"a new ideology of evil"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Dreadsox - Chapter 5:25-33

25. People, love your partners, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26. to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27. and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28. In this same way, people ought to love their partners as their own bodies. The person who loves his partner loves themself.
29. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-
30. for we are members of this body.
31. “For this reason a person will leave his father and mother and be united to their partner, and the two will become one flesh.”
32. This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33. However, each one of you also must love your partner as you love yourself...
 
Last edited:
this is why i don't follow a religion. people get hung up about when you correct what is wrong about it. of course none of it is actually true. if the bible is fucked up, just rewrite the damn thing.
 
Dreadsox said:
Exactly what about calling homosexual marriage "a new ideology of evil" is repsectful?
While I would be the first to admit that the pope's comment is rather harsh, I am trying to encourage a respectful discussion. The pope is not on a politically correct campaign when he states his views in which he believes are what we should and should not do as Christians. I myself - a Non-denominational Protestant - have a few theological disagreements with the man, but admire his commitment to Christ enough not to politicize him in a negative fashion - especially while he is regularly going back and forth to the hospital.

Dreadsox said:
This could be said about almost any book from the Old Testament. There are plenty of things that we adhere to from the Old Testament and plenty that we no longer find relevant.
I give you the benefit of the doubt that things should be questioned, obviously. With that said, we should also question the world's point of view as well.

Dreadsox said:
If it's acceptable to pick and choose what we find relevant....why should it be acceptable to someone who is gay, born gay, loves another human soul with the same kind of Love as Christ loved the Church as Paul writes, that we pick to cling to passages that reinforce this one prejudice.
This is where it gets grey - according to your point of view, it seems that my stance is an intentionally wrong prejudice I hold. Trust me when I say this much - there are some within the conservative Christian community who love all people regardless of their lifestlye and want them to know that they respect where they are coming from whether or not they agree with gay marriage, and there are others who pervert the message by making noise and feeding them with vicious attacks. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the conservative stance on the issue as prejudiced and hateful, especially when they are attentive to your point of view.

Dreadsox said:
Can a Gay person love someone of the same sex the way Paul described in Epheisans? ABSOLUTELY. There is nothing in that passage that a Gay person is not capable of doing other than our gender specific word "wife".

Most people I know would do almost anything to have this kind of love between two partners.

And this is where I see the church as WRONG.
Since this is clearly a theological discussion, I will acknowledge it in that fashion. Yes, a homosexual is more than capable of loving someone like Ephesians suggests. With that said, I don't agree with dismissing gender differences in the Bible, where clearly men and women operate differently. Jesus himself spoke in gender terms. We are to provide for our wives security, patience, love, kindness, protection, respect, and comfort. We are to provide a safe environment and support them emotionally, financially, and spiritually. Trust me, I respect your point of view, I think it's interesting. I don't entirely agree with it, but I respect. it.

Dreadsox said:
You in your post disrespect another human being by implying that being gay is a choice. You lump it in with drug use, pornography, and a bunch of other things that we do. It is no more a choice than your "choice" to be heterosexual.
You clearly did not understand the point I was making in my last post. The point about pornography, etc is that Jesus would discourage it, as would any sane disciple would. I don't claim people are born gay, nor do I claim it is a choice. This has been questioned for over a century. At least as far back as 1899, German researcher Magnus Hirschfeld made this claim, and yet today, many have been led into that assumption.

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."

- Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122.

As of now, science does not support that claim.

http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf - This is a long read, but I would still suggest reading it.

Dreadsox said:
The Church is wrong because it does not take a male part or a female part to LOVE AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH. Which is the MAIN point Paul is trying to make. Paul was NOT running around defending men loving men, or making a point about women loving women. He was making a point obout the KIND of love that two people committed to each other should share.

And there is nothing a MALE part or a FEMALE part can do to improve on loving as CHRIST loved.
I respect your views and your thoughts. But - I ask this again - if God created marriage, why do you think it should've been done any differently? If God created a partner suitable for Adam - why do you think he created Eve - a woman? What do you think that symbolizes? Did God create marriage to make us happy, or to make us holy?
 
