|
0 members (),
280
guests, and
106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,525
Posts417,643
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770 Likes: 30 |
Dr. John wrote:
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. Yes, of course the relationship between God and man is fulfilled and we are freed from the Law through Jesus Christ. Consider, however, that Jesus Christ himself told us to �keep the Commandments�. It is He himself who kept the moral laws perpetually. The apostles reinforced this in the New Testament and the Church bears witness to this essential Truth of our Faith. We are not freed from the Law to do what is immoral. We are freed from the Law to do what is moral. Jesus Christ came to free us from enslavement to passions. What you are preaching is not Catholic or Orthodox theology. You are preaching moral relativism. Dr. John wrote:
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. This perspective certainly does incorporate the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not lead one into immorality. The Holy Spirit does not lead one to violate the Commandments. Your proposition that the Holy Spirit can lead people to choose immoral activity is a gross misunderstanding of Catholic/Orthodox theology. Dr. John wrote:
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. I have not incorporated any Protestant teaching. The theology you have presented on this topic is extremely flawed. It is certainly not Catholic or Orthodox. Dr. John wrote:
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? Love God and your neighbor, live a good example of the Christian life (which includes keeping the Commandments yourself), and help your neighbor to understand and keep the Commandments whenever the opportunity presents itself. When you live the Christian life, your neighbor sees Christ living in you and he or she can become desirous for the relationship that you have with God. If you yourself are not living the life of Christ (not keeping the Commandments) then you will not be a light to others.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770 Likes: 30 |
Originally posted by LatinTrad: 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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
Originally posted by LatinTrad:
God Bless all of you--Sharon Mech, Theist Gal, DavidB, etc.--everyone else too.
God bless you, too, LatinTrad. I'll miss your valuable input!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
Dear Latin Trad,
Thank YOU for your wonderful posts!
I have also been somewhat, if not very, disappointed and dismayed with some of these recent threads on this and related topics...
Please don't leave for good! (Couldn't it just be until the end of the summer?)
God bless you, and please continue to bless us from time to time with your devout Christian enlightenment, which I admire so much.
In Christ our Lord,
Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 34
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 34 |
The timing of Bush's statement comes too close to the issuing of the recent Vatican document for me not to think that this is an attempt on Bush's part to regain the Catholic vote after the Vatican expressed its criticism of his war in Iraq.
The issue is viewed too narrowly. Part of the problem is the use of the term 'marriage', all right don't call it marriage. But it don't seem fair that a couple of the same sex who have perhaps lived together for twenty years or more when one of them dies the other is not permitted by the family to attend the funeral or is forced to leave the home he/she has lived in for all those years. And what of the unmarried child who takes care of an ailing elderly parent most of their adult lives but has no claim to the family home? In the not too distant past this was the moral and socially approved role for the gay child in the family, but once the parent was dead this brother/sister's usefulness to the family was at an end. Or the person, like a deacon I know, who has an adult son who is very developmently handicapped due to an accident but who cannot get that son covered by his company's health insurance plan which will only cover a sponse, not an adult child?
Arvid
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770 Likes: 30 |
Hi, Arvid,
Welcome to The Byzantine Forum and thanks for posting.
The discussions in this thread are focusing on the morality of homosexual activity and a Christian response to some in the homosexual community who are demanding that homosexual partnerships should be treated as the equivalent of heterosexual marriage.
I do not think that anyone would disagree that any individual should be able to designate any another individual the power of attorney (should they become ill) or the right to attend their funeral. Christians properly do not believe that homosexual paring should be acceptable in our society so they, therefore, do not believe that a homosexual equivalent to marriage (or civil unions, etc.) is the appropriate way to legally provide for this. I am not a lawyer but I understand that one can give already give the power of attorney to another individual to put him or her in charge of these things, ahead of any family claims.
Regarding the other issues you have raised (taking care of parents, property distribution, health insurance, etc.) I do not believe that societal recognition of homosexual pairing is the way to address them. Most of the issues you raise can already be addressed legally. The health insurance issue is not one that I believe should be addressed on the basis of homosexual activity. They would be fair topics for new threads.
Again, welcome to the Forum!
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
Originally posted by Arvid Nybroten:
The timing of Bush's statement comes too close to the issuing of the recent Vatican document for me not to think that this is an attempt on Bush's part to regain the Catholic vote after the Vatican expressed its criticism of his war in Iraq. Arvid, His statement might be more in line with the parallel statement issued by the Southern Baptist Convention that just occured. Insurance, healthcare responsibility and the like shouold not be used to justify an immoral lifestyle. Traditionally, marriage has a procreative factor and a unitive factor. Homosexuality cannot produce offspring. The anatomy of two men or two women cannot unite like the anatomy of a man and a woman. Sex is not an end initself. It leads to something greater: life. Sex outside marriage is akin to Sola Scriptura: the Scriptures outside the Church. Even atheists can be excellent biblical 'scholars.' But in their case, the Scriptures aren't being used to glorify God. Prostitutes, adulterers, and homosexuals can be lively bed partners. But in their case, sex isn't being used to glorify God sacramentally. So much havoc has ensued when the Scriptures are read outside their natural home and assume an authority independently of their context. So much havoc has ensued when sex or sexual relationships assume an authority independently of their context. There is nothing more appaling than a Bible Christian confronts a Catholic or Orthodox Christian and tells him/her that he/she must accept the truths of the Bible. They already do, but in a much fuller sense. There is nothing more appaling to a Catholic or Orthodox Christian couple than someone espousing a sexuality or sex outside marriage and asking them to accept it. Married folks already accept sex or sexuality, but in a much fuller, sacramental, sense. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788 |
Welcome Arvid!
I'm not sure the Administrator is right on the topic of this thread, who title relates to a statement by a politican rather than a moral theologian. But tha tis neither here nor there.
I think the Administrator is 100% right that the health insurance issue needs to be solved outside the issue of same-sex unions. The Catholic bishops have been one of the strongest voices for national health insurance and if we listend to them, this issue would be moot.
The Administrator is mostly right on the other matter. It is not quite true that no one would disagree with... but their numbers are few. A handful of states have recently passed laws restricting some of these things and some conservative groups have called for more restrictions, but they are generally being removed (including in the Administrator's home state of Virginia).
But again, I think same-sex civil marriage is a bad idea.
Axios
|
|
|
|
|
