EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 What is it? No discussion of individuals please. I want this to stay open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamweaver Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 From my post in the previous thread.... Yes, I agree. I'd like to know more about adelphopoeisis. Especially the historic basis of it. Anyways, does it have anything to do with Sts. Sergius and Bacchus? These two saints (who seem to share a brotherly love) are often invoked by Catholic gay-rights groups who see them as homosexual partners. Historically, is adelphopoesis only between members of the same sex, or could their be opposite sex ceremonies too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 read the site I linked to or just the quotes I posted from it there are cases with opposite sex it's from the Eastern Churches. It always included a vow of celibacy. even GF admits that. he says it should be changed now but admits sex was never included before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 it's basically two single people living together for companionship as sort of blood brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 3 2005, 09:12 PM'] it's basically two single people living together for companionship as sort of blood brothers. [/quote] These ceremonies, which mainly happened in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, were kinship rituals, and they were normally celebrated between men who were in competition with each other, the purpose of the ritual being to lessen tensions between them, thus preventing open conflict. The men in question did not take up residence with each other, nor were these ceremonies looked upon as "marriages." The ceremonies were meant to establish a spiritual kinship, and therefore it is incorrect to say that the rituals established a sexual relationship between the two men. Click here for more information: [url="http://www.learnedhand.com/shaw_boswell.htm"]The New Republic[/url] This article goes beyond the scope of the Church rituals themselves, and although I don't agree completely with the author on all points, his comments on the "adelphopoiesis" ceremonies is fairly accurate historically speaking. Clearly, Boswell, the man who is the main advocate of these rituals as "homosexual marriages," is not a theologian and has confused [i]eros[/i] and [i]agape[/i]. Not only that, but he has also mistranslated the titles of the rituals themselves in order to promote a modern politically correct agenda. He has also shown sloppy research techniques by combining texts from different rituals in order to support his own position advocating homosexual activity. Homosexual activity has always been condemned as gravely immoral by the Church, and so there have never been ecclesiastical rituals to approve of such deviant behavior; moreover, the Church has always taught that the homosexual inclination is a form of concupiscence, and as such it is unnatural and objectively disordered, and consequently it must be resisted by the power of God's uncreated grace. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I never proposed it was. In fact, I was refuting the notion that it was. I did, however, think it included a lifelong brothership that included living together, perhaps I was mistaken. But obviously no romantic relationship or sexual relationship. I posted a link on the other thread that dealt very well with the controversy. Anyway, I guess we're not supposed to be discussing this and besides there's no one here that disagrees, so thanks for the info. Pax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 4 2005, 02:08 AM'] I never proposed it was. In fact, I was refuting the notion that it was. I did, however, think it included a lifelong brothership that included living together, perhaps I was mistaken. But obviously no romantic relationship or sexual relationship. I posted a link on the other thread that dealt very well with the controversy. Anyway, I guess we're not supposed to be discussing this and besides there's no one here that disagrees, so thanks for the info. Pax [/quote] I understand that, nor was I saying that you asserted anything contrary to the Church's moral doctrine. I simply quoted one of your small posts in my own post, but that does not mean that my comments were directed solely at you; rather, they are directed more at what Boswell has written. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 4 2005, 02:08 AM'] [. . .] Anyway, I guess we're not supposed to be discussing this and besides there's no one here that disagrees, so thanks for the info. Pax [/quote] Sorry, I only read this thread. There is nothing wrong with discussing controversial issues, but there is a tendency for threads like this one to degenerate into agitation for a change in the Church's definitive teachings on moral issues. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 well, the mods tend to not like it after they've closed one topic for us to have another one. in that sense we're not supposed to be discussing this lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 4 2005, 06:38 AM'] well, the mods tend to not like it after they've closed one topic for us to have another one. in that sense we're not supposed to be discussing this lol [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 4 2005, 09:38 AM'] well, the mods tend to not like it after they've closed one topic for us to have another one. in that sense we're not supposed to be discussing this lol [/quote] Actually, when I closed the other thread I specifically said that if anyone wanted to discuss the topic without dragging other phorum members names through the mud and name calling, etc., then it was ok to open a new thread discussing adelphopoiesis--and [b]only[/b] the concept of adelphopoiesis. I don't have a problem with the topic, it was the direction the other thread took that prompted me to close it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted February 4, 2005 Author Share Posted February 4, 2005 Thank you Apotheoun, that was informative. I'm satisfied now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 [quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Feb 4 2005, 12:06 PM'] Actually, when I closed the other thread I specifically said that if anyone wanted to discuss the topic without dragging other phorum members names through the mud and name calling, etc., then it was ok to open a new thread discussing adelphopoiesis--and [b]only[/b] the concept of adelphopoiesis. I don't have a problem with the topic, it was the direction the other thread took that prompted me to close it. [/quote] Guys like girls with skills... phatmassing skills, typing skills, moderating skills... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now