Synod on the Family
#51
(10-06-2014, 11:46 PM)Silouan Wrote: Well all of the seven ecumenical councils were a "bunch of eastern bishops" getting together.  :grin:
???

(10-06-2014, 11:46 PM)Silouan Wrote: 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.

I cannot say much on St. Basil, but I've read something kinda different quoted from him (footnote 8).
And it might as well have been a custom back then. It is a custom today, just like fornication is also a custom.
Finally, that was a rejected council, I don't know why you insist on that.
Even if some passing Roman accepted it, it wouldn't be without precedent that one would only see the error the following day. At Chalcedon the Greeks were even worse: they participated in the Council (it was not just one greek fella) but when they got home they didn't understand the language or something and they got excited about it.
Reply
#52
(10-03-2014, 01:28 PM)CounterRevolutionary Wrote: I'd like to see His Eminence Cardinal Burke go all Saint Nicholas and deliver a knockout blow to Cardinal Kasper.

Deus vult!

N.
Reply
#53
(10-06-2014, 05:13 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(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.

Divorce and remarriage was one of my big hang-ups with Orthodoxy, but history does seem to indicate it was tolerated for centuries before Trent, even though it makes me uncomfortable. I actually tried to research when the Oriental Orthodox introduced remarriage, but could find no event or date when it was first allowed. I also like how strict they are with it, only in cases of adultery or apostasy. That is part of the reason I have a great affinity for the Copts. You might even say I'm a Copt  "in pectore."
Reply
#54
I also posted an article here before about how Cardinal Ratzinger made "The Kasper Proposal" back in the 1970's. In it he references Pope Gregory II allowing married men whose wives are ill and unable to render 'the debitum' to remarry.

http://www.pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzing...m-gratiani
Reply
#55
I love the remarks from the Australian couple married 55 years:

They told the Synod Fathers that “family life is ‘messy’. But so is parish life, which is the ‘family of families’”. They presented the situations of the many Catholic’s who have experienced brokenness and tension in their family life but who heroically struggle on in their attempt to adhere to Church teaching, such as the divorced mother who feels unwelcome when she brings her children to Mass; the parents who wish to welcome their gay son and his partner home for Christmas holidays; the elderly widowed mother who is the lone care-giver for her middle aged disabled son.

“The Church constantly faces the tension of upholding the truth while expressing compassion and mercy”, the couple noted. “[These familes] could always benefit from better teaching and programs. However, more than anything they need to be accompanied on their journey, welcomed, have their stories listened to, and, above all, affirmed”.

Perhaps the most revealing point made by the Pirola’s Monday was that the language of the Church in terms of the family needs to be changed.  Looking to the Church for guidance in times of trial and occasionally looking at Church documents, they said what they found “seemed to be from another planet” and “not terribly relevant” to their own experiences.
Reply
#56
(10-06-2014, 10:57 PM)Silouan Wrote: 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.

I must say, I appreciate the conciliatory notes near the end of your post. Maybe we can continue the conversation on a more charitable footing. Although it does not help when you said that all Councils were just a collection of "eastern bishops" so that confuses me as to whether the tone here is confrontational or conciliatory.

Back to your point about Trullo, if you say some popes accepted and some rejected it, you can hardly say it was uniformly an accepted and valid council. It was quite clearly very conflicted, in the Latin view. Furthermore, nowhere does it show that it's practices were allowed in the Latin lands!

So when you say that Trullo canons somehow indicate a default opinion of the Latin church, that's quite incorrect. There were recurrent doubts about it, and its practices never seeped into Latin lands. Furthermore as history shows, Trullan doctrines arose out of a compromise and pressure from the Secular World, showing that the Byzantine Church compromised, and did not remain as a faithful witness for God.
Reply
#57
(10-07-2014, 09:28 AM)1seeker Wrote:
(10-06-2014, 10:57 PM)Silouan Wrote: 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.

I must say, I appreciate the conciliatory notes near the end of your post. Maybe we can continue the conversation on a more charitable footing. Although it does not help when you said that all Councils were just a collection of "eastern bishops" so that confuses me as to whether the tone here is confrontational or conciliatory.

Well I try to never be confrontational. Although I'm certainly not perfect I try to respect the purpose of this forum. I was just remarking in a light hearted way on what Renatus posted, namely "So basically a bunch of Eastern bishops got together..." by saying all of the seven ecumenical councils were made up of mostly eastern bishops, some exclusively so. I wasn't try to make or imply any significance out of it, I was just teasing a little. That's why I put the big smiley face at the end.  :)

(10-07-2014, 09:28 AM)1seeker Wrote: Back to your point about Trullo, if you say some popes accepted and some rejected it, you can hardly say it was uniformly an accepted and valid council. It was quite clearly very conflicted, in the Latin view. Furthermore, nowhere does it show that it's practices were allowed in the Latin lands!

