Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
ialmisry said:
Volnutt said:
ialmisry said:
Volnutt said:
Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)
you missed where they did not go around naked or eat manure cakes advocating for temple prostitution and starving the poor, but speaking out against vice.
No, I see that. I just don't agree that we're talking about vice in this case.
The Truth does not depend on your agreement.
Volnutt said:
ialmisry said:
Volnutt said:
Just like the Church has accepted that the Saints (Old and New Testament) of the past could be wrong about the shape of the Earth or the makeup of the solar system (or any number of other things), so it should be able to accept that they were wrong about homosexuality. It's not a fault to just be wrong about something because of the time you live in.
I don't have time to answer the rest of your tirades, but the idiocy of this caught my eye and cried out for a response.

The Church does not care about the heliocentric versus geocentric universe, a flat earth versus a round or oblong one, or any number of other things that depend on advances sciences etc. for verification. She cares a lot about the nature of marriage and preserving it as its Creator in the flesh described it, and knowledge to verify that lay within immediate reach eternally of every society of men.
Yes, but the Church does care telling the truth about reality.
Which is why she never got into dogmatizing on the nitty gritty of the physical sciences. God chose not to reveal such things, but let man explore instead, and the Church took her cue from His silence (that the Scholastics tried to fill it in is one of their original errors).

Volnutt said:
And the truth lie is that modern homosexuality is very different from its ancient/pre-modern variety
fixed that for you.

No, we find the same crap as was then, and as is seen now. Nothing new under the Sun, as Scripture attests.
Volnutt said:
and we only have condemnations of the former.
Scripture has no expiration date.
Volnutt said:
Get over it.
you want to guzzle down and swallow what John Money put in the Kool Aid, that's your choice (and NAMBLA will welcome you). Don't try cramming it down our throats.
I agree with your post to an almost unfathomable degree.  My agreement with it borders upon being uncircumscribable. 

Woe be unto the man who reads the Catholic Encyclopedia, for he shall be bored to the point of apoplexy by the myriad unfounded laudations written to bestow unwarranted honor and unjustified dignity upon the Schoolmen, laudations which proceed relentlessly and unceasingly, without purpose or end, almost as though I were guilty of writing them (let the seasoned OCnetter understand).
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
ialmisry said:
biro said:
Monogamy does not equal fertility.

Zero states in the U.S. require fertility tests for anyone to get married.
Zero states in the U.S. require sex tests for anyone to get married, even before marriage deform.

You're just a font of irrelevance aren't you, and it contines...
biro said:
FinnJames is correct, many heterosexual married people are unfaithful to one another.

Although you'll never listen, Laka, many homosexual couples are faithful to one another. You are a fountain of stereotypes.

It's like you haven't been outside your house in 100 years.
Why? Has basic biology changed in the past century? The existence of heterosexual infidelity? The rate of homosexual infidelity?
Another brilliant post by the defender of the great Sabaite apologist.  Here an interesting point is raised: hypothetically, before the supreme court overstepped its jurisdiction in a manner unseen since Roe v. Wade, homosexual couples could easily have been wedded by disinterested bureaucrats,  inadvertantly, or advertantly in some places, by dishonest clergy or even through the use of transvestitism.
 

Arachne

Toumarches
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
12,007
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Camulodunum
Alpha60 said:
Woe be unto the man who reads the Catholic Encyclopedia, for he shall be bored to the point of apoplexy by the myriad unfounded laudations written to bestow unwarranted honor and unjustified dignity upon the Schoolmen, laudations which proceed relentlessly and unceasingly, without purpose or end, almost as though I were guilty of writing them (let the seasoned OCnetter understand).
Yep, you'll have to go elsewhere to read about the lesbian couple that tricked the RCC into marrying them in 1901 - a marriage that was never annulled either in the church or civil registry. ;D
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
FinnJames said:
LakaYaRabb said:
People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
Could you clarify your argument here? Are you claiming that there is something other than the Church and/or the law that binds people who practice heterosexuality to stay faithful to one partner?
Currently, law does not really bind anyone to remain faithful to their spouse. In theory, you could punish your cheating spouse through divorce due to adultery, but aside from the fact that you'd be divorced, it also proves ridiculously difficult to actually prove the infidelity.

Only the Church binds a married man and woman to monogamy, and no one else.
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
biro said:
Monogamy does not equal fertility.

Zero states in the U.S. require fertility tests for anyone to get married.

FinnJames is correct, many heterosexual married people are unfaithful to one another.

Although you'll never listen, Laka, many homosexual couples are faithful to one another. You are a fountain of stereotypes.

It's like you haven't been outside your house in 100 years.
Fertile couples who have sex can produce offspring.
See, I can state obvious facts too! Yeah me!

Secular marriage and Marriage in the Church are not the same.
Boom, another obvious fact stated!

Many married people are faithful to one another and never commit adultery.
Wow, I'm on a roll now!

Many homosexuals have open arrangements, even after getting gay married. I know people like that. I'm also not a fountain of stereotypes.
Man I'm just spot on with these statement now!

