Council of Trent declined to condemn Orthodox view on remarriage, Jesuit journal says
October 02, 2014
Free eBook:
|
| Free eBook: Pope Francis on the Family |
An article in the authoritative Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica says that the Council of Trent carefully avoided condemning the practice of Orthodox churches that allowed 2nd marriages in some cases.
The article by Father Giancarlo Pani has obvious relevance to the current debate on the "Kasper proposal," which would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist under some circumstances. Cardinal Kasper has pointed to the practice of the Eastern churches as a possible model.
The article in La Civilta Cattolica also carries special significance because the contents of the Jesuit journal are cleared in advance by the Vatican Secretariat of State, and are therefore perceived as a Vatican thinking.
Father Pani writes that at Trent, a proposed decree would have condemned the notion that adultery breaks the marital bond and allows for the offended party to enter into a new union. Some participants in the Council, representing the Kingdom of Venice, protested that the decree, as worded, would be offensive to the Eastern-rite Christians within their domain, who regarded marriage as dissolved by adultery.
In deference to the Venetian delegates, Father Pani writes, the Council revised the proposed decree. Nevertheless the final statement (Canon VII of the 24th session) still clearly affirms that remarriage is forbidden:
If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
For all current news, visit our News home page.
Further information:
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: -
Oct. 03, 2014 10:02 AM ET USA
In the language of diplomacy, OF COURSE Trent condemned the Eastern Orthodox view. In diplomacy one simply chooses the correct words that express your view clearly but non-confrontationally, letting the other side save face. Good example in U.S. history, Secy of State Seward, after our civil war was over, sent a letter to the French, asking them if they would be good enough to advise us when they planned to leave Mexico. Soft words, big stick, a word to the wise.
-
Posted by: filioque -
Oct. 02, 2014 9:59 PM ET USA
Excuse me? How can the statement of Trent not be read as a condemnation of Orthodox practices? Maybe they didn't come out and say: "Our Eastern brethren are in error, let them be anathema," but Trent strongly affirmed that adultery does not dissolve the marital bond, in direct contradiction of the Orthodox practice. The Jesuits are working hard for Card. Kasper, as shown by articles in America. With this article in La Civilta Cattolica, maybe they are working for their brother Pope, too
-
Posted by: jg23753479 -
Oct. 02, 2014 7:04 PM ET USA
Trent seems clear on the matter (even if the first paragraph above is anything but; some word(s) seem to be missing). It is impossible to see how the current synod could get around what is quoted above from Trent regardless of any intellectual gymnastics that may evidence themselves there.
-
Posted by: Defender -
Oct. 02, 2014 4:57 PM ET USA
Even if true, are we now Orthodox?
