Is indissolubility of marriage an infallible teaching?

[tafan]

JohnVIII, is it a fact that the church has granted second marriage commonly outside of the Petrine and Pauline priviledges? References please. I had thought that canon 8 of the Nicea Council (not the first ecumenical council, was it?) referred to these circumstances. I coould be wrong but would have to be shown.
Also, an ex cathedra statement by the pope is not necessary for a teaching to be considered infallible.

 

[otjm]

And teaching infallibly is…where in this statement?

Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote the book; it is a text for a basic course in Dogmatic Theology - and given that it was written in 1952, not subject to the craziness after Vatican 2. If you want more information, I would suggest purchasing a copy as it is interesting - but a bit dense.

John Paul II did not say he was making an ex cathedra statement in that teaching.

I am quite aware of that; however, given the language which he used, there were questions as to whether or not he was using (for lack of a better term) a classic formulation.

There have been two ex-cathedra statements made in Church history (at least, according to those who are within the Magisterium, such as then Cardinal Ratzinger): the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. There is language associated with the formal pronouncements; this is what lead tothe discussion of JP2’s statement. There was a great deal of discussion right after JP2 made the pronouncement, and based on how he worded it, a number of people said it was now the third.

Subsequent to the discussion, Cardinal Ratzinger stepped into the discussion formally (as head of his dicastery) and formally stated that a) it was not an ex-cathedra statement, and b) it was an infallible statement as it was part of the Magisterial teaching from the beginning of the Church.

The whole issue was fascinating to watch, and is instructive of the issue (which Ott noted in his work, as I quoted).

 

[otjm]

Whether or not John Paul II taught infallibly in that instance is an open question.

No, it is not. Then Cardinal Ratzinger settled that issue. The Church, through Cardinal Ratzinger in his official capacity, and under the direction of John Paul 2, settled the issue.

There are a number of people who reject that it was infallibly stated; they reject a number of issues elsewhere as being infallible.

One can either follow the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church, or not follow it. Failing to follow it is nicknamed “cafeteria Catholicism” because of the “pick and choose” approach.

I don’t intend to argue the issue, as the Church has made as formal a pronouncement as can be made on the matter. I choose (whether I like it of not) to follow the official teaching authority of the Church because I believe, as the Church teaches, that Christ was who He said He was, that He died and rose again, that He both promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church and keep it from error, and that He gave the power to make such decisions to the Church through the office of Peter.

Other people seem to reject at least some of the above. Feminism does not mean “radical feminism”, but radical feminism has been at work to remake the Church in its own image and likeness. I choose to not follow that path.

Note: I do not accuse you of this. It may well be that it is an issue that you only have a passing acquaintance with through news services (which are not only notorious in their inaccuracy, but also generally biased). I would suggest that you research the matter to the specific statements.

 

[otjm]

This is sort of a side-issue, but if the Marriage bond is just like Baptism in character, as you say St. Augustine said, then it follows that a Church court could, in theory, find some minor error in the way a Baptism happened and declare a Baptism annulled and such a person then would not even be a Christian even though he may have taken Holy Communion for years, got married or become a priest and even though anything he has done after his baptism was done in good faith and done in a valid way it all would be nothing if his baptism was declared to have actually never happened!

Maybe that could even be a way that a Church court could annul a marriage if they could not find anything wrong with the marriage itself they could turn to the baptisms of the bride and groom and see if they could fine anything wrong with either of them. And if they did find some minor issue with one of the couples baptism they could declare that baptism annulled and then by virtue of this discovery that he/she is not a Christian they then can declare the marriage annulled!

Two separate issues: 1) yes, baptism could be found to be defective, and one of the defects was what became popular in some circles for a while: “I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier”. This is considered a fatal defect. Proof of it is going to be hard to get unless there was a contemporaneous record (such as a video recording).

However, as to the second issue, that is a lot more difficult, and one I would leave to a Canon lawyer. I am not sure what the result would be, but I am also not sure that it would be grounds for defect at the time of the marriage. Two non-baptized people can confect a natural marriage (as opposed to a sacramental one) and that, too, is a permanent one.

 

[PJM]

=JohnVIII;7184175]Correct me if I am wrong, as I understand it the Church of Rome is supernaturally protected from error (infallibility) when teaching anything having to do with either faith or morals. Does the belief it the indissolubility of marriage fall under this? In other words, if it were actually true that a valid marriage could end by a ‘church divorce’ (rather then by death), the Church of Rome would be wrong on this point because it is taught that a valid marriage is indissoluble, but my question is if Rome was wrong about this would this prove that the Church of Rome is not infallible? If ‘No’, then why?