I leave my house several times a day. I even work with gay people.
Daaaaaaaang, nailed it by stating some facts.

All sarc aside, you know nothing about me so probably ask first before you accuse me. You might find that you've got the wrong idea.
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
Equating always sterile sexual acts with the monogamous, procreative union of married spouses is not only against Church teaching (which rightly condemns homosexuality as sinful), but also defies all logic. Homosexual sex is not procreative and can never be.

The idea that two men or two women being "commitment in a life long sexual relationship" would somehow "transform" the sex acts between them is demonic deception. It's a satanic lie from the pit of hell, to confuse the faithful and to further enslave people who are homosexual to thier disordered passions. Damn that lie to hell, I'm not drinking to societal kook-aid that normalizes and legitimizes sin.
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
73
Location
Finland
LakaYaRabb said:
FinnJames said:
LakaYaRabb said:
People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
Could you clarify your argument here? Are you claiming that there is something other than the Church and/or the law that binds people who practice heterosexuality to stay faithful to one partner?
Currently, law does not really bind anyone to remain faithful to their spouse. In theory, you could punish your cheating spouse through divorce due to adultery, but aside from the fact that you'd be divorced, it also proves ridiculously difficult to actually prove the infidelity.

Only the Church binds a married man and woman to monogamy, and no one else.
If this is the case--which I agree with you it is--then what right do we have to expect anyone the Church denies marriage to (and according to canon law this includes some male-female couples as well as all same-sex couples) to practice monogamy?
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
73
Location
Finland
LakaYaRabb said:
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.
Thank you for a very clear and precise answer.  :)
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
LakaYaRabb said:
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.
This is of course directly contradicted by the vast Patristic corpus to emerge following the conversion of St. Constantine the Great and later St. Theodosius, on I believe it was called either the divine synergy or symposia, that could exist between a state ruled by a pious Christian, and the Church.  The long period of the Byzantine Empire, the Armenian Kingdoms, and later Orthodox states such as the Kievan Rus, Muscovy and the Tsarist Empire, and of course the holy and miraculous Solomonic rule of the great Ethiopian Empire which came to an end only in the 1970s with the brutal and despised Derg regime, the crown jewell of communist malevolence, we find a general sense that although the states I have enumerated were at times capable of great evil and of tolerating moral decadence and impiety, on the whole, to the greater degree, the Orthodox influence in these states made the Church the consciece of the State, the voice to whisper in the ear of the Emperor “Memento mori.”  This influence was very positive and explains the relatively high moral stamdards in several of these states, when compared to the alternatives.

Of course, these regimes look monstrous by the standards of contemporary liberal democracy, but I would argue this is largely irrelevant because (a) those standards are fundamentally wrong and the products of a corrupt, decayed and degenerate civilization, and which that civilization has never managed to uphold (bearing in mind Fr. George’s timely reminder of the fallacy of invoking tu quoque), and (b) one should expect that in less technologically sophisticated states, the rule of law and social order in general will be maintained with more brutality than in more technologically advanced states, owing to fears concerning food availability, disease, et cetera (the technological decay of Western Europe went hand in hand with increased brutality of all remaining governments after the Roman Empire collapsed and the knowledge of how to do things like maintain aqueducts and manufacture concrete was completely lost).
 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alpha60 said:
LakaYaRabb said:
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.
This is of course directly contradicted by the vast Patristic corpus to emerge following the conversion of St. Constantine the Great and later St. Theodosius, on I believe it was called either the divine synergy or symposia, that could exist between a state ruled by a pious Christian, and the Church.  The long period of the Byzantine Empire, the Armenian Kingdoms, and later Orthodox states such as the Kievan Rus, Muscovy and the Tsarist Empire, and of course the holy and miraculous Solomonic rule of the great Ethiopian Empire which came to an end only in the 1970s with the brutal and despised Derg regime, the crown jewell of communist malevolence, we find a general sense that although the states I have enumerated were at times capable of great evil and of tolerating moral decadence and impiety, on the whole, to the greater degree, the Orthodox influence in these states made the Church the consciece of the State, the voice to whisper in the ear of the Emperor “Memento mori.”  This influence was very positive and explains the relatively high moral stamdards in several of these states, when compared to the alternatives.

