www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bush Wants Homosexuals Out of Marriage

Dear Administrator,

I admire your posts greatly.

You display a moral and ethical clarity that is sorely missing today and which is also much needed, (in my humble opinion), by the faithful today.

I truly bow before the enlightenment and wisdom of our Christ and our Christian faith in you. May God bless you abundantly in His Grace and in all good things.

If you wouldn't mind answering this question, are you a lay person, religious or cleric?

Forgive my curiousity.

Thankyou.

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

The quotation of the term "homosexual agenda" sends a signal that there is another agenda 'informing' the discussion than the true theological elements that I have proposed.

The ultimate question is this:

"Does one respond to the reality of the situation and the graces sent by the Holy Spirit, or does one quote one or another dictum from the scriptures or "law"?"

Do we "do it" according to the so-called "received-revelation" or does one accept the possiblity that things in life are subject to the circumstances and (potential) graces that will come to the baptized?

Blessings!

Yes. :p

Sorry for the tease! I am layman in the Byzantine Catholic Church. I also admire your posts. They always get to the heart of the matter in charitable way.

He's married to a CAT. (A real nice cat; probably a Carmelite or other monastic since she is awake at pre-dawn. Unfortunately, the Kitty is not currently conversant in Slavonic. However, I think after a time in Toronto with Alex, the cat will be speaking fluent Ukrainian. And will probably know how to handle an AK-47 or an Uzi. I still think we should be baptizing or "incorporating" our pets - let's face it, they're really important!!!)

That can settle a lot of quandaries.

Blessing-mrowwwwr!

PS: I'm a dog person. But there are certain cats who have earned my respect. And, despite the current dictum ("All Dogs Go to Heaven - Most Cats Go Somewhere Else"), the Administrator's cat (who oftentimes posts on his behalf!!!) is probably worthy of heaven - however, we'll have to find a Feline Orthodox to do the consecration and send the Kitty to her rightful place at the time of her passing. {Are 'Feline Orthodox' part of SCOBA?}

Blessings! (Mrowwwwwr!)

(For those who might find my comments a bit strange or even scandalous, the fact remains I'm with St. Francis. I think that the animals who live with us and who in some ways "guide" us in our day to day activities are a true blessing from God. And I am convinced that at the Final Days, that they will converge with us in the Universe of Creation that the Lord has created.
May the Lord bring my dog GiGi, and all the other animals, including Kasha, Tink, Casey, Barney, Gambit, Bart and all the rest, into His Kingdom with us.)

"How great are Your works, O Lord, in wisdom You have made them all."

Blessings! (Arf!!! and Meow!!!)

The question is both leading and flawed. The Holy Spirit certainly leads people to respond to the reality of the situation. The Holy Spirit does not lead people to commit acts which God has forbidden. A Christian response to the reality of a situation would never violate the Scriptures. If it appears to violate Scripture then one should run from that choice as fast as one can.

Again, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Graces do certainly come to the baptized. Circumstances do call for the Christian to evaluate the situation and respond accordingly. It is certainly possible to err in such situations and misunderstand God�s promptings. We all err and are all in need of love and fraternal correction (and not condemnation). True grace, however, does not lead a person into immorality. If the resultant choice is something that God has told us is immoral then there is no grace involved and the prompting is not from God.

I wish to 'second' your observation, and commend our esteemed Administrator for his contribution to this discussion.

The Administrator has written: "True grace, however, does not lead a person into immorality. If the resultant choice is something that God has told us is immoral then there is no grace involved and the prompting is not from God. "

The question is: "How do we know this understanding is really true?" Could it not be just a simple lifting of a statement that is attributed to God but is in reality just an expression of one's own will and perspective?

Further: "A Christian response to the reality of a situation would never violate the Scriptures. If it appears to violate Scripture then one should run from that choice as fast as one can."

The problem with this lies in the 600 plus mandates of the Torah. Are we obligated to follow those? They are Scriptural, clearly. But we understand them to be 'fulfilled'. (Like the prohibition against shrimp/shellfish and pork). Can we not understand other Scriptural mandates to be of a similar nature, subject to our consciences?? If not, then why?

If we divorce anything from the commandment of the obligation of loving God and neighbor and making a decision based upon the person, then are we not in danger of legal idolatry? Let's follow the 'signified law' and abjure any personal responsibility.

Blessings!

Yes, a decision could just be an expression of one�s own will and perspective. This is why we always look to the Church to help us understand what the Holy Spirit is telling us. God will help us keep His word. He will help us to keep His Commandments. He never prompts us to violate His Commandments.

No, we cannot understand the other mandates to be of a similar nature and merely subject to our consciences. The Torah escalated burdens on the Jews in the Pentateuch as punishment for their continued infidelity. Christ�s resurrection freed us from the Mosaic Law (as a whole) because he made a New Covenant with His people. In this New Covenant Christ kept the moral principles as perpetually valid. This is evidenced in the Gospel and other New Testament Books. He also gave guardianship of this to His Church, not to personal choice.