Please don’t mis-assume my motives for asking this. I want to believe fully in all the dogma’s of the Church. I am Roman Catholic right now, but I used to be Eastern Orthodox for 25 years. The Eastern Orthodox (as long as there are grounds for divorce, such as adultery) do grant a ‘Church Divorce’ to what they will teach was indeed a valid marriage. Then after the Church Divorce there is usually given the blessing to marry again. And from what I have read, this way of doing things in the East is a custom that goes back even before the 1st Ecumenical Council, which if so means that it is probably OLDER then the way Rome does these things. Now I admit that older does not prove that it is right. But you can see why I’m tempted to believe that the Eastern Orthodox are maybe right on this, and since both views seem to be mutually exclusive, Rome would have to be wrong if the East is right about this.

The Primary thing I want to focus on about this is the dogma of infallibility. I wish to be counted as a believer in this dogma of infallibility, so if I were to believe that Rome is wrong on the issue of the indissolubility of marriage (and the East is right) could I still be counted as a believer in the dogma of infallibility? Is this an issue that MUST fall under the category of morals and thus Rome has to be correct on this?

***My dear friend in Christ

The CC has NOT the power to “disolve” a Chritian marriage properly performd, agreed upon by freewill mutual concent that has been consumated.

What the CC does have the power to do is to investigate a marriage and determine if in FACT it met all the criteria of validation. If the Church can conclude that A VAILD MRRIAGE NEVER TOOK PLACE BECAUSE OF … IT CAN PROCLAIM THAT SUCH A UNION WAS INVALID AND THEREFORE SET IT ASSIDE.* **

**TRENT Session 24

ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.**

CANON I.-If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, (a sacrament) instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.

**CANON III.-If any one saith, that those degrees only of consanguinity and affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let him be anathema. **

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 VlI.-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.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.

CANON XII**.-If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema**.

**Our Catechism: **] 1640 “Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.”

Also read the Code of Canon law; Book III nos.747 to 754

 

[otjm]

I looked through the thread you provided a link to and I noticed that most posters said that even if Pope Celestine III actually did try to dissolve a consummated, sacramental marriage that he could not do so. Most seemed to think that not even a pope had the power to dissolved a consummated, sacramental marriage. So I think it is safe to assume that most would also believe that the Eastern Orthodox could not dissolved a consummated, sacramental marriage either (even though this practice existed before 325 AD and mention of it is made in the 1st Ecumenical Council). But just because most Roman Catholics today believe that no authority in the Church can dissolved a consummated, sacramental marriage does not make it a moral issue that the Church has spoken on infallibly.

I am trying to set aside my personal bias in this matter and, if I need to, change my belief in this matter if I can know for sure that the Church in fact has spoken infallibly saying that all marriages (consummated, sacramental marriages) dissolved by any Church authority are not in fact not dissolved because it is dogma that it is impossible for any consummated, sacramental marriage to be dissolved. Has the Church (not just someones opinion) taught that this is so?

It is part of Dogmatic Theology taught at any seminary that follows the Magisterium. See my comments above from Ludwig Ott; it is De Fide - part of the faith.

The Church holds that marriage is indissoluable; not because the Church has made a statement about it, but because Christ did. It is the same as the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist, that Christ is truly present. It is not the Church’s teaching, but Christ’s. Both are De Fide - from Faith; so it is not some formal statement that the Church makes (or made), but rather, the continual teaching of the Church. When the Church formally taught that the issue was known as Transubstantiation, that was simply a formal explanation of the issue; but the Church had always held that Christ was truly present; they just had not explained the “how” of it.

 

[Just_Lurking]

However, as to the second issue, that is a lot more difficult, and one I would leave to a Canon lawyer. I am not sure what the result would be, but I am also not sure that it would be grounds for defect at the time of the marriage. Two non-baptized people can confect a natural marriage (as opposed to a sacramental one) and that, too, is a permanent one.

Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

 

[JohnVIII]

Two separate issues: 1) yes, baptism could be found to be defective, and one of the defects was what became popular in some circles for a while: “I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier”. This is considered a fatal defect. Proof of it is going to be hard to get unless there was a contemporaneous record (such as a video recording).

However, as to the second issue, that is a lot more difficult, and one I would leave to a Canon lawyer. I am not sure what the result would be, but I am also not sure that it would be grounds for defect at the time of the marriage. Two non-baptized people can confect a natural marriage (as opposed to a sacramental one) and that, too, is a permanent one.

