Kallistos Ware Comes Out For Homosexual Marriage

[GregConstantine]

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.


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

I said before that I'm not opposed to bringing it back, but it should be brought back for different reasons, it has nothing to do with marriage.

Each holy mystery (baptism, eucharist, crismation, marriage, etc) confers for a lack of a better word, the grace of God to transform us, to sanctify us, to heal us. If a man with SSA marries a woman who is straight ( or maybe even she herself struggles with SSA) come together in holy matrimony, they will receive the same grace just as much as any other couple. And they will be in obedience to Christ/the Church. In that, and through that, this couple can help each other work out their salvation, just as any other couple would do. Perhaps they'll be able to work through their passion, and come to a place where they can "love" each other in the same way any other couple would. Human sexuality falls on a spectrum, no one or very few people are 100% this or that totally, all the time. We can though make choices. And those choices are the ones we will need to answer for on that Last Day.

 

[archer75]

I said before that I'm not opposed to bringing it back, but it should be brought back for different reasons, it has nothing to do with marriage.

Each holy mystery (baptism, eucharist, crismation, marriage, etc) confers for a lack of a better word, the grace of God to transform us, to sanctify us, to heal us. If a man with SSA marries a woman who is straight ( or maybe even she herself struggles with SSA) come together in holy matrimony, they will receive the same grace just as much as any other couple. And they will be in obedience to Christ/the Church. In that, and through that, this couple can help each other work out their salvation, just as any other couple would do. Perhaps they'll be able to work through their passion, and come to a place where they can "love" each other in the same way any other couple would. Human sexuality falls on a spectrum, no one or very few people are 100% this or that totally, all the time. We can though make choices. And those choices are the ones we will need to answer for on that Last Day.

This has happened, though, and at least some such marraiges end in disaster and divorce. I'm not saying what you propose is impossible, but the fact of the sacrament of marriage does not magically fix everything.

But it (adelphopoiesis) does have to do with marriage in that without it, it looks like the only kind of bond the Church can bless for two people is in the marriage rite. Therefore, the push to open up the marriage rite.

Maybe all this is because Orthodoxy has not been true to Tradition?

 

[ArmyMatt]

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

that's for the bishops to decide. not priests, deacons, or laity.

 

[archer75]

that's for the bishops to decide. not priests, deacons, or laity.

Well, since there's precedent on this thread for layfolk determining when to defrock a metropolitan, I thought asking a question about a rite wasn't too out of place.

 

[archer75]

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

On another note, the "ethnic" names on a lot of jurisdictions in the US give some people the impression that the OC teaches that people should worship according to ethnicity. That's too bad. Yet still we have trouble cleaning up the mess with all the jurisdictions.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, since there's precedent on this thread for layfolk determining when to defrock a metropolitan, I thought asking a question about a rite wasn't too out of place.

I didn't say you couldn't ask the question, only where the answer to your question lies.

 

[Lukaris]

This thread is long & excuse me if I missed a point covered. I read the Metr. Kallistos’ article & he indicates that the church accomodates homosexual promiscuity in confession than it would a more committed, seemingly(?) monogamous form within a same sex “marriage”.
How much accommodation is actually given to repeat promiscuity?

 

[GregConstantine]

This has happened, though, and at least some such marraiges end in disaster and divorce. I'm not saying what you propose is impossible, but the fact of the sacrament of marriage does not magically fix everything.

But it (adelphopoiesis) does have to do with marriage in that without it, it looks like the only kind of bond the Church can bless for two people is in the marriage rite. Therefore, the push to open up the marriage rite.

Maybe all this is because Orthodoxy has not been true to Tradition?

No it doesn't. If you are referring to the "research" that John Boswell or whatever his name was, its' been disputed by scholars as an invalid conclusion. So let's move on away from that tired claim.


If two people truly love God and His Church, and come together for with a sincere desire to work out their salvation in love, then it will work out.

Sex is not everything, hate to break it to you. If you let your marriage rise and fall on what you're capable or willing to do sexually, I can guarantee you that will cause a lot of trouble in a marriage. Even within an Orthodox marriage we are to be "chaste" in the full and true meaning of that word. We even pray in the wedding service that the marriage bed be "chaste".

And the vast majority of commentators here have not called for H E or anyone else to be defrocked or removed or anything like that. Asking what the protocols are according to the canons of the Church is not the same thing as calling for someone's removal. So, my suggestion to you would be to calm down about that and don't use that as a distraction to get our attention off and away from the real issue.

I could be wrong, but I'm sensing an attitude from you regarding this issue that is negative and is in a rebellious spirit against the Church.