So when you say that Trullo canons somehow indicate a default opinion of the Latin church, that's quite incorrect. There were recurrent doubts about it, and its practices never seeped into Latin lands. Furthermore as history shows, Trullan doctrines arose out of a compromise and pressure from the Secular World, showing that the Byzantine Church compromised, and did not remain as a faithful witness for God.

I'm certainly not saying that it was the default position of the west, but the council was certainly considered uniform and valid in the entirety of the east. It went into effect immediately and remains so to this day. Even Pope John Paul II says it's still operative for those Eastern Churches now in union with Rome. As I said I'm not trying to prove that Trullo was widely accepted in the west. I'm simply saying it was known of,  occasionally accepted for short periods, and that nothing in the canons themselves were deemed any cause for disciplinary action, certainly not a cause for excommunication. Don't forget, we weren't formally separated, everything that was  happening in the east and west was happening inside the Catholic Church.

Reply
#58
(10-07-2014, 07:19 AM)CounterRevolutionary Wrote: Divorce and remarriage was one of my big hang-ups with Orthodoxy, but history does seem to indicate it was tolerated for centuries before Trent, even though it makes me uncomfortable. I actually tried to research when the Oriental Orthodox introduced remarriage, but could find no event or date when it was first allowed. I also like how strict they are with it, only in cases of adultery or apostasy. That is part of the reason I have a great affinity for the Copts. You might even say I'm a Copt  "in pectore."


Yes the Coptic Church and its daughter Churches in Ethiopia and Eritrea are very strict. Some of the Oriental Orthodox are almost identical to the Eastern Orthodox in practice. I think the fact that the practice of allowing remarried persons, after penance (sometimes very lengthy), is common to almost all of the ancient Apostolic Churches, it definitely testifies to the antiquity of the practice.
Reply
#59
(10-07-2014, 10:08 AM)Silouan Wrote: Well I try to never be confrontational. Although I'm certainly not perfect I try to respect the purpose of this forum. I was just remarking in a light hearted way on what Renatus posted, namely "So basically a bunch of Eastern bishops got together..." by saying all of the seven ecumenical councils were made up of mostly eastern bishops, some exclusively so. I wasn't try to make or imply any significance out of it, I was just teasing a little. That's why I put the big smiley face at the end.  :)

St. Augustine wasn't eastern. St. Hilary wasn't eastern. St. Ambrose who denied communion to the Emperor wasn't eastern. Joking is good, but in the context of Orthodox claims to be the truest church it can be insulting and obnoxious.

Quote:I'm certainly not saying that it was the default position of the west, but the council was certainly considered uniform and valid in the entirety of the east.

Ok but if that's ALL you are saying then we're back to square 1. We haven't moved even a little, because from the outset it was agreed upon that it is not the default view of the West, and is the long-standing view of the East.

The difference arises from your initial claim that prior to 1054 divorce&remarriage WAS more or less the default view in the West, so that when Kasper made his proposal he was returning us to our original belief. You painted divorce&remarriage as nearly an apostolic doctrine, which was preserved in the East, and originally practiced by the 'less-altered' West. Then after 1054 the West took a sharp turn departing in several key places, but Kasper is just returning us to the default opinion of the Original Church. Maybe now you'll see why your words elicited so much ire.
Reply
#60
(10-07-2014, 10:56 AM)1seeker Wrote:
(10-07-2014, 10:08 AM)Silouan Wrote: Well I try to never be confrontational. Although I'm certainly not perfect I try to respect the purpose of this forum. I was just remarking in a light hearted way on what Renatus posted, namely "So basically a bunch of Eastern bishops got together..." by saying all of the seven ecumenical councils were made up of mostly eastern bishops, some exclusively so. I wasn't try to make or imply any significance out of it, I was just teasing a little. That's why I put the big smiley face at the end.  :)

St. Augustine wasn't eastern. St. Hilary wasn't eastern. St. Ambrose who denied communion to the Emperor wasn't eastern. Joking is good, but in the context of Orthodox claims to be the truest church it can be insulting and obnoxious.

Let us also not forget that a bunch of Councils were done precisely to condemn some heresy coming from the East (you guys even killed S. Maximus because your emperor was trying to call the shots in the Church; of course, to put order in the house all was needed was some holy sanity coming from a few papal legates from the Holy See).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)