Macfistowannabe said:
While I would be the first to admit that the pope's comment is rather harsh, I am trying to encourage a respectful discussion. The pope is not on a politically correct campaign when he states his views in which he believes are what we should and should not do as Christians. I myself - a Non-denominational Protestant - have a few theological disagreements with the man, but admire his commitment to Christ enough not to politicize him in a negative fashion - especially while he is regularly going back and forth to the hospital.

Who's saying anyting about being politically correct. He's going against Christ by claiming people are evil. Christ spoke a lot about looking at yourself before casting stones. Christ never said anything about homosexuals, and he definately didn't call them evil.
Macfistowannabe said:

I give you the benefit of the doubt that things should be questioned, obviously. With that said, we should also question the world's point of view as well.
Everything should be questioned. But when I have this many hundred verses telling me to love my neighbor, don't judge, and we're all God's children and I have only two portions of the Bible, one of which most would agree doesn't apply once you look at the context and another which has a vast ammount of information saying it was poorly translated to fit someone's agenda, then I don't see a whole lot to question when it comes to this.
Macfistowannabe said:

This is where it gets grey - according to your point of view, it seems that my stance is an intentionally wrong prejudice I hold. Trust me when I say this much - there are some within the conservative Christian community who love all people regardless of their lifestlye and want them to know that they respect where they are coming from whether or not they agree with gay marriage, and there are others who pervert the message by making noise and feeding them with vicious attacks. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the conservative stance on the issue as prejudiced and hateful, especially when they are attentive to your point of view.
I've tried and played the politcally correct game here for a long enough. But when you show context, and you show original translations and people are still telling you homosexuality is a sin then yes, it's due to homophobic prejudices. Not one person has shown me Biblical evidence otherwise, and I don't have to do anything but look around to see that it doesn't harm anyone.
Macfistowannabe said:

Since this is clearly a theological discussion, I will acknowledge it in that fashion. Yes, a homosexual is more than capable of loving someone like Ephesians suggests. With that said, I don't agree with dismissing gender differences in the Bible, where clearly men and women operate differently. Jesus himself spoke in gender terms. We are to provide for our wives security, patience, love, kindness, protection, respect, and comfort. We are to provide a safe environment and support them emotionally, financially, and spiritually. Trust me, I respect your point of view, I think it's interesting. I don't entirely agree with it, but I respect. it.
When you speak to straight people you speak in terms they understand, simple as that. You don't derive sin by reading between the lines.
Macfistowannabe said:

As of now, science does not support that claim.

A lot of scientist would say science doesn't support the existence of God either.


Macfistowannabe said:

I respect your views and your thoughts. But - I ask this again - if God created marriage, why do you think it should've been done any differently?
What's different the genitalia?

Macfistowannabe said:

If God created a partner suitable for Adam - why do you think he created Eve - a woman? What do you think that symbolizes? Did God create marriage to make us happy, or to make us holy?

Well one can be holy without marriage. So I guess according to your logic...to make us happy.:huh:
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I give you the benefit of the doubt that things should be questioned, obviously. With that said, we should also question the world's point of view as well.


I am not sure it is the World's point of view that gay marriage is acceptable.

[Q]It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the conservative stance on the issue as prejudiced and hateful, especially when they are attentive to your point of view.[/Q]

Exactly how are they attentive to my point of view?

[Q]Since this is clearly a theological discussion, I will acknowledge it in that fashion. Yes, a homosexual is more than capable of loving someone like Ephesians suggests. With that said, I don't agree with dismissing gender differences in the Bible, where clearly men and women operate differently. Jesus himself spoke in gender terms. We are to provide for our wives security, patience, love, kindness, protection, respect, and comfort. We are to provide a safe environment and support them emotionally, financially, and spiritually. Trust me, I respect your point of view, I think it's interesting. I don't entirely agree with it, but I respect. it.[/Q]

So because there are gender roles, which are NO LONGER valid in the society in which we live in, we should go back because the Bible has Gender roles. Again, the Bible makes many claims about gender that we have picked and chose fromt o believe in and follow.