 

[archer75]

This thread is long & excuse me if I missed a point covered. I read the Metr. Kallistos’ article & he indicates that the church accomodates homosexual promiscuity in confession than it would a more committed, seemingly(?) monogamous form within a same sex “marriage”.
How much accommodation is actually given to repeat promiscuity?

I assume this varies, but I have heard of exactly what H.E. describes - people being pushed not to be in committed relationships because it can't be confessed and absolved, instead encouraged to have one-night stands, which more easily look like a "mistake."

 

[GregConstantine]

I assume this varies, but I have heard of exactly what H.E. describes - people being pushed not to be in committed relationships because it can't be confessed and absolved, instead encouraged to have one-night stands, which more easily look like a "mistake."

Ergo, my solution!

 

[archer75]

No it doesn't. If you are referring to the "research" that John Boswell or whatever his name was, its' been disputed by scholars as an invalid conclusion. So let's move on away from that tired claim.

I didn't mention, quote, or even think of Boswell, whose work I haven't read. So we can't move away from what I didn't bring up (although we can move on from the notion that I brought it up).

I can see how what I said may have been unclear, however. To re-say it:

Perhaps the non-use of the adelphopoiesis rite leaves people who are inclined to form close bonds with people of the same sex without any model to look to. And that leaves them thinking that the choice is marriage or nothing. THEREFORE (maybe), the non-use of the adelphopoiesis rite has contributed to the push to open up the marriage rite to same-sex couples.

If two people truly love God and His Church, and come together for with a sincere desire to work out their salvation in love, then it will work out.

See, I can't say you're wrong here, but I have been told many times not to try to read hearts. So, to me, it sounds like this is something I can't agree with - because such marriages do fail (at least some), and then, if I agree with what you said, I'm locked into saying that they didn't have a sincere desire to work out their salvation.

Sex is not everything, hate to break it to you. If you let your marriage rise and fall on what you're capable or willing to do sexually, I can guarantee you that will cause a lot of trouble in a marriage. Even within an Orthodox marriage we are to be "chaste" in the full and true meaning of that word. We even pray in the wedding service that the marriage bed be "chaste".

I have never said - or implied - that sex is everything, so you don't need to be sorry to break the news that it isn't.

So what do you think a "chaste" marriage bed means?

And the vast majority of commentators here have not called for H E or anyone else to be defrocked or removed or anything like that. Asking what the protocols are according to the canons of the Church is not the same thing as calling for someone's removal. So, my suggestion to you would be to calm down about that and don't use that as a distraction to get our attention off and away from the real issue.

I could be wrong, but I'm sensing an attitude from you regarding this issue that is negative and is in a rebellious spirit against the Church.

Rusmeister said it in post 35 of this thread. No, he doesn't make up the vast majority of people on this thread, but then, I didn't say most people on the thread had said that. Saying that "defrocking is in order" is pretty much calling for someone's removal.

I don't feel particularly not calm, and I'm not the one who said defrocking was in order, I only mentioned it because I thought that was a matter for bishops as well - when I was advised that the use- or non-use of a given rite was a matter for bishops - not priests, deacons, or the laypeople.

I have noticed a fair bit of leeway on the Orthodox Internet about layfolk deciding for themselves what's a matter for bishops and what isn't...

Regarding my attitude, I am not sure whether attitudes (i.e. - motivations as discerned over the Internet) are appropriate for this thread. Do you think they are?

Ergo, my solution!

I'm afraid I don't see how this shows your solution to be perfect.

 

[rusmeister]

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.

Hi, Fender,
I don’t think you read my response to Met Kallistos’s words. It is entirely possible for a person to say, “I don’t defend X”, and then proceed to defend X. It would be absolutely thoughtless to suppose that it is not possible. And if the Metropolitan does not suggest that we “bluntly” set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching, he DOES suggest that it has never been questioned and satisfactorily answered by the Church fathers, but rather, as you yourself say, “because the Church says so”. He DOES suggest that we should delicately set aside Orthodox teaching because these issues never occured to the early Christians; what with them not talking about “sexual orientation”. He does suggest that the Church has not really understood the issue over the past two thousand years but that he could help us “enquire more rigorously”. Why doesn’t HE enquire more rigorously and report back what the fathers have said across the ages, on the basis of Scripture and the rest of Tradition. That the pastor and shepherd of a local church says that he doesn’t know why and trumpets that publicly, he does challenge the legitimacy of the teaching of two millennia. Yes, he says it is not God’s plan. But he does speak in terms that work to normalize it as acceptable behavior, via economia, etc.

