No my friend you are not full of baloney…what you said was baloney. Toleration of a second and in extreme circumstances third marriage was practiced in the East for many centuries prior to the schism. Rome never had an issue with it. In fact, in Cardinal Humbert’s famous rant, divorce and remarriage was not even mentioned as a cause for the split. That was some seven hundred years after St Basil laid out penances for second and third marriages.
Of all the Eastern Fathers you could pick to support your position St Basil is probably the worst.
When a couple can get an annulment because the bride stumped her toe on her wedding day I would be hesitant to call the Latin practice “strict.”
)Of all the Eastern Fathers you could pick to support your position St Basil is probably the worst.
His Canons, which prescribed penances for second and third marriages, were formally received into the canonical literature of the Church at the Quinisext Council in 692. They had been in use in the East for several centuries prior to that. During all those longs centuries Rome was in communion with Churches that would admit divorced/remarried individuals back to Communion after a period of penance. It’s only much later, centuries after the schism, that this became an issue for Rome.
Here is link to the Canons of St Basil. The entire thing is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the severity of the penances.Hi Brother Joe,
Could you provide some links with historical examples of divorces being granted in the East prior to the Schism and maybe also provide some links from Orthodox websites discussing this ancient practice? Much-obliged
Gurney (whose Giants are #1 in Spring Training and uh-lookin’ good!
This is really a stretch. Saying that this practice is evidence that divorce was allowed is either intentionally misleading or it’s fully ignorant. Marriage is a sacrament administered by the partners, not by a priest or deacon. Therefore, people would often have marriages with just their families, or even with just the partners. By making an oath, the sacrament was administered.
So now Jesus wasn’t a man (creature)?
JohnVIII,
You’re too funny, Gurney. Though, if this Lilith was Adam’s first wife, God may have allowed a “Decree of Nullity” (must get the term right in case GKC finds my post.
)You’re too funny, Gurney. Though, if this Lilith was Adam’s first wife, God may have allowed a “Decree of Nullity” (must get the term right in case GKC finds my post.
Peace,
Anna
Edited to add P.S. See picture of the Lilith of Jewish folklore at wikipedia–it’s too graphic to insert in my post. See link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
I remember Lilith in both “Cheers” and “Frasier.” I still watch the reruns of both.
While it’s entirely off-topic and you seem to have missed the entire point of the post (which is that the Church’s delay in proclaiming something does not make its alternative true), “creature” is not the same as “man”. “Creature” is a created being, and it was the position of Arius that Jesus was created by the father in time. The council proclaimed that he was begotten, not created, of the same substance as the father, and from eternity.So now Jesus wasn’t a man (creature)?
Thats VERY true…BUT the fact that the church DID allow for it and now does not is a different story.
On another thread - or was it this one? - someone commented that the historical reality is more complex because the state generally took care of marriage matters and the Church often wasn’t formally involved.
If by “allow for remarriage” you mean administering in the church a rite of Holy Matrimony that did not happen in East until the 8th century. If you mean remove the penalty of lengthy excommunication for those contracting a second marriage, I think that allowance is much more recent, perhaps even 19th century.
DVDJS - thanks…this is exactly what I was looking for. Earlier in the thread I maintained that ecclesiastical second marriages were a novelty, and that the modern EO idea (at least in some circles) that the second marriage, after a divorce, is fully sacramental is even more of a departure from tradition. It is sometimes frustrating when certain EO and EC Christians insist that the East has never changed anything significant from the time of the Apostles while the Western Church never ceases to introduce novelty after novelty…it is refreshing to see Eastern Christians acknowleding that there has been significant development in practice and theology in the East as well as in the West.