Jesus taught us that the first and greatest commandment is to love God and that the second commandment was to love our neighbor. He also taught us that the rest of the commandments hang on these two commandments. A correct understanding is not one which dispenses us from the Commandments but one which tells us to embrace the Commandments because we love the Lord and our neighbor. The Gospel call to love should never be used as a justification for us to commit immoral acts nor to condone immoral activity by others. In the Gospel Christ clearly tells us to keep the Commandments. This is something we must do. It is part of following Him.

This again begs the question: "He also taught us that the rest of the commandments hang on these two commandments. A correct understanding is not one which dispenses us from the Commandments but one which tells us to embrace the Commandments because we love the Lord and our neighbor. The Gospel call to love should never be used as a justification for us to commit immoral acts nor to condone immoral activity by others. In the Gospel Christ clearly tells us to keep the Commandments. This is something we must do. It is part of following Him."

And the question is: why does the "correct understanding" not dispense us from the Commandments but one which tells us to embrace the Commandments because we love the Lord and our neighbor."

It appears that there is a judgemental element involved: Some commandments are 'chosen' to be ongoing, while others are relegated to the 'fulfilled' bin and therefore to be ignored.

Some things are designated as "immoral" while others -that were at one time 'immoral' - are cast aside as no longer relevant. (Ie, don't eat pork or shrimp; wash before each meal; wear certain garments when praying). It seems like we are dealing with a 'pick and choose' theology, and the 'picking and choosing' are correlated wtih one or other personal philosophical perspective and not an adherence to the statements in the Scriptures.

What concens me most is the fact that there are some who choose to accept "theology" insofar as it supportrs their perspective, but who dismiss it as 'fantasy' if it does not support a specific viewpoint.

Salvation is an important reality. The impact of both prayer and grace, as well as of the theological development of two millenia should not be dismissed as just 'irrelevant' for contemporary discussion.


Again: why the "shrimp and pork thing" and not the "interpersonal thing"?

Who makes the distinction?

Blessings!

Christ clearly teaches us to keep the Commandments. A correct understanding could never be a rejection of God�s teachings. How could one ever justify rejecting God�s Commandments? I can understand doubt. But when we doubt we must look to the Church for direction.

Ah�.no. The Church did not one day decide to keep the moral principles only to someday reject them. Christ himself reaffirmed the moral principles. He did not reaffirm the Mosaic Laws (as a whole) because many of them were a punishment of infidelity. One of the benefits of the resurrection is that Christ freed us from enslavement to the passions (which we sing about in Tone 8).

Sound theology never justifies immorality.

Agreed. Over two millennia the Church, in its wisdom, has seen fit to continually call us to keep the Commandments. As I have noted several times, the Church places on our lips the prayer: �Blessed are You, O Lord, teach me your commandments. Blessed are You, O Master, make me understand your commandments. Blessed are You, O Holy One, enlighten me with your laws.� The theological development of two millennia continue to support the necessity of keeping the Commandments.

Jesus Christ. He reaffirmed the Commandments. He gave us freedom in order to follow the law. He did not reaffirm the Mosaic Laws (as a whole) because many of them were a punishment of infidelity.

As I have stated repeatedly, we are to love each and every individual in a non-judgmental way. We are to example the Christian life to them (and hope that our example is not too horrendous!). We can never accept that which God has taught us is wrong. We must, by our example, call others to follow Christ. If they do He will free them from enslavement to their passions.

What discomforts me is the "mandates as a result of infidelity" proposition.

This is NOT Catholic or Orthodox theology. Why? Because the "Old Testament" relationship between God and Man is fulfilled and annihilated with the coming of Jesus Christ and His Passion/Death/Resurrection.

Secondly: Because this perspective does not incorporate the Holy Spirit. We Catholics/Orthodox cannot do anything at all without both the recognition and full-will consent to the action-izing of the Holy Spirit among the baptized. To propose otherwise is both PROTESTANT and PROT-FUNDAMENTALIST theology, not Catholic and Orthodox.

In fact, according to RC Canon Law, those who attend to and incorporate the teachings of heretics, including Falwell, Robinson, Dobson, van Impe, etc. are guilty of sin. We Byzantines don't have such law, but it is interesting to speculate on how us Byzantines should react to their falsehoods in terms of personal sin.