Of course, these regimes look monstrous by the standards of contemporary liberal democracy, but I would argue this is largely irrelevant because (a) those standards are fundamentally wrong and the products of a corrupt, decayed and degenerate civilization, and which that civilization has never managed to uphold (bearing in mind Fr. George’s timely reminder of the fallacy of invoking tu quoque), and (b) one should expect that in less technologically sophisticated states, the rule of law and social order in general will be maintained with more brutality than in more technologically advanced states, owing to fears concerning food availability, disease, et cetera (the technological decay of Western Europe went hand in hand with increased brutality of all remaining governments after the Roman Empire collapsed and the knowledge of how to do things like maintain aqueducts and manufacture concrete was completely lost).
Good Luck restoring the magical Solomonic rule or the supernatural Lamaist rule in Tibet , but how is symphonia supposed to work in the US? This country  was founded as a direct negation of it.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Arachne said:
Alpha60 said:
Woe be unto the man who reads the Catholic Encyclopedia, for he shall be bored to the point of apoplexy by the myriad unfounded laudations written to bestow unwarranted honor and unjustified dignity upon the Schoolmen, laudations which proceed relentlessly and unceasingly, without purpose or end, almost as though I were guilty of writing them (let the seasoned OCnetter understand).
Yep, you'll have to go elsewhere to read about the lesbian couple that tricked the RCC into marrying them in 1901 - a marriage that was never annulled either in the church or civil registry. ;D
We had a case in IL from I think the 90's. I don't recall how it came to the appellate court (it was something where the marriage was an incidental "fact" which the appellate court dismissed as error). Not sure if the courts would be retroactive on that.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
augustin717 said:
Alpha60 said:
LakaYaRabb said:
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.
This is of course directly contradicted by the vast Patristic corpus to emerge following the conversion of St. Constantine the Great and later St. Theodosius, on I believe it was called either the divine synergy or symposia, that could exist between a state ruled by a pious Christian, and the Church.  The long period of the Byzantine Empire, the Armenian Kingdoms, and later Orthodox states such as the Kievan Rus, Muscovy and the Tsarist Empire, and of course the holy and miraculous Solomonic rule of the great Ethiopian Empire which came to an end only in the 1970s with the brutal and despised Derg regime, the crown jewell of communist malevolence, we find a general sense that although the states I have enumerated were at times capable of great evil and of tolerating moral decadence and impiety, on the whole, to the greater degree, the Orthodox influence in these states made the Church the consciece of the State, the voice to whisper in the ear of the Emperor “Memento mori.”  This influence was very positive and explains the relatively high moral stamdards in several of these states, when compared to the alternatives.

Of course, these regimes look monstrous by the standards of contemporary liberal democracy, but I would argue this is largely irrelevant because (a) those standards are fundamentally wrong and the products of a corrupt, decayed and degenerate civilization, and which that civilization has never managed to uphold (bearing in mind Fr. George’s timely reminder of the fallacy of invoking tu quoque), and (b) one should expect that in less technologically sophisticated states, the rule of law and social order in general will be maintained with more brutality than in more technologically advanced states, owing to fears concerning food availability, disease, et cetera (the technological decay of Western Europe went hand in hand with increased brutality of all remaining governments after the Roman Empire collapsed and the knowledge of how to do things like maintain aqueducts and manufacture concrete was completely lost).
Good Luck restoring the magical Solomonic rule or the supernatural Lamaist rule in Tibet , but how is symphonia supposed to work in the US? This country  was founded as a direct negation of it.
again the ignorance of Marixism. For an accurate history of the matter from the US Supreme Court (and still valid as precedent, cited in past decade by the Supremes):https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html

It is interesting how the recent issue at the border has made Pelosi and Clinton into Bible thumpers.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
LakaYaRabb said:
That's not correct. The Church officially teaches as part of the deposit of faith that Homosexual acts are a sin. They are unnatural. Supporting homosexuality is a sin of scandal. Homosexuality defines itself only by singular deviant sexual acts. Homosexuality is not committed or monogamous. That's non-sense. People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
It's completely erroneous to say that because some people may be commuted to staying together and only have each other for companionship and sexual partners that this is somehow new and different reality.
Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church as sin. Whether a person says they do this out of "love" or lust does not change the truth that these acts are sinful and that that lifestyle is not compatible with being a Christian.

Finally, homosexuals can't by definition be monogamous. Homosexual acts are sterile. Monogamy, literally as a word, is tied to procreation and marriage. It does simply mean having one sex partner at a time. Also, despite the insanity of American law which grants "marriage" to two homosexuals, marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman in the Church. Homosexuals are not married.
And the word "villain" used to mean "peasant." Etymology is helpful, but the meanings of words also evolve over time.

Yes, homosexual acts have been condemned by the Church in the past, but why? The idea that it is only because they are non-procreative seems to me to have quite a few problems, not least of which is the fact that sterile heterosexuals (including people that will never conceive bar a scientific advancement or a miracle from God, just like any two homosexuals) get married all the time.

I don't see how the fact that lots of homosexual couples have open marriages proves anything when plenty of straight couples do as well.

I'll admit that the gender essentialist argument is a little stronger. But given that even the Bible employs a certain amount of gender bending language to describe God (and male believers), and both men and women successfully flout gender stereotypes all the time- it's pretty hard for me to see it as definitive. Why should I believe in a Platonic ideal that doesn't actually seem to universally apply?

You're right that two people being in love and committed to one another is not sufficient in and of itself, but in the absence of clear reasons not to allow homosexuality just because it's homosexuality, I think it's a powerful piece of evidence.