But if only one of the couple had a “defect” that made (by the determination of the Church court) only one baptism invalid then the court could annul the marriage on the grounds that ‘it lacked canonical form’!

 

[JohnVIII]

JohnVIII, is it a fact that the church has granted second marriage commonly outside of the Petrine and Pauline priviledges? References please. I had thought that canon 8 of the Nicea Council (not the first ecumenical council, was it?) referred to these circumstances. I coould be wrong but would have to be shown.

Can you cite an early example of a marriage being dissolved and then a second marriage being permitted? I had not heard of this before.

Does “twice married” definitely mean “married again after a divorce,” while the first spouse is alive, or could it mean “married again after the death of the first spouse”?

Usagi

I can’t provide quotes or references for this right now, I am on the road, posting from a laptop. But I will do so as soon as I can.

The practice of dissolving a valid marriage was held to be one of the powers that was included in the power to “bind and to loose” by the apostles and passed to the bishops of the Church and has been in continuous practice since the earliest of time until today in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So this should mean that it is a valid Catholic practice at least up until the split in the Church in 1054! There are plenty of accusations recorded about what the East had issues with the West as well as issues the West had with the East, but I have never read yet where any pope, near to the time of the East/West split, said that the East was wrong in their practice of the dissolving of marriage. I can’t help but wander if maybe Rome didn’t have issue with this until some time AFTER the East/West split?

 

[JohnVIII]

…The CC has NOT the power to “disolve” a Chritian marriage properly performd, agreed upon by freewill mutual concent that has been consumated…

[This you prove by quoting:]

**TRENT Session 24

ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.**

CANON I.-If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, (a sacrament) instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.

**CANON III.-If any one saith, that those degrees only of consanguinity and affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let him be anathema. **

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 VlI.-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.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.

CANON XII**.-If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema**.

**Our Catechism: **] 1640

“Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.”

Also read the Code of Canon law; Book III nos.747 to 754

I am having trouble seeing how this supports “The CC has NOT the power to “disolve” a Chritian marriage”. This canon you quote: “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” seems to say that the Church CAN establish a way to “dissolve” a marriage and if you think otherwise you’re “anathema”. Could you please clear this up for me?

 

[JohnVIII]

It is part of Dogmatic Theology taught at any seminary that follows the Magisterium. See my comments above from Ludwig Ott; it is De Fide - part of the faith.

The Church holds that marriage is indissoluable; not because the Church has made a statement about it, but because Christ did. It is the same as the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist, that Christ is truly present. It is not the Church’s teaching, but Christ’s. Both are De Fide - from Faith; so it is not some formal statement that the Church makes (or made), but rather, the continual teaching of the Church. When the Church formally taught that the issue was known as Transubstantiation, that was simply a formal explanation of the issue; but the Church had always held that Christ was truly present; they just had not explained the “how” of it.

I am trying hard to understand this. To me it seems like your argument supports that the Church CAN dissolve a marriage. You use the issue of Transubstantiation as an example, but Transubstantiation can be shown from the Church Fathers with far more certainty than from the Bible. But the issue of the indissolubility of marriage cannot be supported by a large number of the Church Fathers, St. Basil the Great being a prime example. And as far as the Holy Bible goes it says “let no man put asunder”. Is the authority of the Church “to bind and to loose” a man-made authority? I don’t think so. It doesn’t say “let no Church-authority put asunder”!

…Cardinal Ratzinger settled that issue. The Church, through Cardinal Ratzinger in his official capacity, and under the direction of John Paul 2, settled the issue.

There are a number of people who reject that it was infallibly stated; they reject a number of issues elsewhere as being infallible.

One can either follow the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church, or not follow it.

I’m having trouble understanding you here. What I am looking for is a place where the successor to St. Peter taught the whole Church that not even any Church authority can dissolve a valid marriage, or at least taught that it is morally wrong to do so. This would convince me that the Church has taught infallibly (an issue of faith or morals) that dissolving a valid marriage is morally wrong and/or it cannot be done. – Are you saying that something like this was taught to the whole Church by “Cardinal Ratzinger in his official capacity, and under the direction of John Paul 2”?

 

[tafan]

I can’t provide quotes or references for this right now, I am on the road, posting from a laptop. But I will do so as soon as I can.

