What seems to be the go-to attempt at a “gotcha” by some Roman Catholic apologists is saying the Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage therefore they aren’t the Church.
Perhaps I’m missing something, or misunderstanding something, but it seems like Rome’s position on “valid marriages” also makes marriage very unlike the other sacraments? No one would suggest that a baptism “didn’t take” because the person baptised unknowingly didn’t have the right mindset, or because they later went on to sin, because the sacraments are meant to be the work of the Holy Spirit. No one suggests that Holy Communion isn’t Holy Communion based on the disposition of the recipient. So why would marriage be so dramatically different?
I don't think this article was very well researched.
1. Right off the bat, your first church history reference is in AD 370. Why no mention of the pre-Nicene authors? Likely because they unanimously rejected remarriage after divorce. And of course no mention is made of Ss. Jerome, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Innocent, and many others who upheld the Catholic teaching that while divorce, viz. separation of the spouses, can sometimes be permitted, remarriage never is.
Even if you disagree with these authorities, even with good reason, to imply that every father of the church upheld the modern Eastern Orthodox teaching on divorce and remarriage comes off as dishonest. To be fair, you didn't outright say that, but acknowledging that there were divergent views in the early church would make this article more intellectually respectable.
2. Notice the quote you have from St. Basil: he rejects women being able to remarry after divorce. Does the Eastern Orthodox Church uphold that today?
3. How is the Tetragamy Controversy relevant to the question of remarriage after divorce? That was a matter of remarriage after death. That's what it seems the "three marriage rule" originally applied to, not remarriage after divorce. As Trullo itself states, that rule is from tradition, and so Rome being aware of it does not imply that they accepted the Canon IV of Trullo, certainly not as the Byzantines would go on to use it.
4. The Council of Rome in 826 is just quoting our Lord's words in Matthew's Gospel, not offering an extensive interpretation thereof. The emphasis is clearly on divorce, not remarriage. Pope St. Zacharias (741-752), Pope St. Nicholas I (858-867), and Pope John VIII (872-882) all upheld the absolute indissolubility of marriage, even in cases of adultery. The odds that Pope Eugene II reversed that, only to have it immediately reversed again, without anybody noticing, is unlikely in my opinion.
5. Read our Lord's words in Matthew 19:9 more carefully: "he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Does the Orthodox Church believe that anyone who marries a woman who was divorced from her husband commits adultery?
6. Towards the end, you reference the article I wrote for Catholic Answers and say, "some Catholics today will move the goalposts from saying it was always inadmissible to divorce even in cases of adultery, to now it being admissible to divorce but it is inadmissible to remarry." Do you have any evidence of this? As far as I'm aware, even counter-Reformation authors like St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Robert Bellarmine acknowledged the difference between divorce (legal separation), which was sometimes allowed, and remarriage, which was never allowed while the other spouse was alive.
I don’t mention pre-nicene fathers because the article is specifically about St. Basil and proving the first millennium church permitted divorce & remarriage in rare circumstances through the implementation of these canons. By extension the Tetragamy Controversy supports this. St. Justin Martyr is a pre-Nicene father who acknowledges divorce occurring in the 100’s. The point is Catholic teaching is divorce is never permitted, such as the Council of Trent, yet you find it in church history. Yes St. Justin was against remarriage, the point stands that this contradicts Catholic teaching of itself.
Most of your responses here are hyper-focusing on remarriage, I think it shows an avoidance of the contradiction about divorce.
You try to point that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t uphold to the standard of St. Basil on remarriage, it cuts back to you as Pope Celestine III is a post-schism pope allowing divorce and remarriage (Decretals of Gregory IX, Lib III, Tit. XXXII, Laudabilem. On The Conversion of the Infidels). By your definition Rome didn’t uphold the standard even after the schism. It would also mean Rome accepted erroneous practice of the East for centuries on grounds of faith and morals.
The Council of Trullo, Canon 87 shows remarriage being permitted and regulated, although not the ideal. As you’ve stated, Rome disputes accepting said canons, except that Nicaea II (Canon 1) ecumenically received them which poses a separate conversation & issue for Rome.
Council of Rome 826 again affirms a contradiction that divorce is allowed. You say, “the emphasis is clearly on divorce,” something the Roman Catholic Church says is never permitted. Your last point you ask for evidence of goalposts being moved, your own words here on Rome 826 and in your first bullet point response are evidence of themselves. It’s a reliance on sophistry between terminology of “separation or divorce.”