The key factor is: what can I as an individual do to help another person become closer to God? What can I do to re-inforce the individual's commitment to the love-of-God and love-of-neighbor mandate? (Theist-Gal's posts make this conundrum waaaaay more than clear!!! If a guy held on to your 'finger-rosary' for a year, and used it daily, I'd be hard pressed to decide what more that you could do. Just keep on keepin' on. Smile. Give a squeeze on the arm or shoulder. A little smile - and sometimes a doughnut or a piece of fruit or something. Just a sign that you're a loving person who, like Teresa of Lisieux, was just tickled to meet up with another person who took the time to pray. How wonderful your opportunities, TheistGal!!! As I say to Sharon: "Go get 'em!!!"

Blessings to all the "I think you're wonderful" missionaries!!! God'll do the rest.

Dr John
Actually, it was me that gave the gentleman the
finger rosary! And thank you for saying there may not be much more I can do that pray for him.

Several years ago I was discussing a different situation about someone with my priest. I was caught up in the "but scripture says....". My wise priest told me that when Christ died He obtained infinite merits for mankind. G-d is so far beyond our small minds. G-d in His mercy and wisdom will do whatever He wants with the merits of Christ. In otherwords, my priest was telling me not to worry, G-d has everything under control.
denise

AMDG

Dear all,

AMDG

Dear all,

Please hear me out, I beg you.

I am afraid that I must announce my resignation from the Byzantine Forum. There are several reasons, the first of which is that I have paid less and less attention to my work.

The other reasons include a severe disappointment with what has gone on here the last few days. Dr. John, I absolutely cannot believe that you wrote what you did a few posts ago, saying that what we were really afraid of was not sin, but intimacy, and that it would change once we (those who disagreed with you) found someone who loved us. I also could not believe it when I read your accusation of "fundamentalism."

All I have tried to do here is present the Gospel teaching, which is also the teaching of the orthodox Fathers, of the Saints, and of the Magisterium. It is Christ's teaching. It offers solid hope of salvation, unlike the loosy-gossy, do-whatever-feels-good, ersatz morality espoused on this thread by Dr. John.

It is hard enough to be chaste in this modern world, without having to read B.S. justifications for sin. Don't you dare say that those who follow the Church's teaching are just psychologically afraid of intimacy. God, help us.

My thanks to the Administrator for his courage and clarity, and for having a lot more patience than I do. Thanks to Alice for her wonderful charity. Thanks to Joe Thur for putting me in my place every now and then (still, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit ). Thanks to Anhelyna and all who prayed for me. Thanks also to Lemko Rusyn for teaching me a lot about the Rusyn tradition (brother, I pray that you and Dr. John will come to accept the Church's teaching). Thanks to Alex Roman for welcoming me to the forum when I got on everybody's nerves. God Bless all of you--Sharon Mech, Theist Gal, DavidB, etc.--everyone else too.

Bonum certamen certavi.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Massachusetts Catholic Bishops' Joint Statement on the Definition of Marriage, which was to be read in all the pulpits. The article can be read here:

http://www.macathconf.org/03bishops_define_marriage_stat.htm

Here is a news article regarding the reading of the bishops' statement:

- - - - - - -

Catholic Church statement yields sharp contrasts
By CURT BROWN, Standard-Times staff writer

NEW BEDFORD -- Priests across the Bay State yesterday clearly communicated the Catholic Church's strong opposition to same-sex marriages -- a position provoking a range of opinions over SouthCoast.

In a statement signed by the four Massachusetts bishops and read at all Masses, Catholics were urged to contact their state legislators and register their support for the Church's position that marriage can only mean the union between a man and woman.

The Rev. Martin L. Buote, pastor of St. Anne's Church, read the three-page statement at the 11 a.m. Mass and said the Church is asking Catholics to express their support for the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment, which upholds its viewpoint.

The constitutional amendment is currently before the state Legislature and would define marriage as only being between a man and a woman.

...

The church said its opposition to same-sex marriages is not "an instance of unjust discrimination or animosity toward homosexual persons."

The statement was signed by Bishop Richard G. Lennon, the apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Boston, Worcester Bishop Daniel P. Reilly, Springfield Bishop Thomas L. Dupre and Fall River Bishop-elect Monsignor George W. Coleman.

The statement received an enthusiastic response from parishioners leaving St. Anne's Church in the South End of New Bedford after Mass in the rain.

- - - - - - -

The entire text can be read here:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-03/06-02-03/a01lo005.htm

The statement quotes the USCB's statement on same-sex marriage:

"The Roman Catholic Church believes that marriage is a faithful, exclusive, and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love. This union was established by God with its own proper laws. By reason of its very nature, therefore, marriage exists for the mutual love and support of the spouses and for the procreation and education of children. These two purposes, the unitive and the procreative, are equal and inseparable. The institution of marriage has a very important relationship to the continuation of the human race, to the total development of the human person, and to the dignity, stability, peace, and prosperity of the family and of society."

The entire statement of the "Roman" Catholic bishops can be read here:

http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexstmt.htm

This statement must exclude Eastern Catholic bishops?

Joe