Catholic same-sex marriage rite

[fragmentsofdreams]

Show me some official [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym] documents that have gay marriages as rites.

Please.

Wouldn't *all* Church documents before the first schism be official [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym] documents? If so, then we're done; we've got gay unions in around the 8th Century. Big deal.

The Church is very big. If some rogue group was doing something against official Church teachings, that does not mean that the Church approved of it, and that the modern [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym] is contradicting that teaching, as some would like to imply.

This was not merely a rouge group. The [acronym="Manuscripts"]MSS[/acronym] date from the 8th to 17th centuries and are currently stored in collections in the Vatican, Paris, Sinai, St. Petersburg, Istanbul, Athens, and Serbia among others.

[m0dified]

Show me some official [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym] documents that have gay marriages as rites.

Please.

Wouldn't *all* Church documents before the first schism be official [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym] documents? If so, then we're done; we've got gay unions in around the 8th Century. Big deal.

The Church is very big. If some rogue group was doing something against official Church teachings, that does not mean that the Church approved of it, and that the modern [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym] is contradicting that teaching, as some would like to imply.

This was not merely a rouge group. The [acronym="Manuscripts"]MSS[/acronym] date from the 8th to 17th centuries and are currently stored in collections in the Vatican, Paris, Sinai, St. Petersburg, Istanbul, Athens, and Serbia among others.

So you are claiming it was an officially sanctioned "rite" of the [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym]?

Thats not what grant's research provided.

[fragmentsofdreams]

This was not merely a rouge group. The [acronym="Manuscripts"]MSS[/acronym] date from the 8th to 17th centuries and are currently stored in collections in the Vatican, Paris, Sinai, St. Petersburg, Istanbul, Athens, and Serbia among others.

So you are claiming it was an officially sanctioned "rite" of the [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym]?

Thats not what grant's research provided.

I'm not saying that it was officially sanctioned. I am saying that it was widespread and, for a period lasting centuries, was tolerated by the Church.

[m0dified]

This was not merely a rouge group. The [acronym="Manuscripts"]MSS[/acronym] date from the 8th to 17th centuries and are currently stored in collections in the Vatican, Paris, Sinai, St. Petersburg, Istanbul, Athens, and Serbia among others.

So you are claiming it was an officially sanctioned "rite" of the [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym]?

Thats not what grant's research provided.

I'm not saying that it was officially sanctioned. I am saying that it was widespread and, for a period lasting centuries, was tolerated by the Church.

So was the Inquisition and the sale of indulgences. I fail to see the point.

[grant]

Reading back over the last few comments on the thread, I feel like I should say that while the cheerleading is fun and all, it's not really advancing an understanding of the historical relationship between Roman Catholicism and same-sex unions.

So is it possible we could just drop that back-and-forth stuff and get into the meat of the discussion? Because I'm finding it really fascinating.

------------

Boswell was not able to show that any high church body gave approval to such a use of the rite

<edited by [acronym="Cross+Flame"]C+F[/acronym]> HFL, you should have noticed the above. This was not an officially approved practice. I already mentioned the possibility of some group of people in the Church acting against Church policy...just as selling indulgences was done, but was not approved of officially, and thus, is not an infallible declaration of the [acronym="Roman Catholic Church"]RCC[/acronym].

Well, it depends on how "official" you want to make it. It was apparently widespread, existing in both the Eastern and Western Rite (what we now call Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox). And it's not like the ceremonies were being held by civilians, after all. At the point in history when it was most widespread, I'm pretty sure you needed a bishop to conduct a ceremony (the priesthood didn't take on its current powers until around 1200 or so -- you'll find a good history for that here, in the Encyclopedia of World History and here, under "Minister of the Eucharist"). So the pope might not have written down an official version of the service, and they might not have celebrated it in the Vatican (or if they did, no records have survived), but other church bodies *did* celebrate the rite, with the approval and participation of church officials.

Also worth noting is that the church didn't really have Seven Sacraments until relatively recently -- marriage wasn't viewed in quite the same way then as it is now. For instance, the sacrament of reconciliation, although based on scriptural precedent, didn't take its current form until the 8th century in Ireland, and wasn't really given high church approval until the 1500s, in the Council of Trent. Before that, it apparently functioned in much the same way as adelphopoiia - a ritual practiced by Christian communities who owed allegiance to the Pope and who adhered to those few doctrines set out by Rome.