And under the list of "lies from Hell," might we also include abusive "reparitive therapy" that winds up driving a lot of homosexual people to commit suicide?
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
ialmisry said:
Volnutt said:
ialmisry said:
Volnutt said:
Just like the Church has accepted that the Saints (Old and New Testament) of the past could be wrong about the shape of the Earth or the makeup of the solar system (or any number of other things), so it should be able to accept that they were wrong about homosexuality. It's not a fault to just be wrong about something because of the time you live in.
I don't have time to answer the rest of your tirades, but the idiocy of this caught my eye and cried out for a response.

The Church does not care about the heliocentric versus geocentric universe, a flat earth versus a round or oblong one, or any number of other things that depend on advances sciences etc. for verification. She cares a lot about the nature of marriage and preserving it as its Creator in the flesh described it, and knowledge to verify that lay within immediate reach eternally of every society of men.
Yes, but the Church does care telling the truth about reality.
Which is why she never got into dogmatizing on the nitty gritty of the physical sciences. God chose not to reveal such things, but let man explore instead, and the Church took her cue from His silence (that the Scholastics tried to fill it in is one of their original errors).
Right, and I would argue that God has been essentially silent on modern homosexuality, too (and possibly implies His endorsement by the fact that it works pretty well and that there's no obvious "gay cure"). People can assume He doesn't like it, sure. But I don't think we have clear evidence that He doesn't.

ialmisry said:
Volnutt said:
And the truth lie is that modern homosexuality is very different from its ancient/pre-modern variety
fixed that for you.

No, we find the same crap as was then, and as is seen now. Nothing new under the Sun, as Scripture attests.
We have extra-marital sex of both heterosexual and homosexual varieties just as they did then. But where are the examples of loving and mutual same-sex unions in the ancient world? They seem to have not really been on anyone's conceptual radar. I guess you could argue that Hadrian and Antinous or Alexander and Hephestion come close, but it was still fundamentally predatory in that one of them was king over the other.

ialmisry said:
Volnutt said:
and we only have condemnations of the former.
Scripture has no expiration date.
Volnutt said:
Get over it.
you want to guzzle down and swallow what John Money put in the Kool Aid, that's your choice (and NAMBLA will welcome you). Don't try cramming it down our throats.
Oh goody. More fallacious comparisons to child molestation.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Rubricnigel said:
Volnutt said:
Not what the comparison was. Explained above.
Oh yes, you bring up past exchanges to prove your point on gay marriage.
Nothing like re hashing old arguments...

You never claimed it was for that, you posted a pic of an iron lung. Its not our fault we dont understand your odd train of logic.
You're right, I should have been more clear. My bad.

Rubricnigel said:
Tzimis said:
Volnutt said:
ialmisry said:
biro said:
Quentin Crisp was right about guys like you. You really just can't stop thinking about what gay men do with each other.
only when the gays and their enablers keep yelling what they do with each other, over and over and over.
Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)

And even if some paraders got a little overexuberant, it's not like celebrations even by Christians don't ever spiral out of control (I'm sure Augustin's got some stories from Romania).
You have a talent of dulling the edges of sharp knifes. If I were of weeker mind you could surely convince.
She has a talent of brushing off everything, and refusing to give any ground, even when there is a picture.
  Reminds me of atheists, brushing off everything then trying to hold you to their ideals and triggers.
Not sure if you don't know that I'm a guy, or if you're trying to insult me. Whatever...

Ok, so the existence of that picture in and of itself proves all the most lurid stories about what went on at Chicago Pride? What's your point?
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
Volnutt said:
LakaYaRabb said:
That's not correct. The Church officially teaches as part of the deposit of faith that Homosexual acts are a sin. They are unnatural. Supporting homosexuality is a sin of scandal. Homosexuality defines itself only by singular deviant sexual acts. Homosexuality is not committed or monogamous. That's non-sense. People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
It's completely erroneous to say that because some people may be commuted to staying together and only have each other for companionship and sexual partners that this is somehow new and different reality.
Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church as sin. Whether a person says they do this out of "love" or lust does not change the truth that these acts are sinful and that that lifestyle is not compatible with being a Christian.

Finally, homosexuals can't by definition be monogamous. Homosexual acts are sterile. Monogamy, literally as a word, is tied to procreation and marriage. It does simply mean having one sex partner at a time. Also, despite the insanity of American law which grants "marriage" to two homosexuals, marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman in the Church. Homosexuals are not married.
And the word "villain" used to mean "peasant." Etymology is helpful, but the meanings of words also evolve over time.

Yes, homosexual acts have been condemned by the Church in the past, but why? The idea that it is only because they are non-procreative seems to me to have quite a few problems, not least of which is the fact that sterile heterosexuals (including people that will never conceive bar a scientific advancement or a miracle from God, just like any two homosexuals) get married all the time.

I don't see how the fact that lots of homosexual couples have open marriages proves anything when plenty of straight couples do as well.

I'll admit that the gender essentialist argument is a little stronger. But given that even the Bible employs a certain amount of gender bending language to describe God (and male believers), and both men and women successfully flout gender stereotypes all the time- it's pretty hard for me to see it as definitive. Why should I believe in a Platonic ideal that doesn't actually seem to universally apply?

