NOTE: I have since made a follow up post for this topic, which has further arguments and evidence. Click here to see it as well. Over the past many years, there have been a number of internet artic…
shamelessorthodoxy.com
It is certainly possible that within the early church there is not unanimity on this topic. The inability to have timely and consistent communications between the bishops did not provide an easy means to keep everybody on the same page. It's why certain heresies were so difficult to stamp out and lasted decades if not longer. But the lack of consistency was never a good thing, and now that the ability for timely communication exists it should drive consistency in practice, and it has done that within the Catholic Church.
That being said, the arguments are quite lacking that this author puts forth to try to prove that within the western Church there was a similar viewpoint on this topic as to the Orthodox thinking today. I think he's counting on that it's scholarly and a lot of words so nobody will actually read and critically evaluate his case.
As far as the "Latin Penitentials" he provides, his links don't work and I can't find any other source that would help verify those or put those in context.
He cites two church fathers, Jerome and Ambrosiaster (cited as 'anonymous) so I have difficulty given any credence to the latter. Never heard of him. But let's look at what Jerome says --
"Therefore, whenever there is fornication and suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely divorced. And since it could have happened that someone brought a false charge against an innocent person, and on account of the second marriage-union hurled a charge at the first wife, it is commanded to divorce the first wife in such a way that he has no second wife while the first one is living. For he says the following: If you divorce your wife not on account of lust, but on account of an injury, why after the experience of the first unhappy marriage do you admit yourself into the danger of a new one? And besides, it could have come to pass that according to the same law, the wife too would have given a bill of divorce to the husband. And so by the same precaution, it is commanded that she not receive a second husband. And since a prostitute and she who had once been an adulteress were not afraid of reproach, the second husband is commanded that if he marries such a woman, he will be under the charge of adultery."
The author tries to make the case that this writing by Jerome does not support the indissolubility of marriage. Perhaps, Jerome does allow for divorce.
But he absolutely does not allow for remarriage, and says that to remarry would be adultery. Which aligns with the Catholic position, not the current Orthodox position.
He cites several local councils:
“Concerning these [men] who find their wives in adultery – and [who] are young Christian men, and [who] are forbidden to marry – it has been decided that, as long as possible, even if their adulterous wife is living, counsel is to be given to them not to marry another woman.”
In this one he has changed the translation from “so far as may be” to “as long as possible” to try to make his point that this one doesn’t support the indissolubility of marriage. Nonetheless the canon says that these are men who are “forbidden” to marry and counsel is to be given to them to not marry another woman. Again, the current Catholic position, not the Orthodox one. What “so far as may be” means – is that an allowance for something different? I can’t see a strong case that it is, especially with the strength of the word “forbidden.”
Also, those who have abandoned their wives, just as it is said in the gospel, except for the cause of fornication, who have married another without proof of adultery, we likewise forbid from communion, in order that not through our indulgence they invite more permitted sins to the license of error.
This one would have to be thoroughly viewed within the original language at the time it was written. It aligns with the Gospel exception in Matthew’s Gospel that is sometimes translated or interpreted as “adultery” but is not the same word for adultery used even within the same passage. That exception given in Matthew’s Gospel has to be understood in light of the knowledge that his Gospel was written for the Jews (which is why the exception is not given in Mark’s Gospel written for the Gentiles). That would indicate it has applicability to Jewish law, and is related to evidence of fornication during the betrothal period, not adultery after the marriage has been consummated. Regardless of the single exception cited in Scripture, this forbids communion to those who have remarried, identical to the current Catholic position, not the Orthodox one. And it certainly doesn’t give exception for a spouse being in prison, or mentally ill, or any of the other reasons the Orthodox today count as valid.
To not bore the reader too much the other canons seem to follow along the same line.
He does have another link to St. Jerome that is interesting. Jerome is writing about a particular case where a woman who evidently had a cad for a husband (adultery would have applied) had divorced and remarried another. He writes of her
“Fabiola therefore was fully persuaded in her own mind: she thought she had acted legitimately in putting away her husband, and that when she had done so she was free to marry again. She did not know that the rigour of the gospel takes away from women all pretexts for re-marriage so long as their former husbands are alive; and not knowing this, though she contrived to evade other assaults of the devil, she at this point unwittingly exposed herself to a wound from him.”
For the record, he’s also clear his words apply to men.
Citing St. Jerome here, when the Orthodox Church allows for divorce due to difficulties within a marriage and then remarriage, they are exposing their flock to a wound from the devil.
All in all, assuming the amount of time and research that must have gone in to try to make the case that the Latin Church at one time was anything close to viewing remarriage after divorce in the same light that the Orthodox Church practices today, and this is the best “evidence” that can be provided – it doesn’t come close.
