The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Taylor, Randy Danielson, TAFrazer, PNCC Random Guy, Coldstream
5,769 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (theophan), 69 guests, and 31 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,056
Posts414,078
Members5,769
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Ad orientam, ad orientam, ad orientam!
And would you believe there are some out there who say I am a traditionalist, me? No way.


"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Seriously, I'm not a traditionalist I think the filioque's removal is a legitimate compromise some of the dissidents out there would try to strangle me for that. Indeed, even though I believe the ad orientam posture is without a doubt symbolically the best my feelings on the issue are best expressed by my poetry:

Do I understand when I look upon thy face?
Do I comprehend the slightness of your touch?
The sweetness of your kind embrace?
Do I truly understand?

Can I ever begin to comprehend as chant penetrates my ears?
Do I realise what is happening as you drain away my fears?
As my heart is filled with warmth and my face is glazed by tears?
Do I truly understand?

When the prayers are recited and the world around fades away?
When I offer up what little I am with the world in this way?
When the walls of my heart break down and those of St Aloysius fade away?
Do I truly understand?

As your hands envelop the celebrants and your spirit quickens my heart?
As his mouth rings with your voice and he ceases to play active part?
As you proclaim your own covenant and I sit in entranced start?
Do I truly understand?

As your body is raised aloft before the congregation?
As our heads all bow in reverence amidst this sorrowful celebration?
As we set our sights upon your renewed cross, the hope of every nation?
Do I truly understand?

As we mumble out the words your mercy taught us to speak?
As we shake hands in excitement as proceedings reach their peak?
As we bow before your eternal cross and your clemency we seek?
Do I truly understand?

As your power spins my soul through history and your Mother leads to the place?
As I almost turn to run in shame when I see your bruised and battered face?
As I see the thorns stabbing at your head which won me the crown of grace?
Do I truly understand?

As I hear the crowds mock you and I remember each blasphemy is my own?
As I sink into my own self-pity regretting the contempt to you I have shown?
As you look upon me consolingly in love from your eternal throne?
Do I truly understand?

As your gaze penetrates my very core and draws me out from within?
As you unite yourself to me and lend your nature to this body of sin?
That I may call upon your Father, Comforter and you my closest kin?
Do I truly understand?

As the fruit of the vine touches your lips as this Paschal meal comes to a close?
As you drink the cup of consummation and your body is taken by its final throes?
As they remove you from the cross and Our Lady clutches you in pieta pose?
Do I truly understand?

As the murky waters of time begin to blend again and I know not where I stand?
As the church is gripped by a silent Sabbath rest at the death of God’s right hand?
As we finally witness your resurrection and proclaim it with song at thy command?
Do I truly understand?

So the long as the Roman rite contains the ultimate mystery, which strikes me with wonder each time I share in it. I can live with that even without the priest facing east...


"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Quote
Originally posted by Myles:
Ad orientam, ad orientam, ad orientam!
oriens
orientis
orienti
orientem
oriente
smile cool wink biggrin

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Dr. Alex--

In answer to your original question, you may want to check out some old moral theology textbook and read on formal and material cooperation--it might be helpful for your peace of mind. God bless and good luck fighting the good fight! I was reading about the whole Canadian situation recently--I truly feel for my Christian brothers and sisters up there who, it looks like, may soon lose their freedom to express religious moral teaching in public. Coercion and even persecution seem to be in the offing. It makes me worry about down here too, since what happens in Canada is usually a crystal ball for what's gonna happen down here, about 15 years later . . .

LatinTrad

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Thats for the spelling correction. Us kids always making mistakes, lol. I can write in English though, rofl!


"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Quote
In answer to your original question, you may want to check out some old moral theology textbook and read on formal and material cooperation--it might be helpful for your peace of mind.
Too scholastic for Alex, he's not of the school of Peter Moghila after all biggrin


"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
Quote
Originally posted by Myles:


In Sweden recently a Protestant pastor was jailed for preaching that homosexuality was sinful.
Actually he appealed his conviction and was acquitted by the Court of Appeal.