You're right that two people being in love and committed to one another is not sufficient in and of itself, but in the absence of clear reasons not to allow homosexuality just because it's homosexuality, I think it's a powerful piece of evidence.

And under the list of "lies from Hell," might we also include abusive "reparitive therapy" that winds up driving a lot of homosexual people to commit suicide?
Homosexuals are homosexual because they have sex with people of the same gender. There aren't any extra super secrets known only to gay people that define someone as gay. Seeking platonic relationships with people of the same gender doesn't make you gay, desiring to have sex with them is the only thing that defines your homosexuality.

The Church condemns homosexual acts.
Committing homosexual acts with only one person and claiming to be committed to them, even through obtaining a civil contract that you are legally "married" doesn't magically transform your gay sex acts into something that's on the level of monogamous, married couples in a Sacramental Union whereby God recognizes that the man and woman, the two are made one flesh.

Also, it's bizarre and insulting to assume that homosexuality in modern times, because some gays are interested in getting married, is now magically different. What, gays didn't exists 1,000 years ago? Gays didn't and couldn't love each other and be only committed to one sex partner at a time?

Finally, just decide what you are talking about. Is it actual Church teaching or not? You keep switching between church teaching and secular logic and culture. Who cares what the world thinks? That changes over time. Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change. If our perception of it changes thats because we are being conformed to it and never do we conform it to the spirit of the age. God forbid, what demonic trash!
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
73
Location
Finland
LakaYaRabb said:
Homosexuals are homosexual because they have sex with people of the same gender. There aren't any extra super secrets known only to gay people that define someone as gay. Seeking platonic relationships with people of the same gender doesn't make you gay, desiring to have sex with them is the only thing that defines your homosexuality.

The Church condemns homosexual acts.
Committing homosexual acts with only one person and claiming to be committed to them, even through obtaining a civil contract that you are legally "married" doesn't magically transform your gay sex acts into something that's on the level of monogamous, married couples in a Sacramental Union whereby God recognizes that the man and woman, the two are made one flesh.

Also, it's bizarre and insulting to assume that homosexuality in modern times, because some gays are interested in getting married, is now magically different. What, gays didn't exists 1,000 years ago? Gays didn't and couldn't love each other and be only committed to one sex partner at a time?

Finally, just decide what you are talking about. Is it actual Church teaching or not? You keep switching between church teaching and secular logic and culture. Who cares what the world thinks? That changes over time. Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change. If our perception of it changes thats because we are being conformed to it and never do we conform it to the spirit of the age. God forbid, what demonic trash!
This is quite helpful because it states your case very clearly. Thank you. However, I would like to ask a question:

Jesus is not a supporter of remarriage following divorce (Matt. 19:9, if I'm reading the passage correctly), yet if I understand Church history correctly the early Fathers allow divorce and remarriage and today 3 marriages are allowed by the Church. So I'd like to ask about something in your final paragraph above. You state that 'Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change' and that 'never do we conform it to the spirit of the age'. Yet there seems to have been both a change in (Jesus') teaching and a conformation to the spirit of the age (the early Church Fathers lived in) with regard to divorce and remarriage. This leads me to ask when Divine Revelation ceased--with the teachings of the OT, with Jesus' and Paul's NT teachings, with the Tradition established by the early Church Fathers, or is Divine Revelation still ongoing today?
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
LakaYaRabb said:
Volnutt said:
LakaYaRabb said:
That's not correct. The Church officially teaches as part of the deposit of faith that Homosexual acts are a sin. They are unnatural. Supporting homosexuality is a sin of scandal. Homosexuality defines itself only by singular deviant sexual acts. Homosexuality is not committed or monogamous. That's non-sense. People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
It's completely erroneous to say that because some people may be commuted to staying together and only have each other for companionship and sexual partners that this is somehow new and different reality.
Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church as sin. Whether a person says they do this out of "love" or lust does not change the truth that these acts are sinful and that that lifestyle is not compatible with being a Christian.

Finally, homosexuals can't by definition be monogamous. Homosexual acts are sterile. Monogamy, literally as a word, is tied to procreation and marriage. It does simply mean having one sex partner at a time. Also, despite the insanity of American law which grants "marriage" to two homosexuals, marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman in the Church. Homosexuals are not married.
And the word "villain" used to mean "peasant." Etymology is helpful, but the meanings of words also evolve over time.

Yes, homosexual acts have been condemned by the Church in the past, but why? The idea that it is only because they are non-procreative seems to me to have quite a few problems, not least of which is the fact that sterile heterosexuals (including people that will never conceive bar a scientific advancement or a miracle from God, just like any two homosexuals) get married all the time.

I don't see how the fact that lots of homosexual couples have open marriages proves anything when plenty of straight couples do as well.

I'll admit that the gender essentialist argument is a little stronger. But given that even the Bible employs a certain amount of gender bending language to describe God (and male believers), and both men and women successfully flout gender stereotypes all the time- it's pretty hard for me to see it as definitive. Why should I believe in a Platonic ideal that doesn't actually seem to universally apply?

