Sts Sergius and Bacchus

[Dorothea]

I got an IM from a friend of mine on FB asking me if what she'd read is true with regards to Sts Sergius and Bacchus. Is the Orthodox Church saying they were a homosexual couple? She was a bit alarmed by this. I looked up this stuff she was talking about. Yes, well, you'll always find people, and yes even Orthodox people, trying to back their belief that homosexuality is ok. It's just love. But what we know is that it was not uncommon for Christian men or women to live together in a community or share a house and love each other like brothers/sisters, and not have sexual relations. Nowadays, that is hard to believe, as we know, because this culture and society is so obsessed with sex, and it's saturated in all the media around us, and magazines.

My friend believes the EOC is the true Church of Christ, but she has not been able to go to an OC, because she lives an hour away and she doesn't have the money to make the trips. We don't know anybody who is Orthodox in her area that could help her out, but anyhow, we've conversed for the past few years. When I first talked with her, it was on a religion thread in an off-topic board on American Idol, of all places. She was an agnostic then. She grew up Methodist, then fell away in her teens and up through her 20s to where she was a couple years ago (I think in her 50's), when her sister died of cancer, it brought her back to Christ. Anyway, she and I have talked much, and she's asked me questions and watched Orthodox videos and read stuff online for these past couple years. She's grown a lot.

I believe if there is a time when she wants to go to Church (which she hasn't stepped in one, including a Methodist one in decades), that God will lead her and show her a way to go to an OC. The Holy Spirit does this.

Anyhow, I warned her about these types of groups out there that promote things the OC doesn't condone.

 

[Kristos]

Are there any saints without sin?

It's a bunch of hot air in my opinion and I don't know why people even pay attention.

 

[Dorothea]

Here's what the OCA says on these Saints:

Orthodox Church in America

 

[ArmyMatt]

that's what happens when you apply a modern wacky standard definition to a word like love. I think if you were to read about any two saints who struggled together to become holy, the gay community would try to put their spin on it.

so it goes.

My friend believes the EOC is the true Church of Christ, but she has not been able to go to an OC, because she lives an hour away and she doesn't have the money to make the trips.

has your friend been able to contact the closest priest? that is at least a good way to get the ball rolling.

 

[Dorothea]

that's what happens when you apply a modern wacky standard definition to a word like love. I think if you were to read about any two saints who struggled together to become holy, the gay community would try to put their spin on it.

so it goes.

.
Exactly, Matt.

has your friend been able to contact the closest priest? that is at least a good way to get the ball rolling.

I don't think she's gotten that curious enough yet to want to talk to a priest an hr away. She has spoken to a priest a year or so ago on FB about some questions she has had. I haven't been doing anything but answering questions if she has them. I was too anxious a couple yrs ago and she wasn't ready for that, so there were some ups and downs. Now I don't get too anxious or pushy. lol

 

[gracefullamb]

Dorothea, remember that relative I mentioned on another thread. Several years ago, even before I was inquiring into Orthodoxy he gave me a book published by a gay rights activists that uses an icon of St. Sergius and Bacchus as the cover image. In the book this author has a bunch of garbage, that requires a great amount of intellectual gymnastics to follow, arguing this point and as proof that The Church once before sanctioned "gay marriage." Anyhow that is where this comes from, that book and that author were the first to put this argument forward. I even recall reading an article where someone traced this whole thing back to that book. From there a lot of fringed groups even inside Orthodoxy have latched onto it and have started arguing it. A lot of "gay rights" and pro "gay marriage" organizations even sell medallions and icons of theses saints not because they consider them saints but as a symbol of there stance in favor of "gay marriage."

 

[Dorothea]

Dorothea, remember that relative I mentioned on another thread. Several years ago, even before I was inquiring into Orthodoxy he gave me a book published by a gay rights activists that uses an icon of St. Sergius and Bacchus as the cover image. In the book this author has a bunch of garbage, that requires a great amount of intellectual gymnastics to follow, arguing this point and as proof that The Church once before sanctioned "gay marriage." Anyhow that is where this comes from, that book and that author were the first to put this argument forward. I even recall reading an article where someone traced this whole thing back to that book. From there a lot of fringed groups even inside Orthodoxy have latched onto it and have started arguing it. A lot of "gay rights" and pro "gay marriage" organizations even sell medallions and icons of theses saints not because they consider them saints but as a symbol of there stance in favor of "gay marriage."

Yes, I read about that in my friend's IM she sent after my response. And there was a good comment from a person under the comments on that book. Here's what it said:

"Hmm, seems my comment was flagged as spam. Anyway, there's something called "Adelphopoiesis". Essentially, it was a fraternal brotherhood ritual. Several members of the Greek Orthodox Church have long ago come out and said as much, plus a few others.