How else would Jesus have spoken? He was a man of his time and a man ahead of his time in many way.

[Q]You clearly did not understand the point I was making in my last post. [/Q]

I still do not understand it. In a discussion of homosexual marriage you have used as you closing argument points about drug use and pornography. These are not things that people are born into. They are CHOICES that people have made. I am sorry, I fail to see your point as a valid one.


[Q]I respect your views and your thoughts. But - I ask this again - if God created marriage, why do you think it should've been done any differently? If God created a partner suitable for Adam - why do you think he created Eve - a woman? What do you think that symbolizes? Did God create marriage to make us happy, or to make us holy?
[/Q]

You believe that marriage makes us holy? I do not.

God did create a partner for Adam, a mythological story which explains the origins of those calling themselves Jews. Kind of hard to have a race of people, without being able to reproduce.

Am I missing something, did God create a woman for every man on this Earth? There are many single people out there, unholy types that have not been married.

I agree, God created Eve for Adam, but I have seen enough to know that just because there was a woman created for Adam, it does not mean that he created a woman for everyone.

But I am curious, how does marriage make someone holy? Is it the ability to procreate? Not everyone can....so I would think it is not that reason. Are marriages outside of the Christian faith, unholy?
 
Again, GENETALIA are not necessary for two SOULS to share in the kind of love described in Ephesians.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Who's saying anyting about being politically correct. He's going against Christ by claiming people are evil. Christ spoke a lot about looking at yourself before casting stones. Christ never said anything about homosexuals, and he definately didn't call them evil.
Nothing quoted in in the bible was directly stated by Christ about homosexuals, but his intentions for marriage are clear to me.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
Everything should be questioned. But when I have this many hundred verses telling me to love my neighbor, don't judge, and we're all God's children and I have only two portions of the Bible, one of which most would agree doesn't apply once you look at the context and another which has a vast ammount of information saying it was poorly translated to fit someone's agenda, then I don't see a whole lot to question when it comes to this.
I would like you to be more direct with this, please present a professional theological point of view, and elaborate on specific examples.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
I've tried and played the politcally correct game here for a long enough. But when you show context, and you show original translations and people are still telling you homosexuality is a sin then yes, it's due to homophobic prejudices. Not one person has shown me Biblical evidence otherwise, and I don't have to do anything but look around to see that it doesn't harm anyone.
According to your point of view, the vast majority of credible theologians have a prejudiced agenda. You continue to dismiss anything said of man and wife, and duties of men, and duties of wives. Again I ask you to present something valid.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
When you speak to straight people you speak in terms they understand, simple as that. You don't derive sin by reading between the lines.
Kind of contradicting, don't you think? You seem to imply that The Bible is just for straight people. You also seem to imply that duties of husband and wife is the message, ironically enough. This message has been perverted to fit the glove of society. Try fitting a fully-functional glove onto a society with it's middle finger up in the air. It doesn't work unless you make it politically correct, yet it beats up on the glove.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
A lot of scientist would say science doesn't support the existence of God either.
This would explain why they have tried to prove the genetic connection for over a century. It would also explain why the theory of evolution was the conclusion that Darwin had after he completely eliminated the possibility of creation or a supreme being. We know where the a lot of them stand, but they have nothing to show for it.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
What's different the genitalia?
This is a question that a radical feminist is likely to ask as well. They deny any differences between men and women, even though their bodies and minds are much different. Their needs are different as well. It is painfully naive to deny that it exists.

http://www.bvte.ecu.edu/ACBMEC/p1999/Griffin.htm

BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well one can be holy without marriage. So I guess according to your logic...to make us happy.:huh:
No - you aren't seeing it. Scripturally - it says that we should love our wives as Christ loved the church. Does that mean Christ spent his life to make the church happy? Not exclusively, it means Christ loved it enough to die for it. He shaped the church into an institution that glorified God. Not a retailer.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
No - you aren't seeing it. Scripturally - it says that we should love our wives as Christ loved the church. Does that mean Christ spent his life to make the church happy? Not exclusively, it means Christ loved it enough to die for it. He shaped the church into an institution that glorified God. Not a retailer.