You're right that two people being in love and committed to one another is not sufficient in and of itself, but in the absence of clear reasons not to allow homosexuality just because it's homosexuality, I think it's a powerful piece of evidence.

And under the list of "lies from Hell," might we also include abusive "reparitive therapy" that winds up driving a lot of homosexual people to commit suicide?
Homosexuals are homosexual because they have sex with people of the same gender. There aren't any extra super secrets known only to gay people that define someone as gay. Seeking platonic relationships with people of the same gender doesn't make you gay, desiring to have sex with them is the only thing that defines your homosexuality.
I don't see your point here, sorry.

LakaYaRabb said:
The Church condemns homosexual acts.
Committing homosexual acts with only one person and claiming to be committed to them, even through obtaining a civil contract that you are legally "married" doesn't magically transform your gay sex acts into something that's on the level of monogamous, married couples in a Sacramental Union whereby God recognizes that the man and woman, the two are made one flesh.
But why is it not on the same level? My question is why can't God unite them as one flesh?

It's not because they can't procreate since 1. Sterile heterosexuals are allowed to marry and 2. There's nothing in theory stopping God from miraculously causing a homosexual couple to conceive a child (or working through human technology to make it possible).

The only logic I can see maybe working is the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line. But, ignoring people born intersex, the problem is that gender is a lot more complex than we think, with people exhibiting traits of the opposite sex to one degree or another all the time. There don't seem to be any real examples of 100% manly men and girly girls in some kind of Platonic ideal (or even universally agreed upon definitions of what that would mean in theory). Does having one set of pipes or another really have that much of a normative effect, if one's personality can be so variant?

LakaYaRabb said:
Also, it's bizarre and insulting to assume that homosexuality in modern times, because some gays are interested in getting married, is now magically different. What, gays didn't exists 1,000 years ago? Gays didn't and couldn't love each other and be only committed to one sex partner at a time?
They most likely existed, but the culture at large doesn't seem to have thought in terms of committed relationships between them. The majority only seem to have thought in terms of heterosexual=breeding life pair, homosexual=casual encounters or some kind of master-slave thing. General understandings have changed.

LakaYaRabb said:
Finally, just decide what you are talking about. Is it actual Church teaching or not? You keep switching between church teaching and secular logic and culture. Who cares what the world thinks? That changes over time. Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change. If our perception of it changes thats because we are being conformed to it and never do we conform it to the spirit of the age. God forbid, what demonic trash!
God's truth is unchanging, but I think a case can be made for our apprehension of it being limited by the times that we live in. Perhaps a comparison to Peter realizing that God was offering salvation to the Gentiles is apt.

Acts 11:6-17 said:
When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”
True, none of this is absolute proof. But I take the combination of 1. The basic harmlessness of committed homosexual relationships and 2. The very real suffering caused by anti-gay doctrine- as a pretty strong circumstantial case for acceptance, at least.
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
I can see where you might see an inconsistency. It's not true that the early fathers allowed divorce, quite the opposite. It was condemned and remarriage was taught adultery by many. This follows the biblical exhortation. Also, this explains why the order of widows was prevalent then.

But did something then change? No. It's true that over time second and third 'marriage' was allowed if the sake of the salvation of the souls involved. However, the church only counts one marriage as being Sacramental, a second marriage is penitential and the service thereof indicates this. In fact, it is quite a different service. There is no service for third marriage, that arrangement is merely recognized.

Also keep in mind all the canons that dealt very rigorously with divorce, adultery etc.
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
Volnutt said:
LakaYaRabb said:
Volnutt said:
LakaYaRabb said:
That's not correct. The Church officially teaches as part of the deposit of faith that Homosexual acts are a sin. They are unnatural. Supporting homosexuality is a sin of scandal. Homosexuality defines itself only by singular deviant sexual acts. Homosexuality is not committed or monogamous. That's non-sense. People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
It's completely erroneous to say that because some people may be commuted to staying together and only have each other for companionship and sexual partners that this is somehow new and different reality.
Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church as sin. Whether a person says they do this out of "love" or lust does not change the truth that these acts are sinful and that that lifestyle is not compatible with being a Christian.

Finally, homosexuals can't by definition be monogamous. Homosexual acts are sterile. Monogamy, literally as a word, is tied to procreation and marriage. It does simply mean having one sex partner at a time. Also, despite the insanity of American law which grants "marriage" to two homosexuals, marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman in the Church. Homosexuals are not married.
And the word "villain" used to mean "peasant." Etymology is helpful, but the meanings of words also evolve over time.

Yes, homosexual acts have been condemned by the Church in the past, but why? The idea that it is only because they are non-procreative seems to me to have quite a few problems, not least of which is the fact that sterile heterosexuals (including people that will never conceive bar a scientific advancement or a miracle from God, just like any two homosexuals) get married all the time.