"The purpose of the adelphopoiesis ceremonies has been made controversial by Boswell. So it is worth noting that Boswell himself denies that adelphopoiesis should be properly translated as "homosexual marriage." He decries such a translation as "tendentiously slanted". The Orthodox Church regards the ceremony as purely spiritual and indicating brotherhood."

The historicity of Boswell's interpretation of the ceremony is contested by the Greek Orthodox Church, which sees the rite as a rite of familial adoption, as the term adelphopoiesis literally means "brother making". Other historians, including Robin Darling Young and Brent Shaw, have also criticized Boswell's methodology and conclusion.

Archimandrite Ephrem Lash criticized Boswell's book in the February 1995 issue of Sourozh. According to Ephrem, Boswell mistranslates, misinterprets, and tendentiously organizes texts, and his "knowledge of Orthodox liturgiology is, in effect, non-existent."With regard to Boswell's central claim to have found evidence for the use of wedding crowns in the rite for making brothers, Ephrem notes that what the relevant text says, "somewhat literally translated," is this: "It is inadmissible for a monk to receive [anadochos is a standard Greek word for 'godparent'] children from holy baptism, or to hold marriage crowns or to make brother-makings." In other words, "monks are forbidden to do the following: 1. To act as godfathers at baptisms, 2. To act as supporters of bridal couples, 3. To enter into brotherly unions. These are, of course, the natural consequences of a monk's having given up all ties of earthly relationships." Turning back to Boswell's thesis, Ephrem writes, "What does Boswell make of this? Here is his paraphrase of the text given above: 'monks must also not select boys at baptism and make such unions with them'. There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that the three prohibitions are linked in the way Boswell implies, nor that the 'children' are 'boys' – the Greek has the neuter, paidia. In short, this first piece of evidence for the use of crowns in the ceremony of brother-making is not evidence for anything, except Boswell's ignorance, not to mention the prurient suggestion that Byzantine monks went round selecting suitable boys at baptism so as to 'marry' them later on."

In his review of the book, Miodrag Kojadinović says: "The book is a scientific treatise abundant with references. But it starts from a premise that to me seems insufficiently proven. It chooses to see, based on relatively meagre evidence, a very idiosyncratic relationship sanctioned among certain ethnic groups as a precursor to California bunnies' white weddings. It goes so far to refer to the emperor Basil as a 'hunk'. It neglects the fact that adelphopoiesis/pobratimstvo can be achieved through simple invocation: 'My-Brother-Through-God!' in case of peril. A foe suddenly turns an ally."

Alternative views are that this rite was used in many ways, such as the formation of permanent pacts between leaders of nations or between religious brothers. This was a replacement for "blood-brotherhood" which was forbidden by the church at the time. Others such as Brent Shaw have maintained also that these unions were more akin to "blood-brotherhood" and had no sexual connotation.

Oh, also, the Fathers of the Church were universal on their stance regarding homosexual intercourse. Which means the odds of a rite being formed to condone such acts likely falls under the odds of zero percent. "

 

[Dorothea]

stupid computer freezing up - dp.

 

[gracefullamb]

What I remember about the book is he used a lot of arguments of today x (which we see in the story of these saints) means this in the gay community so historically that is what it meant and thus gay marriage was allowed then and should be allowed now. It was paragraph after paragraph of that and it drove me batty. The only reason I read the book was so I would have an idea of how to counter my relatives arguments. I'm not sure what the author's name was or the name of the book now. Alas, I committed the unforgivable sin for an American, I burnt the book! I am not sorry about that either.

 

[Dorothea]

What I remember about the book is he used a lot of arguments of today x (which we see in the story of these saints) means this in the gay community so historically that is what it meant and thus gay marriage was allowed then and should be allowed now. It was paragraph after paragraph of that and it drove me batty. The only reason I read the book was so I would have an idea of how to counter my relatives arguments. I'm not sure what the author's name was or the name of the book now. Alas, I committed the unforgivable sin for an American, I burnt the book! I am not sorry about that either.

It was probably the book by that Prof. Boswell that my friend mentioned she read on this site:

anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

 

[buzuxi02]

If the brothermaking ceremony was gay marriage then it would be incest as the name would imply. There is absolutely no commentary by the Fathers or by secular authorities which ever spoke of gay marriage in the church (because it never existed)

 

[Dorothea]

If the brothermaking ceremony was gay marriage then it would be incest as the name would imply. There is absolutely no commentary by the Fathers or by secular authorities which ever spoke of gay marriage in the church (because it never existed)

 

[127.0.0.1]

Why do people care so much whether or not Sts Sergius and Bacchus were gay or not? Who cares! There's lots of circumstantial evidence one way or another, heck there's circumstantial evidence saying Pres. Lincoln was gay (personally I don't buy it).

Saints are supposed to inspire us with their level of Theosis attained & the grace they've acquired, not with their sexuality. If anything, Saints usually seem to have a lack of sexuality the closer they come to God.