The current church has a lot more Official High Church Doctrine, but most of that wasn't set up until the Council of Trent, as a reaction to Luther and his reformers. Before that, Catholicism was a lot more relaxed, as you'd expect from a truly "universal" church.

Now what's really controversial about Boswell's research is that he's found evidence that the rite was practiced at least 200 years *past* the Council of Trent. And the Jesuits at Fordham -- not Boswell, mind you -- dug up a rite from an Eastern Orthodox congregation (the Albanians) that's apparently still in use. Now the Albanian church is obviously not in union with Rome... but the rite appears to predate the Great Schism between East and West, and survived intact from then until now in at least some congregations.


--------

So was the Inquisition and the sale of indulgences. I fail to see the point.

Just as a historical note, indulgences were still being sold into the 20th century. I had a wonderful patch from Pope Pius good for 100 Days in Purgatory that belonged to my grandmother. (Unfortunately, it was in an old wallet that got stolen from my car.)

You can still find 'em on eBay.

[m0dified]

Grant-

The seven sacraments are present in the Bible, and have been present since Jesus set them up.

Their EXPRESSION tends to change over time, such as the manner of confession (public vs private) but the point is the same.

Also, it should be noted that when things are declared in Councils, like at Trent, it is usually a formal declaration to counter some heresy that had grown...not that things were new ideas that were declared.

--

All the sacraments were all instituted by Jesus and are contained in the Gospel.

Baptism

Prefigured in Old Testament: 1 Peter 3:20-21, Col 2:11-12, Ez 36,25

Christ Institutes: Jn 3:3-5, Mt 28:19

Confirmation

Prefigured in Old Testament: Joel 2:28; Is.44:3-5; Ez 39:24,49; Acts 1:5

Promised to Apostles: Jn 14:16,26; Jn 16:7; Lk 24:49

Promised to future faithful: Jn 7:38

Received: Acts 2,4

Communicated by imposition of hands: Acts8:14-17, Acts 19:6, Heb 6:2

Eucharist

Promised by Jesus: Jn 6:22-71
Instituted by Jesus: Mt. 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:15-20, 1 Cor 11:23-25
Danger of eating and drinking unworthily: 1 Cor 11:27-30

Reconciliation

Grant of authority: Mt. 16:19, Is. 22:22, Mt 18:18

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. (Jn 20:23)"

Anointing of the Sick

Prefigured: Mk 6:13
Recommended: James 5:14-15

Holy Orders

Imposition of hands for ordination: Acts 6:6, Acts 14:23, 2 Tim 1:6, 1 Tim 4:14,
Warning to be careful with imposition of hands: 1 Tim 5:22

Matrimony

Divine mandate: Genesis 1:28
Original ideal reaffirmed by Jesus: Mt 16:3-9, 1 Cor 7:10
Contract in Lord's name: 1 Cor 7:39
In the image of Christ's association with the Church: Eph 5:31-33

All sacraments of the New Law (New Covenant) were instituted by Jesus and are demonstrated in the Bible.

[HerFlamingLiberal]

Matrimony:

Divine mandate: Genesis 1:28
Original ideal reaffirmed by Jesus: [bible]Mt 16:3-9[/bible], 1 Cor 7:10
Contract in Lord's name: 1 Cor 7:39
In the image of Christ's association with the Church: Eph 5:31-33

[bible]Matthew 16:3-9[/bible]has nothing to do with marriage.

The 1 Cor 7:10 verse really doesn't help your point either. 1 Cor 2:10, which says, 2 "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband." Would be something better to argue for. However, these are Paul's words, not Jesus's.

[m0dified]

Matrimony:

Divine mandate: Genesis 1:28
Original ideal reaffirmed by Jesus: [bible]Mt 16:3-9[/bible], 1 Cor 7:10
Contract in Lord's name: 1 Cor 7:39
In the image of Christ's association with the Church: Eph 5:31-33

[bible]Matthew 16:3-9[/bible]has nothing to do with marriage.

The 1 Cor 7:10 verse really doesn't help your point either. 1 Cor 2:10, which says, 2 "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband." Would be something better to argue for. However, these are Paul's words, not Jesus's.

You never explained how you pick and choose which words ARE Jesus', so your point isnt really making an impact on me.

[HerFlamingLiberal]

I consider the quotes of Jesus in the Gospels to be possible quotes, but nothing in the works of Paul. Paul is all about himself and his own agenda.

