Well, Bob, I’m in the middle of moving and don’t have the time to pick up that book from the library right now.
However. . .what you ‘read’ on CAF you need to show, in context (link to the thread or to wherever you saw it, please).
Furthermore, what you read in that book does not necessarily reflect the accuracy of what the Church teaches.
Now if you could show me in the Catechism, or in Canon Law, or in, say, some authoritative document from the Church that, again, not only were the “Eastern Churches” permitting divorce --and I mean by this not the Petrine or Pauline privilege or but divorce from what was known to be a valid marriage, AND that after this the parties were ‘free to remarry in the church’ --AND that “Rome” not only knew it but approved it, and actually sent documentation to the Eastern Churches confirming the practice. . .
But I do not think you will find anything of the kind.
Even today, while the Church does not ‘accept’ divorce in the sense that a person can divorce a spouse in a valid marriage and go on to remarry somebody else–the Church does understand that for the protection of a spouse and/or children, a civil divorce might not be gravely sinful in such case–BUT the spouse is to live ‘separate’ and not to consider himself/herself as ‘free to marry’.
That is the difference between ‘accepting divorce’ as something which is either morally neutral or even ‘good’, and accepting ‘remarriage’ as perfectly fine–which many of our separated brethren do, along with secular people. . .
and the Church’s position that divorce is a grave evil which only in very specific circumstances can be sought by an innocent party for their and their children’s protection from an abusive spouse, in which while the spouses live ‘separately’ they are still considered legally ‘married’ to each other and may not ‘remarry’ other people after the CIVIL divorce.
I hope I have made things clear?