer for their judgment. Perhaps the Church, Christ’s mystical Body on earth, in some cases also has a permissive will, so that good may be brought out of evil.

Given the scriptural reference to divorce and the use of the term porneia, was not the east in error? To assume that the 2,000 year old Church made error is rather presumptuous, IMO. It is the most tested, re-tested and scrutinized institution on the face of this earth. It is the sole ecclesial community (Church) which does not allow divorce and remarriage.

If Orthodoxy is attracting you, you must now delve into the heterogeneous world of Orthodoxy and make a judgment call as to which of the various branches of Orthodoxy is correct. They are not in agreement and each possesses seemingly convincing arguments for their positions.

 

[ziapueblo]

They are not in agreement and each possesses seemingly convincing arguments for their positions.

They are not in agreement? My Greek Orthodox Churches teaches what the Russian Orthodox teaches, the OCA, etc. What is different are the pastries sold at the Church festivals.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes - eastern Catholics practiced divorce and remarriage, while being in communion with Rome, up until the 20th century - well before Vatican II, under many traditional, anti-modernist Popes and bishops.

Was this really the case? Eastern Catholic in my area is strongly against this. It is true that some Eastern Catholic Churches are now adopting Orthodox practices to please their Orthodox counterparts (or to be more Eastern or something), but in the end Church never allowed that in itself. Byzantines in Italy during Council of Trent were actually mentioned to Council Fathers who took their witness into view. I do not think Byzantine Catholics do (or should) necessarily practice divorce.

They are not in agreement? My Greek Orthodox Churches teaches what the Russian Orthodox teaches, the OCA, etc. What is different are the pastries sold at the Church festivals.

Not entirely. They are not agreement about ecclesiology. Russia does accept Orthodox notion of complete equality of Autocephalous Churches while Constantinople accepts Chalcedon’s definition of their “bonus” rights over other Autocephalous Churches. They do not agree on what constitutes Canonical Autocephalous Church and they do not agree about validity of excommunications of Ukrainian Schismatics from Russian Church (who later formed Orthodox Church of Ukraine). Doctrinal views may more or less the same but in reality unity of the Church is disturbed by what they think is right of Constantinople and what they think is right of each autocephalous Church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Relevant canons of Council of Trent:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that on account of heresy, or irksome cohabitation, or the affected absence of one of the parties, the bond of matrimony may be dissolved; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.

These canons reveal Truth as Ecumenical Councils always do. In the end that is binding upon me as a Latin Catholic. If there was a possibility to just change Rites to escape those canons and freely re-marry all the time, that would be relativism. Truth is not relative to person neither to Rite. One can not escape Truth by changing Rites simply. If Latin Catholic is excommunicated for something commonly done in Eastern Church, it would be a mess.

 

[HibernoNorse]

“ We do not believe in the Filioque [we properly proclaim the Nicene Creed as written without addition.] We use Leaven Bread for the Eucharist. Since we do NOT have a traditional teaching of inherited guilt [St. Augustine et. al.] we do not need an

Immaculate Conception." We believe in the distinction between the knowledge of the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies, since St. Gregory Palamas is a saint on our calendar, and considored a Father in our Church. Like the Apostolic Church we celebrate the Mysteries of Initiation [Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist] in unity at any age. And the normal Minister of this Mystery is the Presbyter [Priest]. For centuries after the various Church Unions the Byzantine Catholic Churches continued the practice of permitting remarriage after the granting of an ecclesiastical divorce. [with appropriate penance etc.] And although it is not the present practice in the CCEO, because we believe the minister of marriage is the priest or bishop, to grant a decree of nullity logically would call into question the minister rather than the receivers of the Mystery. [But that is a very complicated issue, beyond the scope of this writing.] we do not, as Byzantine Catholics, have a division between the Holy Mysteries and the various objects used in the Holy Mysteries, or thos objects used in both public and private piety.“ -

Protopresbyter Bryan Eyman, of the Eparchy of Parma, OH, on December 31, 2011

 

[ziapueblo]

Doctrinal views may more or less the same but in reality unity of the Church is disturbed by what they think is right of Constantinople and what they think is right of each autocephalous Church.

Doctrinally speaking, the same!

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

What do you mean that Eastern Orthodox churches are different?

I never said they were different.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We do not believe in the Filioque

That alone would make all Eastern Fathers giggle. No, Filioque is not traditionally part of Eastern Creed… but in the end Eastern view is that Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. Lack of that results into some sort of heresy but I forgot it’s name. Anyway, Filioque in it’s real form (not as dual procession but in “through the Son” fashion) comes from the East.

We believe in the distinction between the knowledge of the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies

If they believe in real distinction and not descriptive one, that puts them in heresy even in opposition to current Palamites in Orthodox Church. If that is not how that sentence is meant to be understood, then it is all fine even if speaker were Latin Catholic.

Like the Apostolic Church we celebrate the Mysteries of Initiation [Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist] in unity at any age.

No problem there either.

For centuries after the various Church Unions the Byzantine Catholic Churches continued the practice of permitting remarriage after the granting of an ecclesiastical divorce. [with appropriate penance etc.]

Oof… now this would be a big problem.

And although it is not the present practice in the CCEO, because we believe the minister of marriage is the priest or bishop, to grant a decree of nullity logically would call into question the minister rather than the receivers of the Mystery.

See? It is not in their canon law which they accepted. Hence it is dissenters who support divorces, not those who live according to laws of their Sui Iuris Church. Actually Byzantine view is even stronger on anti-divorce thing.

Anyway… logic here does not stand. One could call into question baptism even if it was performed by a Priest. Why? Because Priest can not baptize frog! I could simply call into question that frog is baptized simply because Priest did so. I could call Sacrament of Holy Orders into question if celebrated by Bishop easily too. Why? Because Bishop can not make woman a Priest! See? In those examples, minister is valid but those who receive sacrament are NOT valid! That is simply how Byzantine Churches in my area interpret annulments.

In the end, that quote seems to come from someone who is basically splitting Christians into East-West instead of actually upholding unity of Church with those who are in communion and disunity from those who are not in communion. That is NOT the view Church holds at all. Byzantine, Latin and every other Rite exists to foster unity of the Church, NOT to destroy it.

 

[HibernoNorse]

If truth can’t change (I agree) - why did the Roman Catholic Church allow Eastern Catholics to divorce for 400 years? That is what I am asking!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

why did the Roman Catholic Church allow Eastern Catholics to divorce for 400 years? That is what I am asking!

Where did Church allow that? Some people maybe did it out of habit, but was it officially allowed?