[m0dified]

I consider the quotes of Jesus in the Gospels to be possible quotes, but nothing in the works of Paul. Paul is all about himself and his own agenda.

What about the other apostles, do they matter?

You know, Jesus DID say "who hears me will hear you" or something to that effect...but then you'd have to believe He said that...

[HerFlamingLiberal]

Huh? Paul does matter. He's just not a credible source for Jesus's mission.

What other apostles in specifics? I think Thomas has got a good feel on things.

[grant]

Grant-

The seven sacraments are present in the Bible, and have been present since Jesus set them up.

Their EXPRESSION tends to change over time, such as the manner of confession (public vs private) but the point is the same.

Well, yes and no. Yes, they are public means of celebrating the connection with God that are based on what Jesus did in His life... but no, it's not like He set up a list of seven, or pointed to one thing and said "This here, this confession of sins, that's a sacrament," and then pointed to another and said, "This here, this feeding fish to hungry people, that's not a sacrament."

The sacraments were there, but the *idea* of a sacrament simply wasn't there.

Also, it should be noted that when things are declared in Councils, like at Trent, it is usually a formal declaration to counter some heresy that had grown...not that things were new ideas that were declared.

Well, yeah. It's how the Church made (and makes, I suppose) doctrine specific to the times. And, as a side effect, makes doctrine *specific*, period. Setting it out in law, rather than just as common practice.

The historical problem with that (if it is a problem at all) is that doctrine isn't as amendable as, say, the US Constitution. When it became clear that Prohibition wasn't working the amendment got repealed. But the spiritual status of a same-sex marriage isn't quite so obvious from the outside. Law is clear; it's based on external actions. But spiritual status? It's internal, it involves the relationship between people and God.

The line between fornication and marriage can be a fuzzy one, if you don't have a ceremony with a priest to delineate "married" from "unmarried." And there are plenty of cultures where that doesn't happen -- where people just shack up, have a big party and declare for themselves "we're married... we're a couple." It *used* to be that way in Christian Europe, until the sacrament of marriage gradually got codified. Before that, quite often (especially if there wasn't a bishop around for miles) couples got married by God, just like Adam and Eve. (According to church doctrine, actually, that's still the way it happens... the priest is merely acting as an intercessory agent.) Common practice -- in this case, the spiritual or moral status of certain acts -- tends to shift around over time in a way that Law doesn't. Nowadays, Law makes very clear what "married" is and what "unmarried" is. But it didn't always.

[m0dified]

Doctrine can be thrown away. Dogma is the stuff set in stone for all time.

If the Pope were to infallibly declare that gay people can not marry, for example, it would be Dogma, unchangeable, ever.

[HerFlamingLiberal]

That's retarded. One person should not have so much power.

[m0dified]

That's retarded. One person should not have so much power.

I guess that is one of the lines from Jesus that you happen to not believe.

:shrug:

[grant]

Doctrine can be thrown away. Dogma is the stuff set in stone for all time.

If the Pope were to infallibly declare that gay people can not marry, for example, it would be Dogma, unchangeable, ever.

Well, yeah. Doctrines can change (although it generally takes centuries). Dogma, though, has to be traced back to what Jesus Himself actually said, from what I understand.
Papal infallibility is a little tricky in that regard. Not everything the pope says is infallible. I wonder if his recent pronouncements about same-sex marriage count as infallible or not. (I'd imagine not, but I'm honestly not sure.)

[Boston]

That's retarded. One person should not have so much power.

I guess that is one of the lines from Jesus that you happen to not believe.

:shrug:

Oh Please!! Don't go off on the Peter is Vicar of the Church thing. I guess Paul is our leader Since Peter was a leader for the Jews.

[fragmentsofdreams]

Doctrine can be thrown away. Dogma is the stuff set in stone for all time.

If the Pope were to infallibly declare that gay people can not marry, for example, it would be Dogma, unchangeable, ever.

Well, yeah. Doctrines can change (although it generally takes centuries). Dogma, though, has to be traced back to what Jesus Himself actually said, from what I understand.
Papal infallibility is a little tricky in that regard. Not everything the pope says is infallible. I wonder if his recent pronouncements about same-sex marriage count as infallible or not. (I'd imagine not, but I'm honestly not sure.)

It was not infallible. Declarations of infallability are excedingly rare, and to my knowledge, there have been no infallable declarations on morality.