The practice of dissolving a valid marriage was held to be one of the powers that was included in the power to “bind and to loose” by the apostles and passed to the bishops of the Church and has been in continuous practice since the earliest of time until today in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So this should mean that it is a valid Catholic practice at least up until the split in the Church in 1054! There are plenty of accusations recorded about what the East had issues with the West as well as issues the West had with the East, but I have never read yet where any pope, near to the time of the East/West split, said that the East was wrong in their practice of the dissolving of marriage. I can’t help but wander if maybe Rome didn’t have issue with this until some time AFTER the East/West split?

I think you are wrong again, from a historical basis. Was not it the Council of Truso, around 700ad, when the orthodox started permitting divorce? Could be wrong, but that is what I remember. Rome specifically condemned the canons of that council.

 

[otjm]

I am trying hard to understand this. To me it seems like your argument supports that the Church CAN dissolve a marriage.

No, just the opposite.

You use the issue of Transubstantiation as an example, but Transubstantiation can be shown from the Church Fathers with far more certainty than from the Bible.

Read again what I wrote. Both the True Presence and the indissolubility of marriage are DE Fide - from faith; both are found in the Gospels.

I used Transubstantiation as an example of a DE Fide issue later being explained by the Church. The ;council which declared Transubstantiation as the “hopw” of the Eucharist did not define our belief in the True presence; that was believed by the Church from its inception. It simply defined the “how” of what we believed.

Marriage is the same way - it comes from the Gospel, and does not need defining as indissoluble by the Church just as the True Presence does not need defining by the Church (that is, we do not need a Council to say “We believe…”, because it is a given from Scripture). The Church may define what actually makes a sacramental, indissoluable marriage (e.g., consent - and the opposite of no sacrament by lack of consent), but since Scripture gives us the issue of indissolublitly, the Church does not need to declare that.

But the issue of the indissolubility of marriage cannot be supported by a large number of the Church Fathers, St. Basil the Great being a prime example. And as far as the Holy Bible goes it says “let no man put asunder”. Is the authority of the Church “to bind and to loose” a man-made authority? I don’t think so. It doesn’t say “let no Church-authority put asunder”!

I am not going to try to go Father by Father. But the authority to bind and to loose only goes as far as Christ did not already define. He said marriage is permanent; the Church cannot re-define that.

I’m having trouble understanding you here. What I am looking for is a place where the successor to St. Peter taught the whole Church that not even any Church authority can dissolve a valid marriage, or at least taught that it is morally wrong to do so. This would convince me that the Church has taught infallibly (an issue of faith or morals) that dissolving a valid marriage is morally wrong and/or it cannot be done. – Are you saying that something like this was taught to the whole Church by “Cardinal Ratzinger in his official capacity, and under the direction of John Paul 2”?

You seem to have missed the point. It comes from Scripture, not from some Pope defining it. Again, try to read my quote from Ott, above (the second one, from the initial chapter). What is handed down to the Church from Sacred Scripture is dogma, and does not require the Pope to make it so. Its authority is from God (directly), not through the Pope.

 

[JohnVIII]

…You seem to have missed the point. It comes from Scripture, not from some Pope defining it. Again, try to read my quote from Ott, above (the second one, from the initial chapter). What is handed down to the Church from Sacred Scripture is dogma, and does not require the Pope to make it so. Its authority is from God (directly), not through the Pope.

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20)

All you are telling me is that I should give up my interpretation for you interpretation. I am indeed willing to give up my interpretation for that of the teaching that comes from the successor to St. Peter. But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[JohnVIII]

I think you are wrong again, from a historical basis. Was not it the Council of Truso, around 700ad, when the orthodox started permitting divorce? Could be wrong, but that is what I remember. Rome specifically condemned the canons of that council.

This sounds like this may be what I am looking for. But I never heard of “the Council of Truso”. I did a Google search and nothing came up. I also did a few searches on Catholic websites with no results. Can you give me another clue about this that might help me find it?

Do you know what the Eastern Churches did with the first marriage prior to 700 AD and this “the Council of Truso”? I’m quite sure they did not allow for polygamy. St. Basil (who allowed up to 3 marriages) wrote very strongly against polygamy. (St. Basil was the 4th century.) I did read where one of the early popes “cherished some degree of suspicion against the great Cappadocian Doctor”, but I don’t think it had anything to do with marriage, it was with regard to the Meletian Schism at Antioch.

 

[tafan]

This sounds like this may be what I am looking for. But I never heard of “the Council of Truso”. I did a Google search and nothing came up. I also did a few searches on Catholic websites with no results. Can you give me another clue about this that might help me find it?

