Kallistos Ware Comes Out For Homosexual Marriage

[archer75]

Who cares about what secular people do or say? This is the Church, we operate under the confines of the teachings and practices of the Church. That is our standard, not the world.

Sex is only a part of marriage, it is not the end all and be all of a marriage. If it is, then that is a very unhealthy marriage.

No I'm not convinced you thoroughly read what I said, because if you did, I don't think you would have said what you did, unless you truly disagree with my proposal and would rather see people with SSA live together in a quasi-marriage state?

Ain't going happen.

You also didn't answer my question. Would you be willing to take in a single Orthodox person who struggles with SSA into your home and make them a part of your family?

Regarding "what secular people do or say," I'm not sure to what part of what post you're responding...oh, sorry. You meant when I said that the suggestion reminded me of (not specifically Orthodox) claims / suggestions made around the topic of same-sex civil marriages. I wasn't saying that you should "care" what secular people do or say, merely saying that, although it's formulated in an Orthodox context, this suggestion resembles those, in my opinion, in that it misses the whole point.

I don't disagree that your proposal is possible (and for all I know, has been practiced), but I disagree that it's a solution to the matter that is (sort of) under discussion.

People who are sexually attracted to their own sex already do live together. Some live together in marriages blessed by (not canonically Orthodox) Christian bodies, some in civil marriages. This already happens and it is public knowledge that it happens, so your statement that it is not going to happen is counterfactual. Further, there are communing Orthodox Christians who live with their same-sex partners in such an arrangement.

No, I'm not able to take anyone in, and I would be very surprised if a person in the world would want that arrangement if I were.

No, I'm talking about a man, who may or may not have SSA, and a woman, who may or may not have SSA, marry each other.

Why did this become so vague all of a sudden? I thought from your quote "Why not have people struggling with the passion of SSA marry someone of the opposite gender and live as brothers and sisters?" that you meant that...at least one of the people would be attracted to the same sex? Now, maybe BOTH of them are NOT attracted to their own sex? I don't follow.

 

[Dorothea]

yeah, it's her main concern with modern Orthodoxy. the revisionists use ambiguous language so they can defend if folks accuse them of anything, meanwhile they slowly steer off track.

Yes, and this kind of ambiguity (if not done intentionally to be deceptive...well, we presume this but do not know for sure at this time) will easily lead those in the Orthodox faith who do not know its teachings very well at all to come to another conclusion which isn't of the Church's teachings. So when the clergy and laypeople speak against these false teachings, those parishioners won't understand and think those telling the truth are wrong. I know one of our brethren on here or the thread on FB had said this could lead to splitting the Church. It seems crazy to split over same-sex attraction. Ugh

 

[archer75]

no, you could argue that adelphopoiesis was done between Frs. Seraphim Rose and Herman in Platina, as they both mutually submitted to each other.

how do we know? because this is the formula given. if you have any other ideas aside from celibacy or what Greg said, I am all eyes.

But there was no rite involved with Frs. Seraphim and Herman. Or if mutual submission is all that's required - then again, why have the marriage rite for the people in Greg's suggestion?

 

[GregConstantine]

People who are sexually attracted to their own sex already do live together. Some live together in marriages blessed by (not canonically Orthodox) Christian bodies, some in civil marriages.

Not relevant to us. What non Orthodox people do or what heterodox religious bodies choose to do is not relevant to us. We are to obey the commandments and operate within the confines of the Church.

 

[archer75]

no, you could argue that adelphopoiesis was done between Frs. Seraphim Rose and Herman in Platina, as they both mutually submitted to each other.

how do we know? because this is the formula given. if you have any other ideas aside from celibacy or what Greg said, I am all eyes.

Whoops, forgot to reply to second part. How do you mean, formula?

 

[archer75]

Not relevant to us. What non Orthodox people do or what heterodox religious bodies choose to do is not relevant to us. We are to obey the commandments and operate within the confines of the Church.

And again, this happens within the Church, so your saying it isn't going to happen / doesn't happen is counterfactual.

 

[GregConstantine]

And again, this happens within the Church, so your saying it isn't going to happen / doesn't happen is counterfactual.

If it happens within the Church, especially if a priest has married two people of the same gender, then his bishop needs to defrock that priest.

What I mean when I said it ain't going to happen, I mean that it will never be taught as doctrine in the Church. This is what I mean when I said you may not be reading what I am saying correctly, unless the reality is you disagree and you are dancing around that.

Fr Matt, can you chime in on this?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, and this kind of ambiguity (if not done intentionally to be deceptive...well, we presume this but do not know for sure at this time) will easily lead those in the Orthodox faith who do not know its teachings very well at all to come to another conclusion which isn't of the Church's teachings. So when the clergy and laypeople speak against these false teachings, those parishioners won't understand and think those telling the truth are wrong. I know one of our brethren on here or the thread on FB had said this could lead to splitting the Church. It seems crazy to split over same-sex attraction. Ugh

it won't lead to a split, since the Church cannot be divided. it might lead to the weak falling away.

but yes, this is the main tactic of modernists. vagueness when it comes to our dogma on what is not vague.

