The spread of the Schism

[Wandile]

Perhaps you didn’t see it in the other thread you started.
Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History

Catholics like to pretend that their Church never allowed divorce, but it is completely false.

Actually all evidence of this is specious and anomalous which is poor scholarship because you can’t base a whole tradition on an anomaly. It’s is established fact that the latin church by tradition by and large (barring a few exception which later were corrected) never allowed it.

 

[prodromos]

Actually all evidence of this is specious and anomalous which is poor scholarship because you can’t base a whole tradition on an anomaly. It’s is established fact that the latin church by tradition by and large (barring a few exception which later were corrected) never allowed it.

In the same way it is established ‘fact’ that the West always used unleavened bread

 

[steve_b]

Hello, I know the excommunications happened around the 11th century, but I read that they were only done personally to the people involved and that most ordinary people weren’t even aware this occurred. The source said that it took centuries for the Schism to actually spread and that particularly in more removed places like Russia, they lived for a longer time as if in the pre-Schism church. My question is, does anyone know when the view to separate from Rome actually reached Russia and particularly Novgorod? I read that there was an attempted invasion of Novgorod by the West and at the time it seems a lot of such events were political effects of the Schism, but does this mean the people in Novgorod understood there’s a Schism and wanted canonical separation from Rome? Although if they saw Rome as heretical is that an indication? I am not a historian and I’m not sure how to find an answer to my question… Thank you

Definitionally,

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Rome is Peter’s last see. He is buried under the altar at the Vatican.

 

[Wandile]

In the same way it is established ‘fact’ that the West always used unleavened bread

Lol do you know how many scholarly works have been done on the issue of divorce and remarriage? It’s almost unanimous that the west never changed its tradition .

A few outliers do not a tradition make

Whereas unleavened bread is not dogmatic and really is custom so it doesn’t matter if there was a change or when it occurred. The former however is and it’s established that the east changed their practice between the 6th and seventh century due to political pressure from the state (emperor) and other liberalizing forces. Hence the EO model at the event synods on the family was quickly thrown out because it’s innovative orgin is well known.

 

[prodromos]

Lol do you know how many scholarly works have been done on the issue of divorce and remarriage? It’s almost unanimous that the west never changed its tradition .

LOL, 50 years ago all Catholic scholarly works claimed the West had always used unleavened bread.

 

[Wandile]

LOL, 50 years ago all Catholic scholarly works claimed the West had always used unleavened bread.

Now you’re getting desperate trying to apply one scenario to the other. You’re changing the topic.

The Catholic Church did not stop it’s scholarly work 50 years ago. The fact is even modern scholarship proves he west still has kept it tradition. It’s one of the most manifest things.
Again just before the synods on the family these issues were thoroughly investigated AGAIN:

If you want to debate unleavened bread then start a thread for it

 

[Rohzek]

Actually all evidence of this is specious and anomalous which is poor scholarship because you can’t base a whole tradition on an anomaly. It’s is established fact that the latin church by tradition by and large (barring a few exception which later were corrected) never allowed it.

It isn’t specious or anomalous if canon law filters down into secular law of the Western kingdoms, which is the case for the Synod of Rome in 826 AD (a point that I’ve left out of my two articles, but am willing to back upon request). These practices of divorce and remarriage in the Latin West were quite widespread. I’m not claiming that they were a majority, but their impact was certainly worth reckoning. We’ve debated this before countless times in other venues, of course. But to claim it is specious and that current scholarship supports your view without actually giving any citations is far more specious than anything that I have done.

In the article and its sequel that you so derisively dismiss, I consulted not only contemporary scholarship on the matter, but also the primary sources themselves. All of which I have given citations for, and in particular for the primary sources, I have given direct links to in their original Latin while simultaneously providing English translations. None of these things are something that either you or the occasional English professor, who have graced my blog, have done in response. In fact, the only rebuttal of any serious measure, which I respectfully disagree with, was provided by Monica4316 in another thread here on these very forums.

 

[Monica4316]

I think if civil law at the time allowed divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery for instance, it was probably related to this point by St Augustine… he says that certain forms of adultery are more serious than others, and hence would probably have different penances. But he does say, here in 400 AD, that both are adultery…

“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery” (Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).

 

[Wandile]

It isn’t specious or anomalous if canon law filters down into secular law of the Western kingdoms, which is the case for the Synod of Rome in 826 AD (a point that I’ve left out of my two articles, but am willing to back upon request). These practices of divorce and remarriage in the Latin West were quite widespread. I’m not claiming that they were a majority, but their impact was certainly worth reckoning. We’ve debated this before countless times in other venues, of course. But to claim it is specious and that current scholarship supports your view without actually giving any citations is far more specious than anything that I have done.