And he didn't simply say that homosexuality "sinful", he described homosexuality as "a cancerous tumor on the body of society" and said that "The Word of God teaches us that those who live like this, deserve to die".

Food for thought: If he had used similiar language to describe for example Jews and Judaism, do you think he would have been acquitted?

Quote
After all Buttglione wasnt allowed to become EU president because he's Roman Catholic.
The European Parliament prevented Rocco Buttglione from becoming EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security (not EU president).

This Commissioner is among other things responsible for the struggle against discrimination based on gender, race and sexual orientation.

The EU Parliament found Buttglione unfit for this office because of his opinions on these matters, his conservative views on women's equality in marriage, his suggestions to establish camps for asylum seekers to Europe in North Africa, his oppinion that homosexuals should not be included in the laws protecting against discrimination.

The President of the EU Commission, José Manuel Barroso, is a Roman Catholic.

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Okie dokie, thanks for clearing that all up OS. Though I insist my point still stands. Stay in your job and make sure we dont get push to the margins Dr Al'. Convert your co-workers and Canada whilst your at it and lets see if we cant re-Christianise society.

PS) Though I dont agree that Homosexuals should die, I think the Protestant pastor had a point about Homosexuality--that is the active practice of homosexual behavior--being a cancer on society. Jews and Judaism dont defy the natural law in their existence. Having sexual relations with members of one's own gender on the other hand does breach natural law, ignores teleology and is objectively wrong. There is a clear distinction and one should not blur that line. I'm not saying that its right to discriminate against Homosexuals but its wrong to equate the statement (key point) 'cancer on society' as equally applicable to Homosexuality and Jews--Othodox Jews would be grossly offended by this comparison also. You can after all have Homosexual Jews. Homosexuality unlike Jewishness is an objective sin that transcends gender, race and culture. It is in violation of the natural law and so to identify it as a cancer on the body of society, though a strong way of presenting one's case, is not semantically errenous. After all a cancer is a growth that should not be there. Likewise, in homosexual relations there is a privation of something that should be there: openess to the procreative power of God. As a consequence certain measures i.e. permitted Gay Marriage, which is what was troubling Dr Alex as the first place, cannot thus be viewed through the lense of equality but must be looked upon through the lense of morality: Homosexuality is wrong. Preventing gays from being married thus is not wrong, ou contraire it is justified. People have the right to their God given freedoms, which can be identified from natural law ethics. However, any attempt to push the boundaries of these freedoms is both illogical and sinful. The problem with many Europeans is that they make the mistake of thinking that discrimination is anything that says somebody is wrong. Its a guilty over reaction to the gross indifference they showed to the violation of the natural law when pertinent to semites over centuries (I can say this confidently because I am afro-carribean and I see in many Europeans I speak to a hesistancy to talk about their history during the slave trade). In my experience, the native European stock as descended from the Teutons and Latins confuse, for instance, Christianity and Nazism, as being ideologies arising from subjectivity. They fail to see that the former is from God and the latter from a man who thought he was God (or at least proclaimed himself 'Father'). Confusing statements such as the one made by the pastor by asking how people would react if he said that about Jews is not a valid way to approach his statement. Jews do not break any natural laws in existing, nor do Homosexuals hence it would be wrong to kill them. However, Homosexuality in practice is a violation of the natural law and thus to call it a cancer on society is completely different from calling Jews and Judaism a cancer on society.


"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
Quote
Originally posted by Myles:


PS) Though I dont agree that Homosexuals should die, I think the Protestant pastor had a point about Homosexuality--that is the active practice of homosexual behavior--being a cancer on society. Jews and Judaism dont defy the natural law in their existence. Having sexual relations with members of one's own gender on the other hand does breach natural law, ignores teleology and is objectively wrong. There is a clear distinction and one should not blur that line. I'm not saying that its right to discriminate against Homosexuals but its wrong to equate the statement (key point) 'cancer on society' as equally applicable to Homosexuality and Jews--Othodox Jews would be grossly offended by this comparison also. You can after all have Homosexual Jews. Homosexuality unlike Jewishness is an objective sin that transcends gender, race and culture. It is in violation of the natural law and so to identify it as a cancer on the body of society, though a strong way of presenting one's case, is not semantically errenous. After all a cancer is a growth that should not be there. Likewise, in homosexual relations there is a privation of something that should be there: openess to the procreative power of God. As a consequence certain measures i.e. permitted Gay Marriage, which is what was troubling Dr Alex as the first place, cannot thus be viewed through the lense of equality but must be looked upon through the lense of morality: Homosexuality is wrong. Preventing gays from being married thus is not wrong, ou contraire it is justified. People have the right to their God given freedoms, which can be identified from natural law ethics. However, any attempt to push the boundaries of these freedoms is both illogical and sinful. The problem with many Europeans is that they make the mistake of thinking that discrimination is anything that says somebody is wrong. Its a guilty over reaction to the gross indifference they showed to the violation of the natural law when pertinent to semites over centuries (I can say this confidently because I am afro-carribean and I see in many Europeans I speak to a hesistancy to talk about their history during the slave trade). In my experience, the native European stock as descended from the Teutons and Latins confuse, for instance, Christianity and Nazism, as being ideologies arising from subjectivity. They fail to see that the former is from God and the latter from a man who thought he was God (or at least proclaimed himself 'Father'). Confusing statements such as the one made by the pastor by asking how people would react if he said that about Jews is not a valid way to approach his statement. Jews do not break any natural laws in existing, nor do Homosexuals hence it would be wrong to kill them. However, Homosexuality in practice [b]is
a violation of the natural law and thus to call it a cancer on society is completely different from calling Jews and Judaism a cancer on society. [/b]
Well, Swedish law is secular in nature, and therefore yes, it considers Christianity an ideology based on subjectivity. So your reasoning on what is and what is not "breaking natural law" and "objectively sinful" would be totally irrelevant to the Swedish courts.

PS: an intresting note, when I googled to find the pastors sermon, I found it, not on any Christian site, put on the site of a Swedish Neo-Nazi group.

Bear in mind that it is only 50 years ago since the Nazis put both Jews and Homosexuals in camps, using the term "cancerous tumor on society" to describe both groups.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Dear Myles,

You are O.K., Big Guy, you are O.K.!

(And I wasn't joking about the Tridentine thingy - my aunt was very big on it and would take us to Tridentine Masses all the time. Some of my best friends are Tridentines! ; smile .

God Save The Queen!

Alex

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Quote
Well, Swedish law is secular in nature, and therefore yes, it considers Christianity an ideology based on subjectivity. So your reasoning on what is and what is not "breaking natural law" and "objectively sinful" would be totally irrelevant to the Swedish courts.

PS: an intresting note, when I googled to find the pastors sermon, I found it, not on any Christian site, put on the site of a Swedish Neo-Nazi group.

Bear in mind that it is only 50 years ago since the Nazis put both Jews and Homosexuals in camps, using the term "cancerous tumor on society" to describe both groups.
Ok, ok. Then remove the word 'sin' and my argument still stands based on Aristotelian teleology. Natural law is natural law, its a question of logic not deontology. Just as lawyers use philosophical schools of thought like determinism and liberterianism etc. in court, I will use neo-Thomist Aristotelianism to defend my views in the secular arena.

Moreover, I didnt say what he said was right. I said if you read my post that it was not 'semantically errenous'. The way he said it was not in accordance with the Christian principles of charity. However, if I were not a member of the Catholic Church but a student at the Lyceum under Aristotle I could reason my way to exactly the same conclusion I came to before about his meaning . In a homosexual relationship there is a 'privatio bonni', a privation of the good of procreative possibility. That is objective. There is no subjectivity in maintaining that when two women or two men have intimate relations with one another there's no chance of children being born--children, of course being essential to the survival of our race. Therefore, objectively, in cold logician's terms isolated from a Nietchze inspired emotivism that causes all sorts of defensive reactions. It is an evil. It is against the natural law because it doesnt allow nature to attain, in this instance, the design it evidently has.

