[quote="Monica4316, post:48, topic:447222"]
Just doing some research on the remarriage question..
In support of the Catholic view, there's Clement of Alexandria as well:
"You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives."
This quote suggests that the reason to separate could be fornication, but then says its adultery for the separated to remarry. This must refer to the same couple, since those are the only separations he acknowledges.
First, I think this is your article, so forgive me for not addressing you directly. Like I said, this has peaked my interest, so when time permits, I would love to dig in to this some day. I was able to "poke around" a little bit last night (pardon the Grateful Dead reference, I'm a fan :) )
One of the first sources I came across was a book entitled "Pope Gregory II on Divorce and Remarriage" by William Kelly, found here:
On pg. 67 he starts talking about Canon 10 from the Council of Arles (given in the article by the Othodox author as evidence for their position), and seems to hold the opposite opinion as you, while admitting that the Canon can be read two ways. After this, Kelly talks about the Council of Agde (another evidence given by the Orthodox author.) FWIW, I don't know what the Creed of the author is (if any), but it looks like a 2016 publication from what I remember.
I also consulted the article "Divorce (in Moral Theology)", from the* Catholic Encyclopedia *.
A couple of things I made mental note of while skimming were:
The term divorce (divortium, from divertere, divortere, "to separate") was employed in pagan Rome for the mutual separation of married people. Etymologically the word does not indicate whether this mutual separation included the dissolution of the marriage bond, and in fact the word is used in the Church and in ecclesiastical law in this neutral signification. Hence we distinguish between divortium plenum or perfectum (absolute divorce), which implies the dissolution of the marriage bond, and divortium imperfectum (limited divorce), which leaves the marriage bond intact and implies only the cessation of common life (separation from bed and board, or in addition separation of dwelling-place). In civil law divorce means the dissolution of the marriage bond; divortium imperfectum is called separation (séparation de corps).
This leads me to believe that when "divorce" is mentioned in a document one has to be careful to figure out which is meant. (Duh, right? Sorry to insult anyone's intelligence.)
2.) Also in my mind, was the positive evidence given for the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The practice of the faithful was not indeed always in perfect accord with the doctrine of the Church. On account of defective morality, there are to be found regulations of particular synods which permitted unjustifiable concessions. However, the synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed. The Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300) maintains without the least ambiguity the permanence of the marriage bond, even in the case of adultery. Canon ix decreed: "A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity" (Labbe, "Concilia", II, 7). The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife" (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, "They are forbidden to marry" (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden.
The following decisions of the popes on this subject deserve special mention: Innocent I, "Epist. ad Exsuper.", c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500): "Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides." Compare also with "Epist. ad Vict. Rothom.", xiii, 15, (P.L., XX, 479): "In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died." The impossibility of absolute divorce during the entire life of married people could not be expressed more forcibly than by declaring that the permission to perform public penance must be refused to women who remarried, as to a public sinner, because this penance presupposed the cessation of sin, and to remain in a second marriage was to continue in sin.
Anyway, one can read on from there (both up and down.)