In the article and its sequel that you so derisively dismiss, I consulted not only contemporary scholarship on the matter, but also the primary sources themselves. All of which I have given citations for, and in particular for the primary sources, I have given direct links to in their original Latin while simultaneously providing English translations. None of these things are something that either you or the occasional English professor, who have graced my blog, have done in response. In fact, the only rebuttal of any serious measure, which I respectfully disagree with, was provided by Monica4316 in another thread here on these very forums.

Like you said we have debated this time and time before. It’s pointless to go over this again but suffice to say even your commenters mention how some of your quotes you provide actually prove the opposite of what you are trying to show:shrug:

I’ve read your articles and they are far from convincing. Many quotes there blatantly contradict what you are trying to prove but this is a discussion for another day as this thread is derailed enough.

Suffice to say roman law and the pope were one in the same in the west after the empire fell. Again in a whole line of popes and western bishops, the examples are too few in that context to base this as a custom. You’re just reaching too far. In a line of 266 popes you can only provide no more than 10 (even that is laughable) who may have erred on this matter.

Like I said exceptions do not make a tradition. Like I keep pointing out even the recent liberal synod on the family had to throw out the EO model as it was too foreign to the western tradition. It was a novelty that not even the liberals like Cardinal Kasper could legitimize. That says a lot

 

[Augustine]

Like you said we have debated this time and time before. It’s pointless to go over this again but suffice to say even your commenters mention how some of your quotes you provide actually prove the opposite of what you are trying to show:shrug:

There is also a problem of language. The Orthodox are comfortable with the Primacy of Peter, but any quote about it is read by Catholics as the evidence on the Supremacy of Peter. Could this be the case, that what to the Orthodox is merely about Peter’s Primacy and thus does not contradict his point?

 

[Rohzek]

Like I said exceptions do not make a tradition. Like I keep pointing out even the recent liberal synod on the family had to throw out the EO model as it was too foreign to the western tradition. It was a novelty that not even the liberals like Cardinal Kasper could legitimize. That says a lot

They aren’t exceptions if they are widely practiced.

And no, Roman Law and the canon law of the Church of Rome were not the same.

I think if civil law at the time allowed divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery for instance, it was probably related to this point by St Augustine… he says that certain forms of adultery are more serious than others, and hence would probably have different penances. But he does say, here in 400 AD, that both are adultery…

“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery” (Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).

You are correct in that Roman Law allowed for divorce and remarriage at this time, while St. Augustine of Hippo was against the practice. What I was speaking about in my post above has more to do with the Kingdom of Italy under King Lothar in the first half of the ninth century. By this point, Charlemagne of the Carolingian Empire pushed the Frankish Church in the modern Catholic direction with regards to divorce and remarriage. This also became imperial law. After Charlemagne’s death, Louis the Pious (his son) ascended to the imperial throne and gave his son Lothar the Kingdom of Italy to rule over. Lothar rewrote the secular law of the Kingdom of Italy to reflect the Synod of Rome 826, thus once again permitting divorce and remarriage.

 

[Monica4316]

There is also a problem of language. The Orthodox are comfortable with the Primacy of Peter, but any quote about it is read by Catholics as the evidence on the Supremacy of Peter. Could this be the case, that what to the Orthodox is merely about Peter’s Primacy and thus does not contradict his point?

there are quotes that hint at Supremacy or even Infallibility as well… such as this forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=866901

 

[Monica4316]

They aren’t exceptions if they are widely practiced.

And no, Roman Law and the canon law of the Church of Rome were not the same.

You are correct in that Roman Law allowed for divorce and remarriage at this time, while St. Augustine of Hippo was against the practice. What I was speaking about in my post above has more to do with the Kingdom of Italy under King Lothar in the first half of the ninth century. By this point, Charlemagne of the Carolingian Empire pushed the Frankish Church in the modern Catholic direction with regards to divorce and remarriage. This also became imperial law. After Charlemagne’s death, Louis the Pious (his son) ascended to the imperial throne and gave his son Lothar the Kingdom of Italy to rule over. Lothar rewrote the secular law of the Kingdom of Italy to reflect the Synod of Rome 826, thus once again permitting divorce and remarriage.