Exactly how did Christ shape the church, when he was Jewish?
 
deep said:



because we have always been told this

and critical thinning is not allowed

It explains why the early church got off the ground so well...without the emporer.
 
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Jim Duffy is a writer and historian.
 
Ceremonies and commitments of love among same-sex couples were known all over the ancient Christian world. Initially these ceremonies were a set of prayers, but by the twelth century they had become a full service, involving the burning of candles, joining the two parties' right hands, placing their hands on the Bible, saying the Lord's prayer, and a kiss. It was closely related in ceremony to a heterosexual marriage.
The following liturgical office of same-sex unions dates from the 11th century in the Greek church of Grottaferrata in southern Italy (in part). (Boswell, op. cit., p. 295):

The priest [shall say]:
Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholemew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together, bless also these thy servants, N and N, joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit, granting unto them peace and love and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity, and vouchsafe unto them all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine. [see Boswell, op. cit., for scholarly research footnotes to this text.]

As late as 1578 there was a gay marriage ceremony held in Rome in the church of St. John of the Latin Gate between a group of men. Roman theologians said that "since sex between male and female could be legitimate only within marriage, it had seemed equally fair to them to authorize these ceremonies and mysteries of the church." But this was already the time of the Inquisition, and capital punishment was meted out to some of the men by homophobic civil authorities, doubtless with ecclesiastical tacit consent. However, in other areas (Greece, Dalmatia), same-sex church ceremonies continued on into the 17th and 18th centuries.
 
Office for Same-Sex Union [Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin]
from John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, (NewYork: Villard, 1994)


i.

The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand

and they that are to be joined together place their right

hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands.

Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:



ii.

In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That these thy servants, N. and N., be

sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal

all the days of their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That they be granted all things needed for salvation and

godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness

[pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord....

Have mercy on us, O God.

"Lord, have mercy" shall be said three times.



iii

The priest shall say:

Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and

loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and

likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles

Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other

not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst

find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united

together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy

servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of

nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou

desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos

tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape]

and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain

and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to

agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the

days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and

all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.



iv.

Another Prayer for Same-Sex Union



O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things

necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another

and to forgive each other our failings, bless and

consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants

who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous

pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into

this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant

unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love

[agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy

holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them

also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those

things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art

the light and the truth and thine is the glory.



v.

Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one

another, and conclude.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Another Version of a Union Rite
By Nicholas Zymaris [independent Orthodox scholar]
INTRODUCTION [by Zymaris]

This service is a rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church dating from very early times and assuming its present form between the fourth and ninth centuries AD. This service is translated from the Euchologion of Jacobus Goar, which was printed in 1647 and revised in 1730. A facsimile of the 1730 edition, published in Graz, Austria, in 1960, is the edition available in many theological libraries. With the rising influence of western ideas in recent centuries, this rite ceased to be practiced widely and was largely forgotten or ignored except in isolated areas, most notably Albania and other areas in the Balkans, where it flourished throughout the nineteenth century and up to at least 1935. Both men and women were united with this rite or similar ones.

This rite is called "spiritual" because the relationship between spiritual brothers is not one of blood-relation but of the Holy Spirit, and also to distinguish the rite from blood-brotherhood, which the Church opposed. In the service, the saint-martyrs Sergius and Bacchus are invoked, who were united in spiritual brotherhood "not bound by the law of nature but by the example of faith in the Holy Spirit". These saints were tortured and martyred late in the third century AD. when they refused to worship the emperor's idols. In their biography by Simeon Metaphrastes (available in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 115, pp. 1005-1032) they are described as sweet companions and lovers to each other."