All sins are bad. This sin stands out, though, for the effort with which Christians seek open approval for it. The same is not true of drunkenness, adultery, etc. For that reason, it is necessary to double down on Church teaching, not cast it as unreasoned dogma with strawman arguments. It would be more blessed to just trust the Church teaching, just as it is more blessed to have not seen, yet believe. But if anyone wants answers, the Church has them. Hundreds of voices over hundreds of years all affirming the only possible path of exercising the sexual gift, and what it means. So why a bishop, let alone a metropolitan, should talk about “enquiring” as if he did not know about the vast treasure of resources in Holy Tradition, as if there might NOT be any answers, is outrageous. I can only attribute it to his having absorbed the modern mind rather than the mind of the Church. Me, I’m an idiot, but if there is any conflict between what I say and Church teaching, it is I who am wrong. Not the consensus of the Church over two millennia.

 

[FenderTL5]

Perhaps the non-use of the adelphopoiesis rite leaves people who are inclined to form close bonds with people of the same sex without any model to look to. And that leaves them thinking that the choice is marriage or nothing. THEREFORE (maybe), the non-use of the adelphopoiesis rite has contributed to the push to open up the marriage rite to same-sex couples.

I'm glad you clarified this. I see your point, but can't say whther I agree/disagree as this is a new area of thought for me (never heard of adelphopoiesis before today).
I had misunderstood your previous comments.

See, I can't say you're wrong here, but I have been told many times not to try to read hearts. So, to me, it sounds like this is something I can't agree with - because such marriages do fail (at least some), and then, if I agree with what you said, I'm locked into saying that they didn't have a sincere desire to work out their salvation.

Would you say the same about the current/existing marriage rite? Those may fail also.
I do think that a marriage, as referenced for SSA, should involve a lot of extra pastoral and maybe even professional counsel and should not be taken lightly or even as 'normal'.

 

[GregConstantine]

I do think that a marriage, as referenced for SSA, should involve a lot of extra pastoral and maybe even professional counsel and should not be taken lightly or even as 'normal'.

I said something to that affect in the original post in which I first mentioned my idea. It won't be for everyone. But I could see it as a pastoral or an economia for an individual depending on his or her needs.

 

[GregConstantine]

I didn't mention, quote, or even think of Boswell, whose work I haven't read. So we can't move away from what I didn't bring up (although we can move on from the notion that I brought it up).

I can see how what I said may have been unclear, however. To re-say it:

Perhaps the non-use of the adelphopoiesis rite leaves people who are inclined to form close bonds with people of the same sex without any model to look to. And that leaves them thinking that the choice is marriage or nothing. THEREFORE (maybe), the non-use of the adelphopoiesis rite has contributed to the push to open up the marriage rite to same-sex couples.


See, I can't say you're wrong here, but I have been told many times not to try to read hearts. So, to me, it sounds like this is something I can't agree with - because such marriages do fail (at least some), and then, if I agree with what you said, I'm locked into saying that they didn't have a sincere desire to work out their salvation.


I have never said - or implied - that sex is everything, so you don't need to be sorry to break the news that it isn't.

So what do you think a "chaste" marriage bed means?


Rusmeister said it in post 35 of this thread. No, he doesn't make up the vast majority of people on this thread, but then, I didn't say most people on the thread had said that. Saying that "defrocking is in order" is pretty much calling for someone's removal.

I don't feel particularly not calm, and I'm not the one who said defrocking was in order, I only mentioned it because I thought that was a matter for bishops as well - when I was advised that the use- or non-use of a given rite was a matter for bishops - not priests, deacons, or the laypeople.

I have noticed a fair bit of leeway on the Orthodox Internet about layfolk deciding for themselves what's a matter for bishops and what isn't...

Regarding my attitude, I am not sure whether attitudes (i.e. - motivations as discerned over the Internet) are appropriate for this thread. Do you think they are?


I'm afraid I don't see how this shows your solution to be perfect.

You are ignoring some pretty important points that I've made repeatedly yet you still don't seem to be getting it. So you are either not comprehending what I am saying, or you are ignoring them because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived idea that you are adhering to. Before asking me what are those things I've said that you are missing, my suggestion to you would be go to back and re-read what I wrote, if my second idea about where you're coming from is not accurate.

 

[archer75]

I'm glad you clarified this. I see your point, but can't say whther I agree/disagree as this is a new area of thought for me (never heard of adelphopoiesis before today).
I had misunderstood your previous comments.
Would you say the same about the current/existing marriage rite? Those may fail also.
I do think that a marriage, as referenced for SSA, should involve a lot of extra pastoral and maybe even professional counsel and should not be taken lightly or even as 'normal'.

