Synod on the Family
#41
(10-05-2014, 05:32 PM)Silouan Wrote: There are canons regulating these things from at least the late 4th century and it was practiced for at least 600 years in the Catholic Church and maybe more.

When Kasper claimed the early church had this remarriage business, he was roundly refuted by historians. Non-divorce goes back to apostolic times and the East's laxity is heresy.


(10-06-2014, 11:56 AM)Silouan Wrote: Tell me what the question is and I'll answer it as best as I can.
Here:


(10-06-2014, 07:59 AM)1seeker Wrote: All I want to say is that Kasper is no better than the orthodox, and the orthodox are no better than Kasper. As long as you're ok with that, my point is made.
Reply
#42
(10-06-2014, 01:21 PM)1seeker Wrote:
(10-05-2014, 05:32 PM)Silouan Wrote: There are canons regulating these things from at least the late 4th century and it was practiced for at least 600 years in the Catholic Church and maybe more.

When Kasper claimed the early church had this remarriage business, he was roundly refuted by historians. Non-divorce goes back to apostolic times and the East's laxity is heresy.


Well that's simply not true. St Basil the Great prescribes penances for those who remarry as does the Trullan canons. If it wasn't a practice there would be no need to canonically regulate it.





(10-06-2014, 07:59 AM)1seeker Wrote: All I want to say is that Kasper is no better than the orthodox, and the orthodox are no better than Kasper. As long as you're ok with that, my point is made.



I'm sorry but I don't see a question.
Reply
#43
(10-06-2014, 02:19 PM)Silouan Wrote: St Basil the Great prescribes penances for those who remarry as does the Trullan canons.

Proofs please, for both St. Basil and the Trullan canons.




(10-06-2014, 02:19 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(10-06-2014, 07:59 AM)1seeker Wrote: All I want to say is that Kasper is no better than the orthodox, and the orthodox are no better than Kasper. As long as you're ok with that, my point is made.

I'm sorry but I don't see a question.

"Do you accept that Kasper's Proposal is no better than the Orthodox view, and the Orthodox as a church are no better on this, than Kasper's Proposal?"

It seems everything has to be spelled out to obstinacy.
Reply
#44
(10-06-2014, 02:58 PM)1seeker Wrote:
(10-06-2014, 02:19 PM)Silouan Wrote: St Basil the Great prescribes penances for those who remarry as does the Trullan canons.

Proofs please, for both St. Basil and the Trullan canons.




(10-06-2014, 02:19 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(10-06-2014, 07:59 AM)1seeker Wrote: All I want to say is that Kasper is no better than the orthodox, and the orthodox are no better than Kasper. As long as you're ok with that, my point is made.

I'm sorry but I don't see a question.

"Do you accept that Kasper's Proposal is no better than the Orthodox view, and the Orthodox as a church are no better on this, than Kasper's Proposal?"

It seems everything has to be spelled out to obstinacy.



Again I have said nothing disrespectful to you or anyone else here as far as I know. I would appreciate the same courtesy. The question you ask is akin to asking "when did you stop beating your wife." I don't accept the premise. Correct the premise and I'll be happy to give an answer. Either way here are the canons you asked for.


"They that marry a second time, used to be under penance a year or two.  They that marry a third time, three or four years.  But we have a custom, that he who marries a third time be under penance five years, not by canon, but tradition.  Half of this time they are to be hearers, afterwards Co-standers; but to abstain from the communion of the Good Thing, when they have shewed some fruit of repentance." - The First Canonical Epistle of Our Holy Father Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium




"She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holy and divine Basil, who has gathered this most excellently from the prophet Jeremiah:  “If a woman has become another man’s, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall remain defiled;” and again, “He who has an adulteress is senseless and impious.”  If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment.  And pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the Church.  But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord.  And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be “weepers” for a year, “hearers” for two years, “prostrators” for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation" - Canon LXXXVII of Trullo
Reply
#45
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”).
Reply
#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
#47
"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. "

The situation in the dark ages was very serious in Europe. Lines of communication were almost nonexistent. Rome never even participated in Nicea II. So you're overstating your case about Rome tolerating the Trullo canons when most likely they never even knew about them.


"if we were to accept idea that Trullo was the first sign that is still almost 400 years at the very least."

What are you counting 400 years toward?
Reply
#48
(10-06-2014, 10:36 PM)1seeker Wrote: "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. "

The situation in the dark ages was very serious in Europe. Lines of communication were almost nonexistent. Rome never even participated in Nicea II. So you're overstating your case about Rome tolerating the Trullo canons when most likely they never even knew about them.


"if we were to accept idea that Trullo was the first sign that is still almost 400 years at the very least."

What are you counting 400 years toward?


Well there's not doubt that Rome knew about Trullo. Some, such as Pope Sergius wrote against the council. Apparently Pope Hadrian accepted the council in its entirety. I'm counting from Trullo in 692 to the generally accepted date of the schism in 1054. Please don't misunderstand me. Even though of course I believe it is correct, I'm not arguing that the Orthodox practice is right or that Cardinal Kasper is right. I mean I've only read a couple of paragraphs he has written. I'm simply making the case that it's not historically incorrect to say that there is some precedent for accepting remarried persons to Communion.
Reply
#49
About this so called Council: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm
Quote:It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. Basil of Gortyna in Illyria, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use a title that in the East served to clothe the decrees with Roman authority. In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematized and "every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned" (Fortescue)
(…)
The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, "Conciliengesch." (III, 345-48).

So basically a bunch of Eastern bishops got together, found some western guy that claimed he was friends with the Pope, to concoct a council that basically means the Church bending for the world's lusts. And then you guys complain of Western audacity of changing a tiny bit of the creed with the filioque (which is not even wrong, theologically).

The point of Archbishop Vasil''s article is that the Eastern Church gradually ceded to local customs, to pressures from the emperor, so on and so forth.
I for one can't wait to read the article in its entirety.
Reply
#50
(10-06-2014, 11:24 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: About this so called Council: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm
Quote:It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. Basil of Gortyna in Illyria, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use a title that in the East served to clothe the decrees with Roman authority. In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematized and "every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned" (Fortescue)
(…)
The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, "Conciliengesch." (III, 345-48).

So basically a bunch of Eastern bishops got together, found some western guy that claimed he was friends with the Pope, to concoct a council that basically means the Church bending for the world's lusts. And then you guys complain of Western audacity of changing a tiny bit of the creed with the filioque (which is not even wrong, theologically).

The point of Archbishop Vasil''s article is that the Eastern Church gradually ceded to local customs, to pressures from the emperor, so on and so forth.
I for one can't wait to read the article in its entirety.


Well all of the seven ecumenical councils were a "bunch of eastern bishops" getting together.  :grin:


The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't tell all of the story. All Trullo did in the case of remarriage was confirm and expand on St Basil's canon. St Basil didn't close his eyes and pluck that canon out of the sky. By his time It was an established practice and wide spread enough for him to prescribe penance for it. Remember when St Basil lived. As to the council  being "anathematized....[in] every little detail", as I mentioned Pope Hadrian accepted all of the canons of Trullo. Pope Constantine accepted some of them. So it may have been anathematized later but that certainly wasn't the case during the nearly 400 years we were united after the council took place.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)