"This rite is incorporated into the Divine Liturgy. It begins with the usual blessing and prayers of a Liturgy. During the Great Synapte, petitions for the couple to be united in spiritual brotherhood are added to the usual petitions. After the First Antiphon, two special prayers are said for the couple, after which they kiss the Gospel Book and each other. After the priest sings a hymn, the Liturgy continues at "Have mercy on us, O God .. ". Accounts of the use of this rite (such as Nacke, _Jahrbuch fuer sexuelle Zwischenstufen_ 9 (1908),. 328) confirm that the spiritual brothers receive Holy Communion together, thereby forming the sacramental bond in this union. However, Goar mentions in a footnote that in some manuscripts, the couple is only blessed with holy water."



"UNION RITE" TEXT

PRIEST: Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the

Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us. (3

times).

Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever

and unto ages of ages. Amen.

All-Holy Trinity, have mercy on us.

Lord forgive our sins.

Master, pardon our transgressions.

Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities for your name's sake.

Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.

Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever

and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your

kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into

temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom

and the power and the glory, of the Father and the Son and the

Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

(After this, the priest says the Troparion.)

Save, O Lord, your servants, and bless your inheritance.

(And the two who are about to be joined together in brotherly

unity place their hands on the holy Gospel book, which has been

prepared and placed on the table. And they hold in their hands

lighted candles.)

(And the priest says the following, so that it is heard from

above: Save, O Lord, your servants. Followed by the Troparion of

the day)

Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Holy Apostles, intercede with the merciful God to grant our souls

forgiveness of sins.

Now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Through the intercessions, O Lord, of all the saints and of the

Theotokos, grant us your peace and have mercy upon us, only

merciful One.



THE GREAT SYNAPTE.

(The responses of "Lord, have mercy" are understood.)

In peace let us pray to the Lord.

For the peace that is from above, and for the salvation of our

souls, let us pray to the Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, the welfare of the holy

churches of God, and the union of all of them, let us pray to the

Lord.

For this holy house, and for those who enter it with faith,

reverence, and fear of God, let us pray to the Lord.

For our Archbishop, the honorable priesthood, the deacons in

Christ, and all of the clergy and laity, let us pray to the Lord.

For the servants of God who have approached to be blessed by Him,

and for their love (agapesis) in God, let us pray to the Lord.

That they may be given full knowledge of the apostolic unity, let

us pray to the Lord.

That they may be granted a faith unashamed, a love unfeigned, let

us pray to the Lord.

That they may be deemed worthy to glory in the honorable Cross,

let us pray to the Lord.

That both they and we may be delivered from all affliction,

wrath, and distress, let us pray to the Lord.

Help us, save us, have mercy on us and keep us, O God, by your

grace.

PEOPLE: Amen.

PRIEST: Having called to remembrance our all-holy, immaculate,

most blessed, glorious Lady Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, with

all the Saints, let us commend ourselves and one another, and all

our life unto Christ our God.

PEOPLE: To You, O Lord.

PRIEST (quietly): O Lord our God, whose might is beyond compare,

whose glory is incomprehensible, whose mercy is infinite, and

whose love toward mankind is ineffable; in Your tender compassion

look down upon us Yourself, O Master, and upon this holy house,

and grant us and those who pray with us Your rich mercies and

compassion.

PRIEST (aloud): For to You are due all glory, honor, and worship;

to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and

unto ages of ages.

PEOPLE: Amen.

PRIEST: Let us pray to the Lord.

Lord our God, who has granted us all things for salvation, and

who has commanded us to love one another and to forgive each

others' transgressions; now You Yourself, Master and Lover of

mankind, to these Your servants who have loved each other with

spiritual love, and who approach Your holy temple to be blessed

by You, grant to them a faith unashamed, a love unfeigned. And

as You gave Your holy disciples Your own peace, also grant these

all the petitions for salvation, and eternal life. For You are a

merciful and loving God, and to You we ascribe glory, to the

Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Let us pray to the Lord.