In the same way that blindness is an evil because there is a privation of what should be present i.e. sight. Or that death is an evil because there is a privation of what should be present i.e. life. Homosexual relations are evil because there is a privation of the good of procreative potential. Natural law holds, Christian or un-Christian. Thats why its called natural law and not divine law or eternal law, which are other terms Doctor Angelus uses to describe God's will as revealed in other means. I'm not saying Homosexuals themselves are evil I'm saying when they have sex with members of their own gender that is an evil. Just like I wouldn't call myself evil but when I sin I do evil and I must go to Confession and start over.

Another point I'd like to make is: even if the law is secularised, does that make a difference? If God exists whether or not some legislators say he doesnt is irrelevant. The brute fact is God exists. Thats not an opinion. That too can be reasoned and has been reasoned by philosophers from Plato onwards--probably from Socrates too since he also rejected polytheism. Now also if God is God of revealed truth as witnessed in Christ Jesus, which he has given us grace of faith to accept, then the fact that the secularist's framed Europe's laws means nothing because there is a Supreme Legislator to answer to. The fact of the matter is, as Dr Alex has shown, to proffess to believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is to believe that Homosexual marriage, abortion, euthanasia et al. are wrong.

Never have I advocated the murder of any sinner. If I did I've have to nuke the world and kill myself too, since we're all sinners. But just cos lots of people lie, does that mean we should give up trying to stop lying? No lying should be removed from society as should all evils including all the things that characterise what the Holy Father calls 'The Culture of Death'. How to do it? John Paul II's life is an example: suffer for love.

Many people in the Pontiff's position quit when things get that bad. When they can barely control their own bodies, when even breathing is intensely painful. But he refuses. Why? As witness to the love of God. In his life John Paul II has reinforced the truth of the gospel as John the divine told us in his 1st letter: "God is love"

Look beyond the Thomism and see the predicates as St Thomas saw them. God is a perfect act, so perfect, so infinitate that we cant even make positive statements about him. We cant say what God is only what He's not. Yet that God, who needs nothing, out of a perfect act of love reaches out to all, giving Himself to all, so that we can be united to Him in grace. Now this is a question of logic: How can a man be united to God in true mystical sacramental grace and not be happy? The answer is its impossible.

Since God is everything and each man desires everything (the more we have of something the more we want of that thing or something else) if people only hear his voice and unharden their hearts they can have everything. They can say with St Augustine "For thou has made us for thyself, our hearts are restless lest they rest with you".

John Paul II could've caved in by John Paul II suffers to show the world that God's love is more powerful than that. Because God loved Him until death, death on a cross, He wishes to suffer for God to show His love for God in turn ala Colossians 1:24. He is living the teaching of redemptive suffering, which is applicable to all sins not just the one's that characterise the culture of death but the very least venial sins. This is why Jesus could say his burden is easy and his yolk is light because for love people can find the stregnth to do anything, and the love of God once we see it inspires us to love. 1 John 4:19 'we love because God first loved us' The attractive power of God's love presented to us in personal terms through the sacraments particularly in the Eucharist draws us in. It inspires us to make acts of love, to deny ourselves. This is the antidote to the culture of death: God's love.

I mean for me as a young university student I see what the English call 'top totty', there are some beautiful women around this place. But the fact is no matter how beautiful they are, they can never be more beautiful than beauty Himself. I need only turn to look at God in my heart and tempation fades from me. Through meeting with me in prayer and coming to me in sacramental grace, God draws me to Himself. I need not really do anything than let myself be loved and respond with the love that flows from my heart as a response to God.

If we present this teaching to all, then sin will dissapear because all will be united to God loving God and doing as He asks out of love not fear. John's first letter tells us elsewhere perfect fear turns to love. And Jesus himself reminds us that the most important commandment is to love the Lord our God. If we love God all the other commandments are easy to fulfill no matter how difficult they might seem at the start.