I guess the task is figuring out how all this connects to the views of the Church…

 

[Monica4316]

Another quote by St Augustine for everyone’s consideration… I had a hard time understanding it so asked for help in another forum. It seems he’s arguing against remarriage here too:

newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm

1. But I marvel, if, as it is allowed to put away a wife who is an adulteress, so it be allowed, having put her away, to marry another. For holy Scripture causes a hard knot in this matter, in that the Apostle says, that, by commandment of the Lord, the wife ought not to depart from her husband, but, in case she shall have departed, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband; whereas surely she ought not to depart and remain unmarried, save from an husband that is an adulterer, lest by withdrawing from him, who is not an adulterer, she cause him to commit adultery. But perhaps she may justly be reconciled to her husband, either he being to be borne with, if she cannot contain herself, or being now corrected. But I see not how the man can have permission to marry another, in case he have left an adulteress, when a woman has not to be married to another, in case she have left an adulterer. And, this being the case, so strong is that bond of fellowship in married persons, that, although it be tied for the sake f begetting children, not even for the sake of begetting children is it loosed. For it is in a man’s power to put away a wife that is barren, and marry one of whom to have children. And yet it is not allowed; and now indeed in our times, and after the usage of Rome, neither to marry in addition, so as to have more than one wife living: and, surely, in case of an adulteress or adulterer being left, it would be possible that more men should be born, if either the woman were married to another, or the man should marry another. And yet, if this be not lawful, as the Divine Rule seems to prescribe, who is there but it must make him attentive to learn, what is the meaning of this so great strength of the marriage bond? Which I by no means think could have been of so great avail, were it not that there were taken a certain sacrament of some greater matter from out this weak mortal state of men, so that, men deserting it, and seeking to dissolve it, it should remain unshaken for their punishment. Seeing that the compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. And yet, save in the City of our God, in His Holy Mount, the case is not such with the wife. But, that the laws of the Gentiles are otherwise, who is there that knows not; where, by the interposition of divorce, without any offense of which man takes cognizance, both the woman is married to whom she will, and the man marries whom he will. And something like this custom, on account of the hardness of the Israelites, Moses seems to have allowed, concerning a bill of divorcement. In which matter there appears rather a rebuke, than an approval, of divorce.

 

[PluniaZ]

Peter and his successors have been supreme in the Church from the moment Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven.

The power of the Popes in the ante-Nicene church:

Pope Clement I asserted the authority of Rome over the Church of Corinth as early as 69-90 AD. newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Patriarch Ignatius I of Antioch referred to Rome alone as the “presiding church.” newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Saint Irenaeus of Lyons stated that it was necessary for all churches everywhere to agree with the Church of Rome, since it was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul. newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Pope Victor I asserted Rome’s authority over the churches of Asia. newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

Saint Cyprian of Carthage referred to Rome as the “chief church” and the “throne of Peter”, from which sacerdotal unity takes its source. newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm

Pope Stephen I asserted Rome’s authority over the churches of Cappadocia. newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm

Pope Dionysius I deposed Patriarch Paul of Antioch. newadvent.org/fathers/250107.htm

Papal Infallibility:

Saint Irenaeus of Lyon newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.

Saint Cyprian of Carthage newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm:

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.

The Formula of Hormisdas byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The%20Formula%20of%20Pope%20St%20Hormisd

For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm):

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council - newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

"And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. “For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.”

Dicatus Papae of Pope Gregory VII en.wikisource.org/wiki/Select_Historical_Documents_of_the_Middle_Ages/Book_IV/The_Dictate_of_the_Pope

“That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

 

[PluniaZ]

First Millennium Opposition to the Pope

The rare instances of opposition to the Pope in the first millennium prove that the Church of Rome always asserted supremacy, and those who opposed Rome were either quarrelsome or outright schismatic, and the schismatics subsequently conquered by barbarians and Muslims.

Pope Victor I and the Quartodeciman Controversy

Pope Victor I threatened to excommunicate the churches of Asia for the practice of Quartodecimanism. Eusebius of Caesarea (newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm) describes the backlash:

“But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.”

Pope Stephen I vs Firmilian

Pope Saint Stephen I ordered bishop Saint Cyprian of Carthage and bishop Firmilian of Caesarea not to rebaptize heretic converts. Firmilian wrote an angry letter to Cyprian (newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm) against Pope Stephen:

"But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles.

"And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority.

“Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics.”

The Meletian Party at Antioch

Rome recognized Paulinus, rather than Meletius, as bishop of Antioch in the 4th Century. The Cappadocian Fathers generally supported Meletius. Saint Basil the Great ( newadvent.org/fathers/3202214.htm) wrote:

“I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns, assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God… Therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints.”

The Optaremus

Even our beloved Saint Augustine appears to have had less than an absolute view of the Pope’s supremacy. He is likely one of the authors of the Optaremus (archive.org/stream/historyofchurcht03kidd#page/168/mode/2up), in which the North African bishops rather brazenly challenged Pope Celestine I’s authority over Africa:

"the Nicene Decrees have most plainly committed not only the clergy of inferior rank but the bishops themselves to their own metropolitans. For they have ordained with great wisdom and justice that all matters should be terminated where they arise ; and they did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any province for the priests of Christ * wisely to discern and firmly to maintain that which is right, especially since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgement may appeal to the Council of his province or even to a general Council [sc. of all Africa], unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual with justice and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of priests * assembled in Council.