Lord our God, the omnipotent, who made the heaven and the earth

and the sea, who made man according to Your image and likeness,

who was well-disposed to Your holy martyrs Sergius and Bacchus

becoming brothers, not bound by the law of nature but by the

example of faith of the Holy Spirit; Master, do send down Your

Holy Spirit upon Your servants who have approached this temple to

be blessed. Grant them a faith unashamed, a love unfeigned, and

that they may be without hatred and scandal all the days of their

lives. Through the prayers of Your immaculate Mother and of all

the Saints. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the

glory, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and

ever, and to the ages.

(And with the table made ready in the middle of the church, they

place the holy Gospel upon it. And they kiss the Holy Gospel,

and each other.)

THEN THE PRIEST SINGS: By the union of love the apostles join in

the praying to the Master of all; themselves committed to Christ,

they extended their beautiful feet, announcing the good news of

peace to everyone.

PRIEST: Have mercy on us, O God.

(And continues the Liturgy.)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.

Paul Halsall Mar 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
 
Dang,

There were church rights for this kind of thing>??????

Oh my!!!!!
 
Who knew, huh? ;)

Boy, the things you miss with spotty 'Net acess for a few days.

Actually, compared to other homosexuality/marriage threads we've had, this one isn't too ugly.
 
XHendrix24 said:
Ah. So the homosexual-hating has progressed to this kind of level now? Yeesh. As a practicing Catholic, I'm rather astounded by this. Personally, I don't believe in gay marriage (however, I think some kind of civil union would be fine), but I definately think that the language used in this particular situation is a tad extreme. Especially coming from the Pope. :eyebrow:
I agree, I think civil unions are fine, same rights, just don't call it marrige. I think the Pope could of been more careful with his wording, but, honestly what do you expect him to say?
 
glenn said:

I agree, I think civil unions are fine, same rights, just don't call it marrige. I think the Pope could of been more careful with his wording, but, honestly what do you expect him to say?


why? what's the hang-up over that single word -- "marriage"?

i applaud your support of civil unions, but why fussing over what we call it?
 
Dreadsox said:
Exactly how did Christ shape the church, when he was Jewish?
I would hope as a Christian you know the obvious answers. I think you do. If it meant healing a woman on a holy day rather than allowing her to die for example, and instead of turning the house of God into a business. Surely, you wouldn't deny that Jesus did God's work. Here I make the bet that the most important commandment is to love your neighbor as Jesus would. I think that Jesus would be truthfully honest, yet sacrificial to provide for us all.

Some churches are too hung up on one thing and not the other - when you would hope for a balance of love and truth. Some may say anything to fill up the church, while others are centered on the mere opposite - ridiculing without taking account of themselves. I'm sure we can both agree that a Christian church should be founded on Jesus and his message. Sometimes, society heads in the wrong direction, such as when an average god-fearing man would believe that slavery was a reasonable lifestyle. At the time, you would tell someone that what they were doing is not what God has intended for us, and they would think you were nuts.

While we may disagree with this particular issue, I will say that it's been a constructive debate overall. You have provided examples of things I was previously unaware of. We haven't lashed at each other. If it's not a problem, I wouldn't mind we can respectfully disagree.
 
I disagree with the church being shaped by Jesus...if it were it would not have fragmented.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Nothing quoted in in the bible was directly stated by Christ about homosexuals, but his intentions for marriage are clear to me.
You did not acknowledge my point on this...shocking. Jesus was speaking to a certain type of people, why would be include every scenario? He didn't say anything about a person of this race can marry a person of another race, but that's not considered sin by CCs (anymore). He didn't mention it because probably didn't due to the crowd that day. He didn't say couples that couldn't have kids could marry, but they can. He didn't say anything about different religions, yet that isn't considered sin. Yet you choose this one thing. Out of all the things you could have chosen out of this context why this one...interesting. And once again, I don't define sin by reading between the lines. Jesus was very clear about every other sin, why would he make this one criptic?
Macfistowannabe said:

I would like you to be more direct with this, please present a professional theological point of view, and elaborate on specific examples.
How can I be more specific. We've gone over this over and over. You've never come up with an answer what makes you think you will now.

