Replies

I thought I'd learned that the Western Church does not GRANT Ecclesiastical Divorces, but that the Western Church accepts the VALIDITY of those granted by the Eastern Churches.

Correct. Or more precisely, in the past millenium or so (since the birth of modern Canon Law in the Gregorian period), the Western Church has not granted Ecclesiastical Divorces. One need not look far back in Carolingian and Roman times to find that the Western Church did accept it. For example, the Code of Justinian of AD 528, which permits divorce for adultery and abandonment, was accepted by the Pope (then a citizen of the Roman Empire).

The formulation of Trent is that the Western Church has not erred in teaching as she does on matrimony, not that all who do not practice marital legislation by western standards are wrong. This formulation was due to the intervention of the Patriarch of Venice, who was familiar with the eastern custom.

>> Or more precisely, in the past millenium or so (since the birth of modern Canon Law in the Gregorian period), the Western Church has not granted Ecclesiastical Divorces.

That's about 1000 years too short.

>>One need not look far back in Carolingian and Roman times to find that the Western Church did accept it. For example, the Code of Justinian of AD 528, which permits divorce for adultery and abandonment, was accepted by the Pope (then a citizen of the Roman Empire).

Justinian's code was a CIVIL code, not Church code. At most, this CIVIL divorce was tolerated by the pope. To say that Justinians code was canon law is an extreme stretch on the truth.

The church does recognize divorce in a sense, ie it realizes there is a legal end to the civil marriage. However, the spiritual aspect of a marriage is never ended by divorce -- not under Justinians code nor modern law.

And no, you cannot find any support for Ecclesiastical Divorce in the Roman Church. You'll have to do much better than Justinians Code. Please provide concrete evidence if you have it.

>>The formulation of Trent is that the Western Church has not erred in teaching as she does on matrimony, not that all who do not practice marital legislation by western standards are wrong. This formulation was due to the intervention of the Patriarch of Venice, who was familiar with the eastern custom.

This has nothing to do with the heretical practice of a Church Divorce, something the Catholic Church cannot do itself.

I said

>>Justinian's code was a CIVIL code, not Church code. At most, this CIVIL divorce was tolerated by the pope. To say that Justinians code was canon law is an extreme stretch on the truth.

After some research, I should have said is:

To say that Justinian's code concernig divorce as being binding on the Church as Church law is an extremete stretch of the truth.

From what I understand, his code is a combination of civil and ecclesial law.

The pope having accepted the civil law back then would be like a pope accepting a civil divorce law today but rejecting the disolving of the marital bond.

Civil divorce and the spiritual bond of marriage are two different things.