Synod on the Family
#46
(10-06-2014, 04:35 PM)1seeker Wrote: Trullo too is cited by Kasper in his devious proposal. Here is the answer to it, the book published by 5 scholars to specifically refute Kasper:


Remaining in the Truth of Christ:
Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church (2014)


Quote:During the first millennium the Church in both East and West resisted attempts by the emperors to introduce divorce and remarriage into ecclesiastical law and practice. The Council in Trullo in 692 marks the first sign of acceptance by the Church of motives for permitting divorce and remarriage (motives reducible, however, to the absence and presumed death of one of the spouses). A major change takes place in 883 when under Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople an ecclesiastical legal code incorporates a much longer list of reasons for permitting divorce and remarriage. A further complicating factor arises in 895 when the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI rules that in order to attain legal recognition marriages have to be blessed by the Church.

By 1086 in the Byzantine Empire, only ecclesiastical tribunals were permitted to investigate marriage cases, and they were required to do so on the basis of imperial and civil law that permitted divorce and remarriage for a large number of reasons extending beyond adultery. Thus, from the ninth century the Eastern Church falls progressively under the the argument in brief sway of successive Byzantine political rulers, who persuade the bishops to accept liberalized divorce and remarriage rules. Patriarch Alexius I of Constantinople (1025–1043) for the first time permitted a Church ceremony (a blessing) for second marriages in the case of women who divorced adulterous husbands. As missionary efforts brought Christianity from Constantinople to other nations, these and similar marital customs and ethics developed within the Orthodox Churches in those lands. Archbishop Vasil’ illustrates these developments by looking closely at Russia, Greece, and the Middle East, observing similarities and differences between those churches. He notes the lack of a coherent basis—or even of a common terminology—for comparing the theological, canonical, and pastoral rationales behind practices associated with oikonomia among the different Orthodox Churches. This confused context explains, in part, the difficulty in locating a mature theological literature on oikonomia among Eastern Orthodox writers. Vasil’ concludes that it may not be possible to determine a uniform “Orthodox position” on divorce and remarriage, and therefore also on oikonomia
.
At best, he fears, one can talk about the practices within a given Orthodox Church—although even here the practices are not always consistent—or one can speak about the shared position of a few bishops, or the viewpoint of a particular theologian. There are open disagreements among Orthodox bishops and theologians over the theology and law concerning these issues.

At the heart of the dilemma one finds the issue of the indissolubility of marriage. Roman Catholic theology, following Saint Augustine, views indissolubility in both a legal and spiritual sense as a bond (sacramentum) that binds the remaining in the truth of christian spouses to each other in Christ for as long as they live. However, Eastern Orthodox authors eschew the legal sense of this bond, and they view the indissolubility of marriage solely in terms of a spiritual bond. As has been stated, Orthodox authorities generally interpret Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 as permitting divorce in the case of adultery, and they insist that there are patristic grounds for doing so. If there is a common point of view among Eastern Orthodox bishops and theologians, this is it. But from this point on, Orthodox authors begin to take divergent views. Hence, while many hold the relatively strict position that divorce and remarriage are permissible only in cases of adultery, some, like John Meyendorff, suggest that the Church may grant a divorce on the grounds that the couple has refused to accept the divine grace that is offered to them in the sacrament of matrimony. Ecclesiastical divorce, in Meyendorff ’s view, is merely the Church’s acknowledgment that this sacramental grace has been refused. Paul Evdokimov modifies this thesis, maintaining that because reciprocal love constitutes the image of the sacrament, once this love grows cold, the sacramental communion, which is expressed in the sexual union of the couple, dissipates. As a result, that relationship deteriorates into a form of “fornication”.

In the light of their understanding of indissolubility, John Rist asks what relationship the Orthodox see between the first and second marriages in the case of divorce. Rist believes the question will be difficult to answer coherently because the Orthodox view of indissolubility leaves God’s role in the sacrament ambiguous. If the evil actions of one or the other spouse (adultery, abandonment, etc.) can effectively destroy the bond, so that the second marriage should be celebrated with less ceremony and even in a penitential spirit, then are there two different grades of marriage in Orthodox thought? Given that Catholic theology indicates a clear role for God in the indissoluble marriage bond, Rist suggests that it would be even more difficult for Catholics to make theological sense out of the second marriage (a remark that calls to mind Cardinal Kasper’s reference to “a willingness to tolerate something that, in itself, is unacceptable”).



Well it's not accurate to say Trullo was the first sign as the canon of St Basil attests and the fact that the Oriental Orthodox Churches have similar practices to the Eastern Orthodox. As you know they split from the rest of the Church over 200 years before Trullo was even thought of. Either way the quote you post actually supports the point I was making. It's simply a historical fact that the Catholic Church tolerated remarriage for many centuries. Even if we were to accept idea that Trullo was the first sign that is still almost 400 years at the very least.

You could try and make the case that the toleration was wrong was but the reality is it existed. Of course I would say that would be a very difficult case to make considering no pope openly opposed the eastern bishops who approved this while the Church, east and west, was still united. You would think some pope sometime would have said something if they believed the vast majority of the Church and her bishops had fallen into rank heresy for hundreds and hundreds of years. Even by the time of the reunion Council of Lyons in 1245 the issue wasn't brought up as a Church dividing issue.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Synod on the Family - by PolishTrad - 10-03-2014, 09:23 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-03-2014, 12:20 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by CounterRevolutionary - 10-03-2014, 01:28 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-03-2014, 02:30 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by PrairieMom - 10-04-2014, 12:46 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-05-2014, 10:40 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Heorot - 10-05-2014, 11:43 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by PolishTrad - 10-05-2014, 01:40 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Klemens - 10-05-2014, 01:50 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Heorot - 10-05-2014, 02:07 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 02:19 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-05-2014, 02:32 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-05-2014, 02:33 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 02:49 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-05-2014, 02:57 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by formerbuddhist - 10-05-2014, 03:10 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 03:28 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-05-2014, 03:31 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 03:45 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by formerbuddhist - 10-05-2014, 03:58 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 04:06 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by formerbuddhist - 10-05-2014, 04:09 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 04:31 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Gabriel Serafin - 10-05-2014, 04:38 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-05-2014, 04:44 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 05:06 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-05-2014, 05:21 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 05:32 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Klemens - 10-05-2014, 06:01 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Klemens - 10-05-2014, 06:10 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-05-2014, 07:24 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 07:47 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by formerbuddhist - 10-05-2014, 07:48 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-05-2014, 08:06 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 10:38 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-05-2014, 11:06 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-05-2014, 11:28 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-06-2014, 07:59 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-06-2014, 10:49 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-06-2014, 11:56 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-06-2014, 01:21 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-06-2014, 02:19 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-06-2014, 02:58 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-06-2014, 03:55 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-06-2014, 04:35 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-06-2014, 05:13 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-06-2014, 10:36 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-06-2014, 10:57 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-06-2014, 11:24 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-06-2014, 11:46 PM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-07-2014, 12:17 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Neopelagianus - 10-07-2014, 06:46 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by CounterRevolutionary - 10-07-2014, 07:19 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by CounterRevolutionary - 10-07-2014, 07:25 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by SCG - 10-07-2014, 08:34 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-07-2014, 09:28 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-07-2014, 10:08 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-07-2014, 10:26 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by 1seeker - 10-07-2014, 10:56 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Renatus Frater - 10-07-2014, 11:06 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by Silouan - 10-07-2014, 11:48 AM
Re: Synod on the Family - by CounterRevolutionary - 10-07-2014, 12:54 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)