I thought of this for the first time recently, too. I'm not 100% sure, and it would take some doing to assemble evidence that supports it. But it seems at least plausible that this is a factor.

Yes, my previous remark along these lines on this thread was poorly formulated, and that was entirely my fault.

I meant the current marriage rite - I meant it specifically about what Greg proposed - the marriage rite for opposite-sex couples at least one of whom is attracted to people of the same sex - but I mean the same thing for Orthodox marriages across the board. Orthodox marriages fail. It happens - regardless of the sexual inclinations of the people involved. To make the blanket statement that "If two people truly love God and His Church, and come together for with a sincere desire to work out their salvation in love, then it will work out" seems to me to lock me into also saying "if a marriage fails, then one or both of the participants either didn't truly love God and the Church or didn't have a sincere desire to work out their salvation in love" - and then I'm reading hearts, which I've heard (on TAW also) that we're not to do. That's all.

 

[GregConstantine]

I thought of this for the first time recently, too. I'm not 100% sure, and it would take some doing to assemble evidence that supports it. But it seems at least plausible that this is a factor.

Yes, my previous remark along these lines on this thread was poorly formulated, and that was entirely my fault.

I meant the current marriage rite - I meant it specifically about what Greg proposed - the marriage rite for opposite-sex couples at least one of whom is attracted to people of the same sex - but I mean the same thing for Orthodox marriages across the board. Orthodox marriages fail. It happens - regardless of the sexual inclinations of the people involved. To make the blanket statement that "If two people truly love God and His Church, and come together for with a sincere desire to work out their salvation in love, then it will work out" seems to me to lock me into also saying "if a marriage fails, then one or both of the participants either didn't truly love God and the Church or didn't have a sincere desire to work out their salvation in love" - and then I'm reading hearts, which I've heard (on TAW also) that we're not to do. That's all.

Nope, not what I said nor implied. You really gotta re-read what I wrote. It is you though who seem to be all doom and gloom about my proposal. It's really bothering you, isn't it? You cant seem to accept it as a legitimate alternative. You keep insisting on the brotherhood rite thing and that two people of the same gender with SSA can be joined together in something akin to marriage.


No.

 

[archer75]

Nope, not what I said nor implied. You really gotta re-read what I wrote. It is you though who seem to be all doom and gloom about my proposal. It's really bothering you, isn't it? You cant seem to accept it as a legitimate alternative. You keep insisting on the brotherhood rite thing and that two people of the same gender with SSA can be joined together in something akin to marriage.


No.

That is what you said. I copied it directly from your post.

I have re-read your posts as you suggested.

I still think that I have understood your proposal.

I accept it as possible (and certainly "legitimate"), but on the dangerous side. And not an easily applied "fix."

I don't think my take on your proposal is "doom and gloom."

I do not insist on anything. I made my own suggestions. I did not say or suggest, nor do I think, given what I know (not everything) that the adelphopoiesis rite was / is basically the same as the marriage rite. Or that the relationship so blessed is "the same."

And again, I didn't bring up Boswell, though you did. You haven't acknowledged that I didn't bring him up or accepted that I haven't read his work. I have heard of it before this thread - mostly when it's brought up on the Internet by people who disparage it. This is another such instance.

As far as the exchanges between you and me on this thread go, wherever I have been unclear or curt, that is my fault and I apologize. I think I can tell that I am unable to communicate clearly with you by this medium, so I will stop responding to your forum posts, but I do not do that in anger. It just seems to be the best solution.

Of course, there may be more of a place for your proposal than it seems to me there is. I fully admit that.

 

[FenderTL5]

..You keep insisting on the brotherhood rite thing and that two people of the same gender with SSA can be joined together in something akin to marriage.


No.

I don't think that's what he was saying.
I think what he was saying is that in absence of the example of a healthy, adelphopoiesis, showing two people of the same gender what a right relationship looks like; some could be confused into thinking they are homosexual and pursue that false relationship.
It's the confusion of what should be healthy and beneficial into a sinful, unhealthy arrangement because they lack the proper example.

Then again, my interpretation could wrong. :/

 

[Dorothea]

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.

I think I'm understanding you when you say the Church can't be divided, even if people teach against its doctrines and dogmas. Yes, falling away/apostatizing is very real and is happening a lot. I just hope I stay close to Christ and His Church the rest of my life because without Him and His Church, I'd be sunk.

That tactic is pretty deceptive.