What a stupid comment. There is no contradiction. Rather, before Florence the latins already held the theology expressed at Trent. They didn't change at Florence. All they did was let it go as it really didn't seem to be a deal breaker for them.
In fact, as it turns out, I suppose that the indissolubility of marriage has been the perennial teaching of the Latins, except when it has not been the perennial teaching of the Latins. Pope Stephen II (the first Frankish Pope) taught, against the teachings of his predecessors, that marriages with slaves could be dissolved. Pope Celestine III declared that marriage could be dissolved if one party ever became heretical. Pope Innocent III involved himself in a theological contradiction. Though he annulled Pope Celestine's position on marriage, he nevertheless taught that the spiritual bond which binds a bishop to his diocese is a greater bond than the carnal bond which binds man and wife, such that God alone could loose the former, and that the Pope, as God's representative, was also entitled to be able to do the same by divine authority. This of course, has the corollary that the lesser bond marriage could also be dissolved by the Pope.
Such issues are easily fixed over time. Issues like papal supremacy and filioque on the other hand, are another story.
Trust that even after the union, the Latins would have brought up marriage once the dust has settled for Thomistic and Augustinian theology had taken sway on the catholic thought.
Now that is a pretty "stupid comment" if I've ever seen one. What basis in reality do you have for such a speculative assertion?
Reunion was the councils primary objective. They wanted it as soon as possible...
So you are telling me that the Latins were being duplicitous. No wonder the Three Eastern Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem in 1443 condemned the Council of Florence, calling it the "lawless Council of Florence".
...but trust that the Latins would never let the marriage issue go.
Except when their infallible popes taught in decretals that marriage was in fact a dissoluble bond.
In fact the decree we speak of (which was made a mere century after Florence) was already softened for the Greeks so as to not be too offensive but yet still speak truth.
The dogmatic canons of Trent were most assuredly intended for the reformers, who were arguing from other sources that the marital bond may be dissolved (who knows, perhaps they were even quoting the above-mentioned popes).
The fact is though that The East already has a rather good canonical basis for its current practice concerning divorce. We already see from canon 9 of St. Basil that a man can dismiss his wife and take another on account of fornication. He also makes the case that this in principle could apply equally to women, although custom does not support this. Furthermore, as St. Basil teaches in canon 4, trigamy is itself not marriage, and is rather limited fornication. Nevertheless, he teaches in canon 50 that though third marriages are a defilement, we do not publicly condemn those who have contracted them, as they are better than unrestrained fornication. We see then that there is already a basis in canon law for recognizing by oikonomia the marriages contracted by those who have divorced, even though such marriages like third marriages may in principle be unlawful.