Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
That distinction which is brought up is unimportant.
|
Can we settle one thing at a time?
We have discussed this matter before, including a recommendation of Meyerndorff. The fact is that there is nothing in the passage of St. Basil that is contrary to what I wrote in post #94. That is important.
Quote:
|
The fact that St. Basil deems a marriage obtained outside of the Church by a divorced baptized Christian (if we are to hold that what you say is true) not to be adulterous should already indicate that he held a rather different definition of marriage.
|
I would rather that we deal with history and fact, rather than have as discussion conditioned on " if we are to hold that what you say is true". The facts are important. Nonetheless, I don't think that the quoted comment follows immediately from the writings of St. Basil. This has also been discussed in previous threads - with excellent comments by Ghosty. Does pardonable mean that there was no sin of adultery? Under what conditions were the excommunicated received back into communion?
Quote:
|
Is then, the Catholic rejection of civil remarriage (without concern for whether one was wrongfully divorced or abandoned) somehow more faithful to the patristic mindset than the Orthodox allowance for performing a second marriage, given St. Basil's view on the matter?
|
I don't understand the relevance of the question. I am just trying to get to the facts of the EO developments on divorce. Why value does a comparison to Catholic practice have in answering that question?
Re: Are Catholics afraid of Eastern Orthodox?
Linear Mode