Do you know what the Eastern Churches did with the first marriage prior to 700 AD and this “the Council of Truso”? I’m quite sure they did not allow for polygamy. St. Basil (who allowed up to 3 marriages) wrote very strongly against polygamy. (St. Basil was the 4th century.) I did read where one of the early popes “cherished some degree of suspicion against the great Cappadocian Doctor”, but I don’t think it had anything to do with marriage, it was with regard to the Meletian Schism at Antioch.

Sorry, I was writing from memory and completely messed up the name. It was the Council of Trullo,

newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

I will have to look up what St Basil said about marriages. I am not for sure. But I am skeptical, outside of the Pauline/Petrine privildge if the church allowed divorce at these early times. I could be wrong, will do some searching.

 

[tafan]

On the orthodox infor website, there is this about modern day practice
“Remarriage after divorce is tolerated on the basis of the possibility that the sacrament of marriage was not originally received with the consciousness and responsibility that would have made it fully effective; according to this view, remarriage can be a second chance”
orthodoxinfo.com/general/doctrine3.aspx

Which does not sound that much different than having the first marriage declared null.

One of my first google results from St Basil and divorce

“Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself. [St. Basil, Moralia 73, 1: PG 31, 849-852.]”

And this:

“A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of the second he will be guiltless.” St. Basil the Great, “Second Canonical Letter to Amphilochius” c. 375 A.D"

This sounds like a man was married to a divorced woman, which is adultery, but then can marry someone else when that marriage is dissolved. Which, I believe, would be consistent with the Catholic Church today. Perhaps you have oversimplified St Basil’s position.

 

[JohnVIII]

Sorry, I was writing from memory and completely messed up the name. It was the Council of Trullo,

newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

I will have to look up what St Basil said about marriages. I am not for sure. But I am skeptical, outside of the Pauline/Petrine privildge if the church allowed divorce at these early times. I could be wrong, will do some searching.

Thank you for these links. I was not aware that Rome didn’t fully recognize the Council of Trullo! (BTW, I’ve always thought that this council went a bit too far). It was at this council that the Canons of St. Basil were recognized, I thought, by the Church to be ‘Ecumenical’. Now if it is the case that Rome does not recognize the canons of St. Basil this will saden me. It is in the canons of St. Basil that the validity of a second marriage is reaffirmed and St. Basil adds the possibility of a 3rd Marriage. He also speaks therein about how the vows of a monastic is greater then that of marriage. He condemns the practice that he said some bishops have done were they have released a monk to return to being a layman treating it just ‘like it were a second marriage’.

I was also interested in reading your first link wherein it says that Rome only recognized 50 of the 85 Apostolic Canons! Wow! I wonder which 50 those are! You know the 85 canons of the Holy Apostles were first put together and edited by St. Clement, Bishop of Rome. I wonder why Rome, because of St. Clement, would not recognize all 85? I forget which bishops it was that said they wanted to get the Church to renumber the 92 canons of St. Basil to 85 as a way to honor St. Basil by making his canons comparable to the canons of the Holy Apostles. There are many who considered St. Basil to be the greatest of all the Church Fathers.

I’m going to have to do some homework here. I don’t recall the Council of Trullo speaking much about marriage. I need to re-read it and see. If it doesn’t speak of re-marriage then the only connection would be it’s recognition of the Canons of St. Basil. – Time to pause and do some homework.

Thanks again!

 

[otjm]

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20)

All you are telling me is that I should give up my interpretation for you interpretation. I am indeed willing to give up my interpretation for that of the teaching that comes from the successor to St. Peter. But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

No, I am suggesting that you give up your interpretation for the Church’s.

And if you want someone to look to, look to the writings of John Paul 2 on marriage. There should be plenty out there.

It appears to me that you are unwilling to accept that the Church can teach something as infallible without a Pope specifically saying it. That would put us in an impasse.

 

[JohnVIII]

…It appears to me that you are unwilling to accept that the Church can teach something as infallible without a Pope specifically saying it. That would put us in an impasse.

When the Church teaches two different things there is a bit of a controversy. If you believe that the pope can settle a controversy by virtue of the fact that he has the final word (and I do) then why would you wish to leave the pope out of it? Perhaps you are unwilling to accept the teaching authority of the pope. It is the authority of the pope that led me to the Roman Catholic Church after being Eastern Orthodox for 25 years. Are you at home here in the Roman Catholic Church or do you feel the Lord is calling you elsewhere? The Pope, as the successor to St. Peter, has the authority to speak for the whole Church. Yes, it is the ‘Church’ that is infallible, but to hear what the Church says you need to listen to the Pope.

God bless!