First and foremost, canon law can be erroneous. Popes are not infallible in a general sense. The infalliblity of a Pope is within certain narrow paramaters.
>>"After legitimate consent in the present case it is permitted to the one, even with the other objecting, to chose a monastery, as some saints have been called from marriage, as long as sexual intercourse has not taken place between them.
This is not Ecclesiastical Divorce. What you miss here is that the marriages has not been consumated and therefore incomplete, not valid.
Also, whan a couple is separated from room and board for abuse or adultery (a "limited divorce" or legal separation), the non-offending party may join a religious order without consent of the offender. The offender can do the same but requires the consent of the offended. But it is not a divorce and neither are free to remarry -- unlike Ecclesiastical Divorce.
>>And if she should marry, ...she should be seperated from him, and forced...return to the first, although som think otherwise, and also judgement has been rendered in another way by certain of our predecessors."
Judgement rendered "in another way" is vague. For example, she might not have been ordered to return to the first but still orded separated from the second. If indeed the judgement of his predecessor was to accept the second marriage, it was wrong to do so and does not give legitimacy to remarriage.
>>Pope Alexander III admits that Supreme Pontiffs in the past had allowed the dissolution of legitimate sacramental marriages in favor of a second marriage
IMO, this sounds like someone's interpretation on what the Pope said. If the Pope actually meant what you say, he obviously thought it was wrong since he refuses to do the same, unlike his predecessors.
>>"If anyone in a foreign land should take a slave woman in marriage, ...circumstances can take another woman, but not while that free-born woman is living whom he had in his own country." (Pope Stephen III, Denzinger, pg. 119, note 1)
Once again without the whole writing, the context is not clear. Was the slave woman forced to marry? If so, then the marriage wasn't valid to begin with.
>>Canon 9 allows the innocent party who has left an adulterer to receive communion "if perchance the necessity of illness urge that it be given", though otherwise they were then excommunicated.
If anything,this only points out it was sinful, but to a lesser extent. The fact that communion was to be denied is proof that the Church REJECTED the second marriage. Allowing communion upon illness may be an act of mercy since death could be approaching and there is a chance for repentace. But it is in no way an acceptance of the second marriage as being valid.
>>The remarriage of the innocent party was frowned upon, but clearly was not considered inherently evil, otherwise they would be disbarred from communion for life.
Actually, I don't get that at all from the passage. Rather what I get is a recognition of the woman being wronged, and pastoral mercy being show if she were to get ill and death be around the corner -- she had a chance to repent. Obviously it was more than frowned upon. (Remember in those days, common illness could kill a person, so any illnes was serious).
There is a recognition in the West, of the injured party. However, unlike Ecclesiastical Divorce, that recognition does not allow remarriage. Why? Because a valid marriage cannot be dissolved.
>>The same position is staked out even more leniently towards the innocent party by Tertullian, Lactantius, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, etc.
There is a vast difference between taking a position on this issue and how the the Church treats a second marriage.
Also, one must remember something about the Saints: The Church doesn't accept EVERYTHING they said or claimed. It's not wrong to recognize that a party has been injured. What is wrong is to give them permission to live a sinful life via a second marriage.
I didn't say that it was. I was giving you the entire selection for context.
IMO, this sounds like someone's interpretation on what the Pope said. If the Pope actually meant what you say, he obviously thought it was wrong since he refuses to do the same, unlike his predecessors.
No, not at all. Well, I don't think it is disputed that non-consumated marriages can be dissolved. The issue is over consummated marriages. It seems to me that the Pope is addressing the issue of whether a woman can remarry if the husband has turned to the religious life. he is saying no, but admitting others think otherwise, including some of his predecessors.
Once again without the whole writing, the context is not clear. Was the slave woman forced to marry? If so, then the marriage wasn't valid to begin with.
You are reading late-medieval canonical concepts (like canonical validity) into Roman-era documents written at a time where Marriages did not even take place in the Church. Roman Law prohibited the marriage of freemen and slaves. That is why this issue is arising in the letter.
If anything,this only points out it was sinful, but to a lesser extent. The fact that communion was to be denied is proof that the Church REJECTED the second marriage. Allowing communion upon illness may be an act of mercy since death could be approaching and there is a chance for repentace.
Actually, I don't get that at all from the passage. Rather what I get is a recognition of the woman being wronged, and pastoral mercy being show if she were to get ill and death be around the corner -- she had a chance to repent. Obviously it was more than frowned upon. (Remember in those days, common illness could kill a person, so any illnes was serious).
You are reading context into it which does not exist. The Church at that time frowned upon all subsequent marriages, whether from death, divorce, or other means. Read Tertullian's "To His Wife" on this if you need some context.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0404.htm
Those which were intrinsically evil (remarriage of guilty adulterers and deserters, etc.) were denied communion even at death without repentance and seperation. This case (remarriage of the innocent party) was not treated in the same way. Something that is intrinsically evil cannot be accepted "in extremis" because there is no gray between right and wrong. The only logical conclusion was that the Church viewed this situation as seriously misguided, but not intrinsically evil.
In any case, there is no mention of a requirement of repentance, because the Canon clearly implies the conintuation of the new couple living together as man and wife. If they had seperated, they could have simply done the much shorter penance due for adultery.
IMO, this sounds like someone's interpretation on what the Pope said. If the Pope actually meant what you say, he obviously thought it was wrong since he refuses to do the same, unlike his predecessors.
And then we are stuck with "Pope vs. Pope".
There is a recognition in the West, of the injured party. However, unlike Ecclesiastical Divorce, that recognition does not allow remarriage. Why? Because a valid marriage cannot be dissolved.
But that isn't the concept held in the East. They don't view it as a valid marriage being dissolved, since sacramental marriage is permanent, but an indulgence being shown towards the innocent in favor of a second natural marriage.
Maybe it would be easier for you to think about it this way. The Patriarchs and Kings of old were not acting against the natural law in taking more than one wife. How is it really any different for a man with an adulterous spouse to follow the same path by marrying another woman? There is no natural law being violated, and the Eastern Church (and the Catholic Church in accepting the actions of the Eastern Church) does not consider the marriage being contracted as being a sacramental marriage, but a legitimate natural marriage.
Also, one must remember something about the Saints: The Church doesn't accept EVERYTHING they said or claimed. It's not wrong to recognize that a party has been injured. What is wrong is to give them permission to live a sinful life via a second marriage.
If this were an instance of one or two isolated Saints, we might agree that this principal applies here. But we are talking about an "error" allegedly held for millenia by most in the East, by doctors of the Church, by various western local Councils and Popes, and by many of the Fathers. The weight of evidence on the one side, and the lack of condemnation by the west towards the east over this practice says volumes.