pgepps, history is always complicated. Any practicing historian would tell you that. As for the future of this conversation, I am afraid that I will have to cut it short. My translation of Arles is pretty spot on, actually. The fact that you won’t specify as to how it is wrong and offer your own translation of the Latin only reveals that you don’t know the language or its grammar. Which would in any other circumstances be quite fine and we could still debate. But that would require that you be honest about your own language skills. Therefore, I get the vibe that you are arguing from a sentiment that is less than charitable and more focused on branding me as a heretic rather than someone who is genuinely curious. Hence, why you would pose as someone with Latin knowledge, automatically assume I support Putin and Kirill, and use the derogatory term “Caesaropapism” to describe my faith.

It is a Protestant, not to say an essentially and predictably heretical, method to sift through the less authoritative statements made by theologians and clergy along the way in search of “counterexamples” that “complicate” an issue that is, well, not actually as complicated as all that. Yes, the process of coming to understand the truth well enough to define it is often complicated; one has to be pretty specific to deal with Eutyches, after all. But there is nothing that remains complicated about the bare facts of orthodox Trinitarian and Christological formulae, and no number of citations from ante-Nicene fathers (heck, even Athanasius!) making what Nicene Christians know are technical theological errors changes the result we get when we look for the “unanimous consent of the fathers.” Jerome has a lot of sentences that we don’t hold; even Aquinas, or Maximos, or Augustine, or Basil, can be mined for tendentious phrases. Only would-be heresiarchs do so, though.

On Arles, the translation is conclusory; it is therefore no more than an argument from silence, as you are saying “my translation is possible, word for word, and therefore I will use the translation that fits my argument.” It does not, however, make a whit of sense to smuggle an entire set of American speculations about what is morally possible–speculations conveniently tailored to your conclusion–into a bare concession to practicality.

The same applies to all of your examples, though one should readily admit that Compiegne and Verbiere are outliers. Verbiere, especially, may well be applying a rule that was tested and later found to be wrong. Compiegne is probably worded oddly in an attempt to fit with civil law–a mistake the West abandoned, but which continued to distort the East’s view of marriage.

The others quite simply do not contain anything that calls into question the indissolubility of an actual marriage of two baptized persons. Only by filling in the silence with speculative details could you draw such a conclusion–but then, we established from the first that your process is conclusory, not reasoned.

And again, if I were wrong about every single piece of evidence you adduce, it would not matter. It would just mean that I was mistaken in my effort to charitably construe rulings & teachings that were wrong, that in the end made only a negative contribution to what is indubitable and irreformable teaching of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, a teaching expressed in a dominical saying, which only heretics resist.

In the other thread one of my points (probably completely obfuscated because I can’t type concisely) was that Craig misused your blog post because its contents could not support his assertion that it is disingenuous for RCs to criticize the current EOC handling of remarriage, as regardless of internal veracity, the entry did not demonstrate any sort of dramatic reversal of moral teaching (as you yourself pointed out). This is why I made the previous claim that he was maybe begging the question a little bit because what counts as Tradition was actually partly at issue.

This is getting pretty convoluted. I’ve got to stop here. But I’ll follow the conversation if you two continue a discussion on councils. God bless.

PS. is your banner on the SO blog Priscilla from Claymore?

Furthermore, I never made any claims as to what “the Church” taught “officially” on the matter. I openly acknowledged that these were local synods and that there were other synods that contradicted them. I am not sure why the author of the first email is upset, but I somewhat suspect he or she did not read my entire blog post and thus misunderstood my intentions.

In terms of the second email, well I would appreciate why they think that for Vanne and Soissons. He or she doesn’t give an argument, but only bald assertions. As for Compiegne, that’s a rather interesting take. I don’t necessarily follow it, but interesting nonetheless. I am well aware that arguments over consummation existed in the late 9th century. My question is whether or not they existed in the 8th. I am unaware of such, but it could be simple ignorance on my part. I am also curious what the Catholic Church’s treatment on these councils and penitentials are, which the second emailer mentions.

As for the third email, the author presents no argument. He or she just makes claims with no counter analysis whatsoever. On what basis do they argue that I am making arguments for silence? And on what basis do they argue that the Synod of Rome doesn’t present a case for allowing remarriage after divorce? My understanding of these councils are on pretty sure ground to say the least. It falls in step with how academic historians have interpreted these canons and rulings. For more info on that scholarship, see:

Jo-Ann McNamara and Suzanne F. Wemple, “Marriage and Divorce in the Frankish Kingdom,” in Women in Medieval Society, edited by Susan Mosher Stuard (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1976), 95-124.

Ugh, this author’s writing is a pain.

His treatment of the Council of Arles might make sense if 20th-C
Americans were writing the language in English and then translating it
woodenly into Latin. The idea that the Council of Arles, made up of
celibates, said “quantum possit” and meant “if he can keep it in his
pants”? Hilarious.
…………
Also, regional councils don’t necessarily teach what “the Church”
teaches without error, any more than any given bishop’s attempt to
articulate the faith is necessarily irreformably true.

Another:

Vanne and Soissons don’t help him.

Compiegne is interesting, hard to read in modern language, possibly in
error(?), BUT looks like part of the development of the ratum et
consummatum standard for indissolubility. A “legal” wife might well
be ratum but non consummatum.

Verberie is weird, and requires study; murder in East & West is an
unusual reason, and this more so.

…………………….this whole list is a good example of why one
ought *not* anachronistically interpret canons. The Church has
already digested most of this, and the output is what we have received
as the faith.

And another:

…and again, the Synod of Rome does not help him. His conclusion is
risible, given that.

I’m not going to bother to go on and deal with what looks like an
obvious case of not understanding what constitutes genuine tradition
and what “unanimous consent of the fathers” means, among other things.

Arles, Vannes, Soissons, Rome–no help. he argues from silence.
Compiegne–worth further study.
Verberie–outlier, worth further study.

None of these changes what has been taught always, everywhere, and by
all; and none even authoritatively defines, much less outranks, a
dominical saying.

Metropolitan Kirill will get back to you about the timeliness of Caesaropapism when he’s done running errands for Putin. More to the point, a quick consultation of Joyce for background on the development of Christian marriage and the book I cite in the post for updating will tell you what you need to know about the history of the divergence before you try again.