“For that your Holiness should send any on your part, we can find ordained by no Council of the Fathers.”

Dioscorus*

Rome and Alexandria were almost perfectly aligned in every matter for the first 400 years of the Church, but for some reason that fell apart when Dioscorus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Dioscorus_I_of_Alexandria) became Pope of Alexandria. Dioscorus attempted to excommunicate Pope Leo I following the Robber Synod of 449 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Ephesus). Dioscorus was in turn excommunicated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Photius

All the stirring resentment against Rome in the east came to the fore with Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp26180) in the 9th Century, who is perhaps second only to Dioscorus in the 1st millennium for his opposition to the Apostolic See.*

 

[Wandile]

They aren’t exceptions if they are widely practiced.

And no, Roman Law and the canon law of the Church of Rome were not the same.

I meant many things of roman law were incorporated from canon law. Things on issues they both touched on. This tendency reached its height in the Middle Ages.

You ascribe too much to th franks. The franks followed roman custom in most things. And this myth of yours saying the exceptions were widespread is fable with almost no evidence behind it other than the claims from you and a minute number of authors.
Had this been true, arguments against western practice would have been formulated ages ago and would be a lot more popular as it would be so plain to see:shrug: Again many of your desires are clouding your neutrality. Just like filioque debates where you read in to the western fathers, understandings that violently betray the plain readings of the text and making mountains out of pure exceptions in order to distort the picture… It’s a tendency I see too often with Eastern Orthodox.

But let’s leave this topic once and for all as its derailing the thread.

 

[Rohzek]

I meant many things of roman law were incorporated from canon law. Things on issues they both touched on. This tendency reached its height in the Middle Ages.

Okay.

You ascribe too much to th franks. The franks followed roman custom in most things.

I’m merely following the same historiographical trend that has been ongoing for about the past 20-30 among professional historians. A good showcase for this is Peter Brown’s The Rise of Western Christendom. Western Christianity in the first millennium is not primarily the story of the Roman Church, as had been thought in the past for primarily religious reasons, but rather the story of those churches north of the Alps.

And this myth of yours saying the exceptions were widespread is fable with almost no evidence behind it other than the claims from you and a minute number of authors.

If canon law is reflected in secular law, as in the Kingdom of Italy, it is widespread. The only time one sees canon law for the modern Catholic view practiced in secular law begins in the final decade of the eighth century under Charlemagne, while some of his successors even reverse that decision, such as King Lothar I of Italy.

Had this been true, arguments against western practice would have been formulated ages ago and would be a lot more popular as it would be so plain to see:shrug:

If history were so easy, us historians and historians-in-training would have ceased to exist long ago. There would be no reason for future research.

 

[steve_b]

Okay.

I’m merely following the same historiographical trend that has been ongoing for about the past 20-30 among professional historians. A good showcase for this is Peter Brown’s The Rise of Western Christendom. Western Christianity in the first millennium is not primarily the story of the Roman Church, as had been thought in the past for primarily religious reasons, but rather the story of those churches north of the Alps.

Historically speaking, regardless of compass points

Rome as chair of Peter, has always been, by definition, in the leader position of the Catholic Church worldwide. Scripture, 1st century Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, 2nd century Irenaeus of Lyon, validates that in writing, as well as divisions have been there since the beginning also, and those divisions have always been condemned… Why else would Jesus pray

John 17:20-23]

in extension, it goes without saying, those in history who don’t follow THOSE wishes of Jesus in that prayer, will have to answer to Him for that…right?

Rohzek:

If canon law is reflected in secular law, as in the Kingdom of Italy, it is widespread. The only time one sees canon law for the modern Catholic view practiced in secular law begins in the final decade of the eighth century under Charlemagne, while some of his successors even reverse that decision, such as King Lothar I of Italy.

Yet teachings from the ecumenical councils of the Church going back to the beginning, Apart from the secular govt concerns at the time, were considered canons, in Church language.

 

[LionHeart777]

Question:

Wasn’t there a debate in Medieval times about when the actual Marriage occurred (consent alone vs. consent then consummation.)? If so, that would imply an open issue back then Canonists were debating.

I noticed that the author cited a lot of texts about the “fornication clause”. In the Latin West, wasn’t there only an open window (according to consent & consummation) between the actual consent and the subsequent consummation?

If this were so, might some of the texts be better understood in light of this?

I agree that the citation from Pope St. Leo contradicts the author’s point.