Full Communion with Orthodox Churches - would it require recognition of the pope?

[Rohzek]

It isn’t that old at all. The west practiced continence with respect to its Madrid clergy, the east did too. That was practically universal practice but then the east changed and removed he law of continence from its priesthood.

I wasn’t referring to the priesthood in that reply but rather the matter of divorce and remarriage.

 

[Wandile]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7663

There is some good information here but or patristic witness and other scholarly works I can provide if needed (although there is enough witness from councils and the father provided above). It details quite well the changes in the east in respect to its law of continence/celibacy to where the east is now which is almost complete abandonment of this ancient principle

 

[Wandile]

I wasn’t referring to the priesthood in that reply but rather the matter of divorce and remarriage.

In the west there are scant and honestly instances of local customs of divorce and remarriage. Something not denied. It’s telling that such customs changed with time and by the end of the first millenium it was practically universal in the west.

The west was almost unanimous in its teaching regarding remarriage. This is a fact admitted by scholars. Sure here in there especially Frankia there were some local councils and letters sayings few diverging things but these are rare exceptions. The west was quite unified on its posits up to present day. Any scholarly work on this issue can tell you that.

 

[prodromos]

I would provide it but it’s not something easily on hand. I’ve can look for it if your patient enough. I read a lot of stuff over the years but this I not an opinion but fact I can tell you that much.

I too have read a lot of stuff over the years, which is why I am able to recognise an opinion over fact.
I know that there are many canons and patristic quotes which uphold the ideal for marriage, but there are also many which recognise that death of a spouse is not the only thing that dissolves a marriage. If you only read the sources which agree with your position, then I guess you might assume that position is the factual one, but if you are only reading what has been translated into English, you have barely scratched the surface.

 

[Rohzek]

In the west there are scant and honestly instances of local customs of divorce and remarriage. Something not denied. It’s telling that such customs changed with time and by the end of the first millenium it was practically universal in the west.

The west was almost unanimous in its teaching regarding remarriage. This is a fact admitted by scholars. Sure here in there especially Frankia there were some local councils and letters sayings few diverging things but these are rare exceptions. The west was quite unified on its posits up to present day. Any scholarly work on this issue can tell you that.

Except it wasn’t only confined to Francia. It was at Arles during the Roman days, and at the Synod of Rome in 826 presided over by a pope, etc. The list goes on and on, as the link I posted shows. The West was far from unanimous. Divorce and remarriage there was about as common as it was in the East. And the only reason why it was “universal” by 1000 AD in the West was mostly due to Charlemagne. And sorry, but no, most scholarship on the issue won’t back you on this one. If you include councils, penitentials, etc. it becomes rapidly clear that the Latin West was far from unanimous on the issue of divorce and remarriage. If you only want to look at Latin Church Fathers, then you might have a point. But even Jerome flipped his opinion on the matter, and Augustine expressed doubts about the subsistence of marriage after divorce in his Retractions. So even that’s not a perfect hole in one.

 

[Tomdstone]

The west practiced continence with respect to its Madrid clergy, the east did too. That was practically universal practice but then the east changed and removed he law of continence from its priesthood.

The first Pope, St. Peter, was married. Pope Adrian II was married to Stephania. She was still living when he was elected Pope and she and her daughter lived with him in the Lateran Palace.
Pope John XVII and Pope Clement IV were married. Some popes were sexually active during their pontificate, but not married. For example, Pope Alexander VI had relationships with with Vanozza dei Catanei and Giulia Farnese and fathered several children.

 

[Wandile]

The first Pope, St. Peter, was married. Pope Adrian II was married to Stephania. She was still living when he was elected Pope and she and her daughter lived with him in the Lateran Palace.
Pope John XVII and Pope Clement IV were married. Some popes were sexually active during their pontificate, but not married. For example, Pope Alexander VI had relationships with with Vanozza dei Catanei and Giulia Farnese and fathered several children.

There isn’t a denial of marriage, there is a statement of the practice of continence. Yes history shows some breaches that even the articles I alluded to mentioned hence councils reaffirming ,again and again, this ancient principle. It was the norm. Showing breaches means nothing. The Latin church in Africa for example is struggling with priests breaching celibacy rules. Can some onlooker a few centuries from now say “see, they didn’t actually believe in clerical celibacy”.

 

[Wandile]

Except it wasn’t only confined to Francia. It was at Arles during the Roman days, and at the Synod of Rome in 826 presided over by a pope, etc.

It’s funny that synod never became standard practice did it? It contradicted the numerous other Roman synods and western synods of Carthage eye. The quotes you sword only have a few instances of actual divergence. Even on the other forum I showed you that most of them are not saying what you think they are saying. Most are actually reaffirming the current practice which is the ancient practice mind you.

The list goes on and on, as the link I posted shows. The West was far from unanimous.

Oh please, not one source out of all the academic works on this issue I have ever read dared to question the unanimity of this in the west. If such were really the case the synod of a year ago held in Rome would have went a whole lot differently.

Divorce and remarriage there was about as common as it was in the East. And the only reason why it was “universal” by 1000 AD in the West was mostly due to Charlemagne. And sorry, but no, most scholarship on the issue won’t back you on this one.

You give Charles too much credit. His empire wasn’t even that big. It wasn’t as common at all. The east had a serious change after Trullo which openly laxed it’s teaching on this matter. There was blatant contradictions with the fathers and councils.

If you include councils, penitentials, etc. it becomes rapidly clear that the Latin West was far from unanimous on the issue of divorce and remarriage. If you only want to look at Latin Church Fathers, then you might have a point

I was speaking about the Latin church the whole time m concerning the unanimity.

. But even Jerome flipped his opinion on the matter, and Augustine expressed doubts about the subsistence of marriage after divorce in his Retractions. So even that’s not a perfect hole in one.

there are more fathers than Jerome and Augustine. Secondly they were wholly obedient to Rome as they have both explicitly said in their works. Rome barring you one or two synods was consistent on this matter. There is a brilliant work by a cardinal who actually studied this issue to prove the Latin practice of celibacy to be the original. I will surely post his findings here once I get it. It’s been accepted widely just FYI.

 

[Reuben_J]

The first Pope, St. Peter was married.

Can you elaborate on this? I have not read anything on whether the first Pope had his wife living with him in Rome or after the ressurection.

 

[Tomdstone]

Can you elaborate on this? I have not read anything on whether the first Pope had his wife living with him in Rome or after the ressurection.

Holy Scripture says: 1 Corinthians 9:5: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?”
New Living Translation
“Don’t we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter does?”

 

[Reuben_J]

Holy Scripture says: 1 Corinthians 9:5: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?”
New Living Translation
“Don’t we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter does?”

Thank you. It didn’t come to my mind that he was accompanied by his wife in Rome.

 

[ajcstr]

I think it would be a great step if we were to share the Eucharist though I don’t know if that’s a possibility.