It's pretty easy. There are supposably two mentions of homosexuality in the Bible. TWO. One in Leviticus which everyone once they read it in context will admit these man made laws don't apply today. If they did Bush would be proposing an ammendment that would force menstrating women to sleep on the couch during that time of the month. The second of which you've seen posted in here several times. Paul apparently speaks about it. Two things wrong with this one; absolutely no other collaboration of story anywhere else in the Bible and two; the original translation of the word had nothing to do with homosexuality.
Macfistowannabe said:

You continue to dismiss anything said of man and wife, and duties of men, and duties of wives. Again I ask you to present something valid.
I've said it all before. If you want to talk about man and women roles in the Bible I'd be glad to talk to you about them. If you are going to take every word Paul said as it's so translated today then make sure your wife wears a veil when she goes to church. I'm sure you'll have no problem convincing her, for it is written in the Bible.

Macfistowannabe said:

Kind of contradicting, don't you think? You seem to imply that The Bible is just for straight people. You also seem to imply that duties of husband and wife is the message, ironically enough. This message has been perverted to fit the glove of society. Try fitting a fully-functional glove onto a society with it's middle finger up in the air. It doesn't work unless you make it politically correct, yet it beats up on the glove.
:| Great twisting of words.

I said the crowd to which Jesus spoke that day. Remember that Jesus was actually speaking to real people, not speaking into a recording device so a book can be written. That's all I'm going to say for the rest of this discusts me.

Macfistowannabe said:

This would explain why they have tried to prove the genetic connection for over a century. It would also explain why the theory of evolution was the conclusion that Darwin had after he completely eliminated the possibility of creation or a supreme being. We know where the a lot of them stand, but they have nothing to show for it.
Sorry but this has nothing to do with our discussion.
Macfistowannabe said:

This is a question that a radical feminist is likely to ask as well. They deny any differences between men and women, even though their bodies and minds are much different. Their needs are different as well. It is painfully naive to deny that it exists.

So now I'm a radical feminist because I believe love requires more than just a vagina and a penis? This is what you originally asked:
if God created marriage, why do you think it should've been done any differently?
You are the one to reduce it down to parts not me.


Macfistowannabe said:

No - you aren't seeing it. Scripturally - it says that we should love our wives as Christ loved the church. Does that mean Christ spent his life to make the church happy? Not exclusively, it means Christ loved it enough to die for it. He shaped the church into an institution that glorified God. Not a retailer.
No you aren't seeing it once again let's go back to original question:
Did God create marriage to make us happy, or to make us holy?

I was just answering your naive question. If you believe God created marriage to make you holy then this discussion is the least of your worries.
 
Irvine511 said:



why? what's the hang-up over that single word -- "marriage"?

i applaud your support of civil unions, but why fussing over what we call it?


I say let the religious people have "marriage".

Religions do not have to marry people outside of their faith

Religions do not have to marry people
that have been divorced

Religions do not have to marry people of different races

Religions do not have to marry people
of different genders.

however all of the above are entitled to a civil marriage or union that is recognized by the state.
 
Damn, Dread, I had no idea this stuff was on Halsall's site. That shows you how huge the Medieval Sourcebook is. I have it linked to my URL List site (the one with "castle2" in the URL) but I have never looked at this. I think I know what I'm going to do when I get home tomorrow. I'm going to a performance of some Turkish Whirling Dervishes tonight! Yes, they are in Birmingham!:drool: :drool:
 
Back
Top Bottom