Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 124 (479929)
08-31-2008 4:36 AM


When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
quote:
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ”pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.
Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ”secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.
Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (”Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.
Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.
The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.
Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

Anyone know if this is true or not?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 09-01-2008 5:19 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 09-01-2008 6:12 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 09-02-2008 5:08 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 19 by Fosdick, posted 09-07-2008 11:52 AM Taz has replied
 Message 31 by LudoRephaim, posted 09-09-2008 12:29 PM Taz has replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 2 of 124 (479953)
08-31-2008 7:18 AM


I haven't been able to find anything on this, except Boswells book.
In 390 Christian emperors Valentinian II made homosexuality illegal, and even before that, there were laws somewhat against it.
I can find any other who backs up Boswells interpretation of Adelphopoiesis, Wiki has this to say:
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". [1] Boswell's scholarship has been assailed as being of dubious quality.[2]
Alternative views[3] 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.
Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 3 of 124 (480140)
09-01-2008 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
08-31-2008 4:36 AM


Records from England parish churches show marriages of two men throughout the medieval period.
Church attitudes to homosexuality have certainly varied with time and place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 08-31-2008 4:36 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 09-01-2008 6:28 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 4 of 124 (480143)
09-01-2008 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
09-01-2008 5:19 AM


Really??? I've never heard that. Do you have any references? Very interesting...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 09-01-2008 5:19 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 09-02-2008 5:10 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 5 of 124 (480171)
09-01-2008 10:00 AM


if it is true then like we said earlier the definition of marriage changes, and we need to define it into law so that we can move on in the 21st century.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 09-01-2008 8:13 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 124 (480238)
09-01-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
08-31-2008 4:36 AM


Mon cher frere...
Taz writes:
Anyone know if this is true or not?
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Plus ca change....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 08-31-2008 4:36 AM Taz has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 7 of 124 (480253)
09-01-2008 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Artemis Entreri
09-01-2008 10:00 AM


quote:
we need to define it into law so that we can move on in the 21st century
Why?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-01-2008 10:00 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2008 1:56 PM subbie has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 8 of 124 (480276)
09-02-2008 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
08-31-2008 4:36 AM


This appear to refer to Adelphopoiesis (Wikipedia link). Seems the rite is quite certain, but the interpretation of it as "gay marriage" is contraversial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 08-31-2008 4:36 AM Taz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 124 (480277)
09-02-2008 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by cavediver
09-01-2008 6:28 AM


I don't I'm afraid. I'll try and dig some up for you when I have time. I did find this about affrrement in France, which appears to be effectively a Civil Union.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 09-01-2008 6:28 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 10 of 124 (480737)
09-06-2008 12:09 AM


Thank you to all those who have responded. Life has been more busy than I anticipated. Can't say I have time for anything anymore.
Just a reminder for our resident haters that whether there was such a thing as a christian gay marriage in the distant past or not has absolutely nothing to do with how society should treat some of our members nowadays. In other words, you keep your religion of hate to yourselves and we'll keep our intolerance of your intolerance to ourselves. I started this thread out of pure curiosity. Nothing more.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by riVeRraT, posted 10-02-2008 11:04 AM Taz has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 124 (480799)
09-06-2008 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by subbie
09-01-2008 8:13 PM


Getting on with the 21st century
quote:
we need to define it into law so that we can move on in the 21st century
Why?
Wouldn't that be in the best interests of everyone? The same problem occurred with bitter debates about what constitutes "human life" and when human life begins. This seems like another controversy that just needs to be put to rest by coming up with a clear definition for legal reasons, if nothing else.
But at a minimum, I think it should be a state's decision. Let each state decide for itself. So far California and Massachussets have the broadest scope of homosexual marriages or civil unions in the nation.
Of course this is only inclusive to the United States. As for other countries, it's your country, do what sovereign nations do and run your own country how your countrymen see fitting.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 09-01-2008 8:13 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Fosdick, posted 09-06-2008 3:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 09-06-2008 5:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 12 of 124 (480806)
09-06-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2008 1:56 PM


Re: Getting on with the 21st century
NJ writes:
But at a minimum, I think it should be a state's decision.
Exactly! And keep it the hell out of Social Security.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2008 1:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 13 of 124 (480820)
09-06-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2008 1:56 PM


Re: Getting on with the 21st century
Wouldn't that be in the best interests of everyone? The same problem occurred with bitter debates about what constitutes "human life" and when human life begins. This seems like another controversy that just needs to be put to rest by coming up with a clear definition for legal reasons, if nothing else.
Has the implementation of a legal definition reduced the controversy at all? Genuine question. I am not suggesting it has not or that it has.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2008 1:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2008 6:38 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 124 (480825)
09-06-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Straggler
09-06-2008 5:32 PM


Re: Getting on with the 21st century
Has the implementation of a legal definition reduced the controversy at all? Genuine question. I am not suggesting it has not or that it has.
Well, no, it hasn't in many people's eyes. The Defense of Marriage Act plainly states that marriage constitutes a legal union between one man and one woman. But I don't think this should be a government issue.
To countries that don't have states, it may seem bizarre to have different laws, but I don't think the Federal government should have the right to intrude upon what the people want democratically.
The way it works is you have inalienable rights enumerated by the Constitution. Nothing can trump this. A state cannot decide all of a sudden that it doesn't agree with something Constitutionally protected. Then you have the United States Code, which lists Federal laws. And then you have state Constitutions and state laws.
I live on a federal base, so California law does not pertain to me when on federal property. However, as soon as I cross the gate, I am then subject to the laws of California. Think of an UK embassy in another country. When on that property, you are subject to English law, when off it, you are subject to the host nations laws.
Anyhow, since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage whatsoever, the Federal government should have no say in what the people of each state want to vote for democratically. I therefore think that each state, being both unified and independent, should have the right to a democratic vote.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 09-06-2008 5:32 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 09-06-2008 11:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 15 of 124 (480849)
09-06-2008 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2008 6:38 PM


Re: Getting on with the 21st century
quote:
Anyhow, since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage whatsoever, the Federal government should have no say in what the people of each state want to vote for democratically. I therefore think that each state, being both unified and independent, should have the right to a democratic vote.
So does that mean that you think states should have the right to ban interracial marriages?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2008 6:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2008 10:49 AM subbie has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024