I don't see how the fact that lots of homosexual couples have open marriages proves anything when plenty of straight couples do as well.

I'll admit that the gender essentialist argument is a little stronger. But given that even the Bible employs a certain amount of gender bending language to describe God (and male believers), and both men and women successfully flout gender stereotypes all the time- it's pretty hard for me to see it as definitive. Why should I believe in a Platonic ideal that doesn't actually seem to universally apply?

You're right that two people being in love and committed to one another is not sufficient in and of itself, but in the absence of clear reasons not to allow homosexuality just because it's homosexuality, I think it's a powerful piece of evidence.

And under the list of "lies from Hell," might we also include abusive "reparitive therapy" that winds up driving a lot of homosexual people to commit suicide?
Homosexuals are homosexual because they have sex with people of the same gender. There aren't any extra super secrets known only to gay people that define someone as gay. Seeking platonic relationships with people of the same gender doesn't make you gay, desiring to have sex with them is the only thing that defines your homosexuality.
I don't see your point here, sorry.

LakaYaRabb said:
The Church condemns homosexual acts.
Committing homosexual acts with only one person and claiming to be committed to them, even through obtaining a civil contract that you are legally "married" doesn't magically transform your gay sex acts into something that's on the level of monogamous, married couples in a Sacramental Union whereby God recognizes that the man and woman, the two are made one flesh.
But why is it not on the same level? My question is why can't God unite them as one flesh?

It's not because they can't procreate since 1. Sterile heterosexuals are allowed to marry and 2. There's nothing in theory stopping God from miraculously causing a homosexual couple to conceive a child (or working through human technology to make it possible).

The only logic I can see maybe working is the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line. But, ignoring people born intersex, the problem is that gender is a lot more complex than we think, with people exhibiting traits of the opposite sex to one degree or another all the time. There don't seem to be any real examples of 100% manly men and girly girls in some kind of Platonic ideal (or even universally agreed upon definitions of what that would mean in theory). Does having one set of pipes or another really have that much of a normative effect, if one's personality can be so variant?

LakaYaRabb said:
Also, it's bizarre and insulting to assume that homosexuality in modern times, because some gays are interested in getting married, is now magically different. What, gays didn't exists 1,000 years ago? Gays didn't and couldn't love each other and be only committed to one sex partner at a time?
They most likely existed, but the culture at large doesn't seem to have thought in terms of committed relationships between them. The majority only seem to have thought in terms of heterosexual=breeding life pair, homosexual=casual encounters or some kind of master-slave thing. General understandings have changed.

LakaYaRabb said:
Finally, just decide what you are talking about. Is it actual Church teaching or not? You keep switching between church teaching and secular logic and culture. Who cares what the world thinks? That changes over time. Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change. If our perception of it changes thats because we are being conformed to it and never do we conform it to the spirit of the age. God forbid, what demonic trash!
God's truth is unchanging, but I think a case can be made for our apprehension of it being limited by the times that we live in. Perhaps a comparison to Peter realizing that God was offering salvation to the Gentiles is apt.

Acts 11:6-17 said:
When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”
True, none of this is absolute proof. But I take the combination of 1. The basic harmlessness of committed homosexual relationships and 2. The very real suffering caused by anti-gay doctrine- as a pretty strong circumstantial case for acceptance, at least.
I want to respond but I literally put it in the simplest terms possible for you. And you response is that you can't see it. There's nothing I can say to help you understand further.

Why can't God unite to two gay sex partners into one flesh is an absurd question. It defies reality that this escapes you rational mind. The same goes for asking why gay sex isn't on the same level as the monogamous married sacramental Union of one man and one woman blessed by the Church. I don't mean my comments to be hurtful or critical, I just want to make clear to you I can't explain things to you with the irrefutable concepts you've established out of nothing.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Well, see, that's the kicker. If the terms under discussion are so completely arbitrary that we can't even have a conversation about why you're using them, then how is it worth making so many people suffer grievously over them?

Do you really think that's what God wants? Do you really think that He in His infinite majesty is so hurt and offended by two people of the same sex having a relationship that He wants them condemned to a life of forced celibacy that they might not even be able to handle?
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
Volnutt said:
Well, see, that's the kicker. If the terms under discussion are so completely arbitrary that we can't even have a conversation about why you're using them, then how is it worth making so many people suffer grievously over them?

Do you really think that's what God wants? Do you really think that He in His infinite majesty is so hurt and offended by two people of the same sex having a relationship that He wants them condemned to a life of forced celibacy that they might not even be able to handle?
I'm sorry. If you'd like me to respond, you're going to have restate/rephrase. Your last response is utterly incomprehensible in context. It almost seems to me to not be written in English. I have no clue what you're saying.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
hecma925 said:
Why does the Church need that?
Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
56
Location
USA
I think what Christ preached was a radical transformation for humanity. We were called to love God & neighbor and treat each other by this via the golden rule. This standard does not ever seem possible in this world although we must strive for it. This still does not seem to change  what is sinful . Gays have not often been treated humanely and they can also be inhumane. Being gay or heterosexual does not guarantee a ticket to heaven or hell but I fail to see how the church can accept a sin that falls within adultery. Other clerics have countered Metr Kallistos ‘ speculation .