It’s like a man leaving his wife, living with another woman and saying “we are just separated, not divorced.” Your question of “Does the Orthodox Church believe that anyone who marries a woman who was divorced from her husband commits adultery?” ties into this. 1) your question once again affirms a premise that divorce occurs 2) yes it’s adultery, a sin to be repented of. Instead of saying it doesn’t exist, Orthodoxy faces the modern human weakness and sin of the world. Your question shows that it’s impossible to actually commit adultery in the Roman Catholic system in the context of marriage.
In practice, we both have the same problems to different degrees. But the system or doctrine itself and how we address those problems couldn’t be more different. We believe divorce is a sin, you believe it’s impossible. That and the indissolubility of marriage are the differences here. You shouldn’t kill your marriage, but it’s possible, just like you shouldn’t kill your neighbor but in potentiality you could. Under the Roman system understanding of divorce, if you kill your neighbor, he is still alive.
I truly mean this cordially, I have no interest in what is considered intellectually respectable from someone else’s definition which will always be lacking until you affirm said position/definition. “For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 1 Corinthians 1:19.
You seem to be under the impression that the Catholic Church teaches divorce is impossible, my question is: what’s your evidence of this? This seems to be at the root of most of your responses. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I’m not aware of any Catholic authors who believe that divorce, viz. the separation of the spouses, is impossible. Rather, what they insist on is that remarriage while the other spouse is still alive isn’t possible. The reason, of course, being that divorce doesn’t actually dissolve a marriage, it just enables spouses to physically separate.
You’re the one who doesn’t seem to understand why this debate hinges on the question of remarriage after divorce, and to me that demonstrates that you haven’t done the requisite research to speak on this subject.
Re: Notice the quote you have from St. Basil: he rejects women being able to remarry after divorce. Does the Eastern Orthodox Church uphold that today?
Justinian's laws (which came later than St. Basil) allowed women to divorce for the the same (limited) reasons men could. So that took precedence in Byzantine (and Orthodox) history.
Perhaps I’m missing something, or misunderstanding something, but it seems like Rome’s position on “valid marriages” also makes marriage very unlike the other sacraments? No one would suggest that a baptism “didn’t take” because the person baptised unknowingly didn’t have the right mindset, or because they later went on to sin, because the sacraments are meant to be the work of the Holy Spirit. No one suggests that Holy Communion isn’t Holy Communion based on the disposition of the recipient. So why would marriage be so dramatically different?
I don't think this article was very well researched.
1. Right off the bat, your first church history reference is in AD 370. Why no mention of the pre-Nicene authors? Likely because they unanimously rejected remarriage after divorce. And of course no mention is made of Ss. Jerome, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Innocent, and many others who upheld the Catholic teaching that while divorce, viz. separation of the spouses, can sometimes be permitted, remarriage never is.
Even if you disagree with these authorities, even with good reason, to imply that every father of the church upheld the modern Eastern Orthodox teaching on divorce and remarriage comes off as dishonest. To be fair, you didn't outright say that, but acknowledging that there were divergent views in the early church would make this article more intellectually respectable.
2. Notice the quote you have from St. Basil: he rejects women being able to remarry after divorce. Does the Eastern Orthodox Church uphold that today?
3. How is the Tetragamy Controversy relevant to the question of remarriage after divorce? That was a matter of remarriage after death. That's what it seems the "three marriage rule" originally applied to, not remarriage after divorce. As Trullo itself states, that rule is from tradition, and so Rome being aware of it does not imply that they accepted the Canon IV of Trullo, certainly not as the Byzantines would go on to use it.
4. The Council of Rome in 826 is just quoting our Lord's words in Matthew's Gospel, not offering an extensive interpretation thereof. The emphasis is clearly on divorce, not remarriage. Pope St. Zacharias (741-752), Pope St. Nicholas I (858-867), and Pope John VIII (872-882) all upheld the absolute indissolubility of marriage, even in cases of adultery. The odds that Pope Eugene II reversed that, only to have it immediately reversed again, without anybody noticing, is unlikely in my opinion.
5. Read our Lord's words in Matthew 19:9 more carefully: "he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Does the Orthodox Church believe that anyone who marries a woman who was divorced from her husband commits adultery?