The whole notion that Sts Sergius and Bacchus might be gay, stems from a single quote in their life's story. After Bacchus is slain, he appears to Sergius, holding two wreaths of martyrdom and says something to the effect of, he awaits the martyrdom of Sergius 'for my place in Heaven is with you.' - paraphrased.

Does that make them gay? I duno...
Maybe they were friends and they wanted to be martyrs together...?

It really doesn't matter. And I fail to see them being gay or not being gay, supports anyone's claim to anything.

 

[Protoevangel]

Why do people care so much whether or not Sts Sergius and Bacchus were gay or not? Who cares!

Well you, for one, sure used to care: http://www.christianforums.com/t7047710/

There's lots of circumstantial evidence one way or another, heck there's circumstantial evidence saying Pres. Lincoln was gay (personally I don't buy it).

Saints are supposed to inspire us with their level of Theosis attained & the grace they've acquired, not with their sexuality. If anything, Saints usually seem to have a lack of sexuality the closer they come to God.

The whole notion that Sts Sergius and Bacchus might be gay, stems from a single quote in their life's story. After Bacchus is slain, he appears to Sergius, holding two wreaths of martyrdom and says something to the effect of, he awaits the martyrdom of Sergius 'for my place in Heaven is with you.' - paraphrased.

Does that make them gay? I duno...
Maybe they were friends and they wanted to be martyrs together...?

It really doesn't matter. And I fail to see them being gay or not being gay, supports anyone's claim to anything.

You just don't get it.

OF COURSE IT DOES NOT MATTER what their particular sin may have been. We have sinners of every type of temptation who have become Saints. You know Command0182, it just came to me that you are STILL the only one who in either of these threads (this one and the one I linked above), has even considered whether they might have had same-sex attraction to be worthy of discussion. That THAT'S batting 1000!

Maybe you might want to go back and read what people have actually been saying.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why do people care so much whether or not Sts Sergius and Bacchus were gay or not? Who cares! There's lots of circumstantial evidence one way or another, heck there's circumstantial evidence saying Pres. Lincoln was gay (personally I don't buy it).

Saints are supposed to inspire us with their level of Theosis attained & the grace they've acquired, not with their sexuality. If anything, Saints usually seem to have a lack of sexuality the closer they come to God.

The whole notion that Sts Sergius and Bacchus might be gay, stems from a single quote in their life's story. After Bacchus is slain, he appears to Sergius, holding two wreaths of martyrdom and says something to the effect of, he awaits the martyrdom of Sergius 'for my place in Heaven is with you.' - paraphrased.

Does that make them gay? I duno...
Maybe they were friends and they wanted to be martyrs together...?

It really doesn't matter. And I fail to see them being gay or not being gay, supports anyone's claim to anything.

yeah it does matter because there is no evidence to support that claim at all, and it's not wise to lie about a saint, particularly in making them perverts.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Also look at David and Jonathan in the Old Testament. People these days are trying to say they were gay too.

 

[Dorothea]

Also look at David and Jonathan in the Old Testament. People these days are trying to say they were gay too.

That's because especially in today's society (but I'm sure ever since the Fall), people don't know what love is. They think love with someone not your relative = sex. As the therapist said on the AFR program (yeah, I keep rambling on about it, but it was excellent), there's a difference between intimacy and sex, and that we all need intimate relationships, and these relationships consist of family, friends, mentors, etc. Sex only is supposed to happen with the sacramental union of marriage between a man and a woman because of what has been said that means - an icon. It cannot be altered by humans what was revealed to us by God.

 

[Protoevangel]

yeah it does matter because there is no evidence to support that claim at all, and it's not wise to lie about a saint, particularly in making them perverts.

Actually it dosen't matter what their particular personal temptations may have been.

What does matter is that as Saints, they rose above whatever sins and temptations they did have, and that, through Christ, they lived lived truly Holy lives as brothers.

It does matter that the rite of adelphopoiesis had absolutely no tie to same-sex "marriage", or anything resembling such, whatsoever.

And finally, it does matter that we distinguish between these issues. What they may or may not have had as personal temptations is none of our business.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually it dosen't matter what their particular personal temptations may have been.

What does matter is that as Saints, they rose above whatever sins and temptations they did have, and that, through Christ, they lived lived truly Holy lives as brothers.

It does matter that the rite of adelphopoiesis had absolutely no tie to same-sex "marriage", or anything resembling such, whatsoever.

And finally, it does matter that we distinguish between these issues. What they may or may not have had as personal temptations is none of our business.

I should have clarified. it does matter because of the lack of evidence and it's not good to speculate on unknown sins of any saint (or anyone), not that it would have mattered had we known.

 

[Protoevangel]

I should have clarified. it does matter because of the lack of evidence and it's not good to speculate on unknown sins of any saint (or anyone), not that it would have mattered had we known.

It does matter that people like 127.0.0.1/Command0182 and the pro-gay marriage propagandists obsess over their "need" for these Saints to conform to their perverted imaginations, yes.