When we lived under law it was impossible to fulfil because God was distant. But now God is imminent through grace its barely possible to turn from Him once you've seen His face. Once one has tasted the bread of life, how can one turn away from the wedding feast of the bride and the lamb? It causes pain and suffering and misery. Thus, if we as sinners, as a race of sinners, simply open our hearts to God sin will end. There is no excuse for not keeping the law now because God's grace has been given. I'll repeat the words of Dr Scott Hahn: "the sacraments dont make salvation easy, the sacraments make salvation possible"

If we ourselves go upto the table of the Lord and take the world with us. Then as God commands all sins shall cease. As an Orthodox Christian I would've thought you'd share that vision?


"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,642
Likes: 7
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,642
Likes: 7
Myles has given a good, comprehensive reply (especially the part about natural law) and I won’t add to it, except to point out that in a totally secular society there are no absolutes, so there is no reason to protect life (except by common agreement, which can change daily).

Look at some of the problems that we are now dealing with:

-Here in the United States we now have a husband seeking to kill his handicapped wife. Praise the Lord that the judge in the case has again stayed the execution by starvation of Terri Schiavo and ordered new neurological tests. [How can anyone who sees the video of her following movement with her eyes say she should be put to death?]

-In parts of Europe euthanasia of the elderly and infirm is already happening. Every month or two there is a story in the news about a doctor who euthanized a patient to free the bed for a new patient. In the United States a professor at Princeton has stated that parents of new-borns should be allowed a full year to determine if they wish to keep their child (in case they find that the child is handicapped).

-On what basis does a secularist claim that it is necessary for society to help the poor? None, since the true secularist has no absolute basis of judging good and evil (or of even admitting that there is good and evil). A secularist can easily argue that it would be much cheaper for society to simply execute the unwanted poor, or anyone whose care costs society money.

-Special rights for those who engage in homosexual activity? How can you stop here? On what basis does a society then deny similar special rights for those adults who desire to engage in sexual activity with children or outlaw polygamy?

The website www.orthodoxytoday.org has a very good 3 part article by Dennis Prager entitled: “Better Answers: The Case for Christian Values”:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PragerValues1.shtml
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PragerValues2.shtml
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PragerValues3.shtml

For the record, if the Protestant pastor was jailed for advocating that homosexuals should be “deserve to die” (as Scandinavian wrote) then that pastor is wrong (and should be censured by his denomination). [There is a difference between just discrimination and unjust discrimnation.] But on what basis does a secular society tell him that he may not hold such a belief or speak about it? How can a secularist argue that any particular individual or group has an absolute right to life? In a secular society such rights are granted at the convenience of the majority.

This Protestant pastor is at least partly correct, since homosexual activity and the other moral ills of our society are each "a cancerous tumor on the body of society". In a news article in the International Herald Tribune on Pope John Paul II’s new book, “the pope intended to show the pervasiveness of evil, ‘even in liberal political systems.’ Some chapters of the book reflect the Vatican's fear that rampant relativism and secularism are causing the decay of Christian values in Europe and beyond. The pope wonders in print whether such ‘pressures that he says have been put on the European Parliament to legalize same-sex marriage amount to ‘part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.’" Very well stated. Eis polla eti, Despota!

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
-Special rights for those who engage in homosexual activity? How can you stop here? On what basis does a society then deny similar special rights for those adults who desire to engage in sexual activity with children or outlaw polygamy?
Administrator,

I consider you to be an intelligent person, so I will not waste time and insult your intelligence by attemting to explain the obvious difference between homosexuality and phedophilia. I believe you already are aware of the difference, despite of your offensive rhetoric.

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
-Special rights for those who engage in homosexual activity? How can you stop here? On what basis does a society then deny similar special rights for those adults who desire to engage in sexual activity with children or outlaw polygamy?
"Special rights for Christians? How can you stop there? On what basis does a society then deny similar rights for Muslims who believe God commands them to kill infidels?"

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Scandinavian, I agree with your point, that most homosexuals are not pedophiles, nor are most pedophiles homosexual.

But that really is beside the point in the issue of whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Contrary to what its advocates claim, the government wouldn't be taking any rights away by refusing to make same-sex marriages legal, because there currently IS no such right to take away. They would be granting a right that has not existed before.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that. wink )

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5