6. Towards the end, you reference the article I wrote for Catholic Answers and say, "some Catholics today will move the goalposts from saying it was always inadmissible to divorce even in cases of adultery, to now it being admissible to divorce but it is inadmissible to remarry." Do you have any evidence of this? As far as I'm aware, even counter-Reformation authors like St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Robert Bellarmine acknowledged the difference between divorce (legal separation), which was sometimes allowed, and remarriage, which was never allowed while the other spouse was alive.
I don’t mention pre-nicene fathers because the article is specifically about St. Basil and proving the first millennium church permitted divorce & remarriage in rare circumstances through the implementation of these canons. By extension the Tetragamy Controversy supports this. St. Justin Martyr is a pre-Nicene father who acknowledges divorce occurring in the 100’s. The point is Catholic teaching is divorce is never permitted, such as the Council of Trent, yet you find it in church history. Yes St. Justin was against remarriage, the point stands that this contradicts Catholic teaching of itself.
Most of your responses here are hyper-focusing on remarriage, I think it shows an avoidance of the contradiction about divorce.
You try to point that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t uphold to the standard of St. Basil on remarriage, it cuts back to you as Pope Celestine III is a post-schism pope allowing divorce and remarriage (Decretals of Gregory IX, Lib III, Tit. XXXII, Laudabilem. On The Conversion of the Infidels). By your definition Rome didn’t uphold the standard even after the schism. It would also mean Rome accepted erroneous practice of the East for centuries on grounds of faith and morals.
The Council of Trullo, Canon 87 shows remarriage being permitted and regulated, although not the ideal. As you’ve stated, Rome disputes accepting said canons, except that Nicaea II (Canon 1) ecumenically received them which poses a separate conversation & issue for Rome.
Council of Rome 826 again affirms a contradiction that divorce is allowed. You say, “the emphasis is clearly on divorce,” something the Roman Catholic Church says is never permitted. Your last point you ask for evidence of goalposts being moved, your own words here on Rome 826 and in your first bullet point response are evidence of themselves. It’s a reliance on sophistry between terminology of “separation or divorce.”
It’s like a man leaving his wife, living with another woman and saying “we are just separated, not divorced.” Your question of “Does the Orthodox Church believe that anyone who marries a woman who was divorced from her husband commits adultery?” ties into this. 1) your question once again affirms a premise that divorce occurs 2) yes it’s adultery, a sin to be repented of. Instead of saying it doesn’t exist, Orthodoxy faces the modern human weakness and sin of the world. Your question shows that it’s impossible to actually commit adultery in the Roman Catholic system in the context of marriage.
In practice, we both have the same problems to different degrees. But the system or doctrine itself and how we address those problems couldn’t be more different. We believe divorce is a sin, you believe it’s impossible. That and the indissolubility of marriage are the differences here. You shouldn’t kill your marriage, but it’s possible, just like you shouldn’t kill your neighbor but in potentiality you could. Under the Roman system understanding of divorce, if you kill your neighbor, he is still alive.
I truly mean this cordially, I have no interest in what is considered intellectually respectable from someone else’s definition which will always be lacking until you affirm said position/definition. “For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 1 Corinthians 1:19.
You seem to be under the impression that the Catholic Church teaches divorce is impossible, my question is: what’s your evidence of this? This seems to be at the root of most of your responses. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I’m not aware of any Catholic authors who believe that divorce, viz. the separation of the spouses, is impossible. Rather, what they insist on is that remarriage while the other spouse is still alive isn’t possible. The reason, of course, being that divorce doesn’t actually dissolve a marriage, it just enables spouses to physically separate.
You’re the one who doesn’t seem to understand why this debate hinges on the question of remarriage after divorce, and to me that demonstrates that you haven’t done the requisite research to speak on this subject.
Re: Notice the quote you have from St. Basil: he rejects women being able to remarry after divorce. Does the Eastern Orthodox Church uphold that today?
Justinian's laws (which came later than St. Basil) allowed women to divorce for the the same (limited) reasons men could. So that took precedence in Byzantine (and Orthodox) history.
I’m well aware, but emperors overruling bishops isn’t a good look.
On matters of civic law bishops do not have the last word.
Sure, but as St. John Chrysostom said of divorce and remarriage, the Lord will judge based on His divine law, not the civil law.