I imagine a lot of people who read this blog have been following this pretty closely, but for those who aren’t, Amy Welborn has some good links etc. The Common Declaration is a little too long for me to read right now but Amy’s excerpt sounds good.
–Maclin Horton
These are heady times. With unity we’ll have the exciting prospect of watching them bargaining over either no-fault divorce in the East. Or no one actually married, but just living together in the West.
As we all known, there isn’t single one of us who would be turned down for an annulment. And in the East, adultery is fine as long as the indulgences are paid.
Mr. Salazar,
You’re not trying to be provocative, are you?
Eastern praxis regarding marriage predates the separation of the Churches, and was practiced by Eastern Catholics until relatively recently. Abuses aside, it is not an impediment to union.
Of course I realize that no terms would suit Mr Salazar short of conversion by the Orthodox and adaptation of every western theological construct.
Eastern praxis regarding marriage predates the separation of the Churches, and was practiced by Eastern Catholics until relatively recently. Abuses aside, it is not an impediment to union.
Of course I realize that no terms would suit Mr Salazar short of conversion by the Orthodox and adaptation of every western theological construct.
Dan,
What is your source for saying that Eastern Catholics allowed absolute divorce and remarriage “until recently” – at least that is what I thought you were saying? I’ve seen various formulas of reconciliation when Eastern Christians returned to the Catholic Church, and some of them included statements against divorce.
Mr. Zehnder,
No.
The mention of … reminded me of: …
Go indulge your appetite for detraction somewhere else, Franklin. –MH
A clarification,
I see that not only was my second post deleted, but the first one was altered so my Amy Welborn link doesn’t make much sense.
While my comment on Amy Welborn was true, (unlike Mr. Nichol’s defamation and libel on the other thread), obviously the editor didn’t want it posted, or my comment on the backward glance of some toward the city of earth in my first post.
No, actually your first comment wasn’t touched.
Mr. Horton,
You removed in the first post my comment on whose wink to the world would win out. As in there existing a double standard. As in the leading of a double life. A common occurrence in the modern world.
By “first” you mean 11/30 6:25pm? Nope. Hard to see how I could have done it accidentally, either, but I suppose that’s possible.
For whatever the reason. In the 11/30 6:25pm post the last paragraph is missing.
A fate which I see Mr. Nichols’ defamation on the About Face thread did not suffer.
Not that I want it removed, but if he had said it to my face I would have laid him out on the ground for it. Rarely is my smile wiped off my face. But that defamation did it.
Tom- I would not characterize Orthodox praxis as “absolute divorce and remarriage”. The second “marriage” is seen as non-sacramental and penitential, a concession to human weakness. Of course in practice this is probably abused, just as the annulment process is in the West.
I have read that the Melkites observed the Orthodox practice until fairly recently. I’ll try and find some references for this.
At any rate, the Eastern practice predated the separation of the communions; if we are to reach unity by a return to pre-separation understandings I don’t see how it can stand in the way.
Tom- I am visiting my mom in Michigan, and she has the world’s s-l-o-w-e-s-t computer. I lack the patience to google around for evidence of my contention about the Melkites. If someone else doesn’t do the research it will have to wait until the weekend is over…
I recall the contention that the Melkites permitted divorce and remarriage was brought up on that rather long exchange on annulments we had in the distant past. No one could offer proof for it then. Further, no clear evidence was given that Orthodox praxis was anything more than a concession to imperial law (a point Father John Meyendorff made, I believe) and thus merely a longstanding custom of certain particular churches.
But need we get into this again? Perhaps it would be best to reread the previous discussion and hash out what was not hashed out there.
Wow, so the prohibition on divorce and remarriage by the Catholic Church (aka the Mystical Body of Christ) is mere discipline as I understand Mr. Nichols’ statement. Does Mrs. Nichols know that that her marriage stands on such precarious ground? Sed contra, if the Church is infallible when it teaches on morals, and this is a matter of morals, would not then the Church prohibition on divorce and marriage have to be more than mere discipline? Also, mightn’t it be the case that some 2nd marriages are penitiential but some of them are not? Perhaps, if the praxis of divorce and remarriage was actually permitted by some Orthodox Churches before the “break,” then perhaps the “break” actually took place earlier than has been reported.
Mrs Nichols has seen friends who had been married twenty years and parented nine children break up, only to then see the Catholic Church grant an annulment. I think we all know our marriages are disposable/dispensible to the Church. I really don’t see how the Orthodox praxis, which at least is honest, is any more threatening.
I am sure that happens every day.