 

hecma925

Stratopedarches
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
19,625
Reaction score
73
Points
48
Age
159
Location
The South
Volnutt said:
hecma925 said:
Why does the Church need that?
Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.
How is any of that the Church's fault?
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
hecma925 said:
Volnutt said:
hecma925 said:
Why does the Church need that?
Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.
How is any of that the Church's fault?
It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
Volnutt said:
hecma925 said:
Volnutt said:
hecma925 said:
Why does the Church need that?
Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.
How is any of that the Church's fault?
It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.
This is the definition of prelest.
Sin is a choice. If you choose to live in sin and die unrepentant of sin, Christ Himself teaches that you condemn yourself because you willfully separate yourself from God.

Pretending that sin is not sin is demonic. 
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
Volnutt said:
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
The Church lacks nothing. See the Creed where we profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is Catholic, it's complete, it has the fullness of Truth.

Within the teaching of the Truth is that homosexual acts are a sin. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. There cannot be gay "marriage", no matter what the world says.

 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
Volnutt, read this article, then come back here and tell me you have irrefutable proof that Christian moral beliefs cause gay people to commit suicide (warning, article is graphic and racy at times):
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gay-loneliness/
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
LakaYaRabb said:
Volnutt said:
hecma925 said:
Volnutt said:
hecma925 said:
Why does the Church need that?
Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.
How is any of that the Church's fault?
It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.
This is the definition of prelest.
Sin is a choice. If you choose to live in sin and die unrepentant of sin, Christ Himself teaches that you condemn yourself because you willfully separate yourself from God.

Pretending that sin is not sin is demonic.
+100000000

This is essentially the crux of the matter.

LakaYaRabb said:
Volnutt said:
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
The Church lacks nothing. See the Creed where we profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is Catholic, it's complete, it has the fullness of Truth.

Within the teaching of the Truth is that homosexual acts are a sin. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. There cannot be gay "marriage", no matter what the world says.
Also very good.  That said, even those churches that we cannot describe as being Catholic due to schisms and heresy, for example, the SBC, which we cannot say with any confidence has Catholicity, are still anle to come to the same conclusion contained in our Holy Tradition, because they at least a similiar set of scriptures to us, and the books in what their church and ours would both call the Bible, in diverse places and in many voices, condemn sexual activity between members of the same gender.
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
Thank God when others do see the Truth of Church teaching! It's tragic to see others abandon historic doctrinal positions, such as the Anglicans.
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
73
Location
Finland
@LakaYaRabb, it was good of you to give the information (quoted below this paragraph) in response to my post (quoted below your reply), but you don't actually answer the question I asked in my earlier post. To make the question stand out more clearly, I've put it in bold type this time. I think this is a legitimate thing to ask as the answer may (or may not) separate the Orthodox Church from other churches' teachings about how God acts in the world.

LakaYaRabb said:
I can see where you might see an inconsistency. It's not true that the early fathers allowed divorce, quite the opposite. It was condemned and remarriage was taught adultery by many. This follows the biblical exhortation. Also, this explains why the order of widows was prevalent then.

But did something then change? No. It's true that over time second and third 'marriage' was allowed if the sake of the salvation of the souls involved. However, the church only counts one marriage as being Sacramental, a second marriage is penitential and the service thereof indicates this. In fact, it is quite a different service. There is no service for third marriage, that arrangement is merely recognized.

Also keep in mind all the canons that dealt very rigorously with divorce, adultery etc.
FinnJames said:
Jesus is not a supporter of remarriage following divorce (Matt. 19:9, if I'm reading the passage correctly), yet if I understand Church history correctly the early Fathers allow divorce and remarriage and today 3 marriages are allowed by the Church. So I'd like to ask about something in your final paragraph above. You state that 'Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change' and that 'never do we conform it to the spirit of the age'. Yet there seems to have been both a change in (Jesus') teaching and a conformation to the spirit of the age (the early Church Fathers lived in) with regard to divorce and remarriage. This leads me to ask when Divine Revelation ceased--with the teachings of the OT, with Jesus' and Paul's NT teachings, with the Tradition established by the early Church Fathers, or is Divine Revelation still ongoing today?
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
FinnJames, I didn't mean to avoid you question, sorry if I gave that impression. I was hoping to lay out the teaching of the Church on the issue in a way, that would by relation, answer your question.
I wouldn't agree that Divine Revekation ceased or changed at all. Concisely stated second and third marriage is not a reflection that Divne Revelation, or even Church teaching changed. In fact, I'm personally (and I say personally), not confident that second and third marriage is considered dogmatic teaching in any way. It's an expansive topic, I think to accurately address and hash out your question fully. I'll admit I haven't spent the necessary time to fully address it.

On the last part of your question, the response is a firm No! Divine Revelation is not ongoing. Christ revealed all, the Church lacks nothing.
 
Top