 

[archer75]

If it happens within the Church, especially if a priest has married two people of the same gender, then his bishop needs to defrock that priest.

What I mean when I said it ain't going to happen, I mean that it will never be taught as doctrine in the Church. This is what I mean when I said you may not be reading what I am saying correctly, unless the reality is you disagree and you are dancing around that.

Fr Matt, can you chime in on this?

Oh, of course. Yes. I thought you meant that literally no such people would ever live together.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But there was no rite involved with Frs. Seraphim and Herman. Or if mutual submission is all that's required - then again, why have the marriage rite for the people in Greg's suggestion?

so? why do you need a rite? they were blessed to do so under one of the greatest saints of the 20th century.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Whoops, forgot to reply to second part. How do you mean, formula?

living as brother and sister, or SSA of opposite sex coming together to curb passions in traditional marriage.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If it happens within the Church, especially if a priest has married two people of the same gender, then his bishop needs to defrock that priest.

What I mean when I said it ain't going to happen, I mean that it will never be taught as doctrine in the Church. This is what I mean when I said you may not be reading what I am saying correctly, unless the reality is you disagree and you are dancing around that.

Fr Matt, can you chime in on this?

I don't think I can, you are being clear on Church teaching and are on solid ground. there really is nothing I can add.

 

[GregConstantine]

Oh, of course. Yes. I thought you meant that literally no such people would ever live together.

If you read my post suggestion my idea, why would I mean something like that?

 

[rusmeister]

Can the title of this thread be changed ti reflect reality?

The title reflects the reality, archer.
Having dismissed the words posted by the site in the link, and having focused exclusively on His Eminence’s words most carefully and thoughtfully, it is clear that he is paving the way for precisely what the OP describes. There is no doubt.

A person doesn’t have to say “I support the Nazis” to demonstratively support Nazism. If he quotes Nietzsche and Mein Kampf right and left, if he says that Jews are the cause of world problems and the solution is to eliminate that cause, then he doesn’t HAVE to say, quote unquote, that he backs Nazism for us to rightly say that he does.

 

[GregConstantine]

I don't think I can, you are being clear on Church teaching and are on solid ground. there really is nothing I can add.

Sorry I should have been more clear. I was asking about what would happen to a priest if he should bless a same sex marriage.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sorry I should have been more clear. I was asking about what would happen to a priest if he should bless a same sex marriage.

priest would be defrocked and the couple would be excommunicated. if the priest doesn't repent, he is excommunicated too.

 

[archer75]

If you read my post suggestion my idea, why would I mean something like that?

Because you said (later) "ain't gonna happen." I didn't mean in your original post. I meant in the later post. Since that time, you've explained (post 107) you meant it "ain't gonna happen [with the Church's blessing]."

Just for the record here, in case it was clear, I didn't bring up anything about priests blessing such marriages (well, within the OC). Somehow, the thread has made it sound like I did.

so? why do you need a rite? they were blessed to do so under one of the greatest saints of the 20th century.

Since the rite exists and was used for centuries, why not use it?

 

[archer75]

The title reflects the reality, archer.
Having dismissed the words posted by the site in the link, and having focused exclusively on His Eminence’s words most carefully and thoughtfully, it is clear that he is paving the way for precisely what the OP describes. There is no doubt.

A person doesn’t have to say “I support the Nazis” to demonstratively support Nazism. If he quotes Nietzsche and Mein Kampf right and left, if he says that Jews are the cause of world problems and the solution is to eliminate that cause, then he doesn’t HAVE to say, quote unquote, that he backs Nazism for us to rightly say that he does.

I really disagree here, but okay.

 

[archer75]

I may have been too hasty in dismissing Greg's suggestion. I apologize for that. It doesn't sound very workable to me, but it doesn't need my approval.

Well, here's another suggestion. Maybe SSM has cropped up because Orthodoxy has forgotten or suppressed the adelphopoiesis rite. Why don't we bring that back and set an example?

And even if someone thinks it's a back-door same-sex marriage...it doesn't matter what the world thinks, right?

Or we could try BOTH these solutions!

 

[FenderTL5]

I really disagree here, but okay.

I agree with the Church's position on this issue as it has stood and still stands.
No "ifs" no "ands" or "buts".

However, maybe it's my own personal bias and respect for Bishop Ware, I don't know; I read the foreword and my impression is the thread title is not supported by the Bishop's article.
H.E. said, "I am not suggesting here that we should bluntly set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching.."
I took that at face value.

I can only imagine the scenarios that today's clergy encounter, especially as it applies to this issue in some communities. They need our prayers.
So when H.E. added, "but we do need to enquire more rigorously into the reasons that lie behind it." I understood him to be saying that the answer, "because the church says so.." can seem inadequate at times and he gave a couple of examples to illustrate.

I thought he alluded to the answer when he said, "Homosexual orientation, we would say, is indeed contrary to God’s plan for humankind, being one of the consequences of the fall (incidentally, I am surprised that more isn't said about the fall in the course of The Wheel
13/14 ȩ Spring/Summer 2018 this issue of The Wheel)."

I tend to think the traditional, correct, position of the Church is cued up within this dialogue. IMHO (which is of little/no concern in the big picture), ymmv.