Dear brother Joe,
…Because of the difficulty of understanding what marriages are prohibited, the matter has become confused; it seemed good to us to set if forth a little more clearly that from this time forth he who shall marry with the daughter of his father ….[other examples of marriage by consanguinity]… fall under the canon of seven years, provided they openly separate from the unlawful union.
Canon 54, Council of Trullo
An orthodox man is not permitted to marry and heretical woman…But if anything of this kind appear to have been done by any we require them to consider the marriage null…
Canon 72, Council of Trullo
Neither presbyter, deacon, nor any of the ecclesiastical order shall be ordained at large…And if any have been ordained without a charge, the holy Synod decrees, to the reproach of the ordainer, that such an ordination shall be inoperative…
Canon 6, Council of Chalcedon
If a bishop should ordain one outside his jurisdiction, the ordination shall be void…
Canon 22, Council of Antioch (341 A.D.)
If a bishop ordain another in his own Church a man belonging to another, let the ordination be void…
Canon 16, First Council of Nice
If any presbyters have been advanced without examination…such the canon does not admit…
These are a few canons that I could find just browsing through my text of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I would like to add a statement that I had read before, but don’t have time to diligently find. It said something to the effect that what is not lawful the Church does not admit. There were several conditions wherein a marriage was not considered lawful by the early Church, and consequently null.
As you can see, the early Church lived by the Canons. The Catholic Church today (as always) lived/lives by the Canons. The Eastern Orthodox Church …. uuuhhh… whatever you say. The Catholic Church today is only as legalistic as the early Church for the very fact that we have carried on the heritage of the early Church. Simple as that.
Re: Baptism – why would a baptism by a valid priest be considered invalid? Why would you even bring up that straw man?
[quote=]No there is definitely a clear distinction. One practice is rooted in facing the sin head on and repenting of it and the other is rooted in using legalistic equivocation to avoid any culpability on the part of the parties involved.
Since senseless rhetoric is the order of the day, I guess it would be just as valid to say, “the Eastern Orthodox principle of economy is really just your excuse to commit sin without any culpability.”
Re: the Petrine and Pauline privileges. They are both based on the principle of “in favor of the faith.” If you have a problem with it, take it up with St. Paul.