There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
#91
(02-21-2011, 10:34 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: That's interesting.  In modern Greek slang, faggot is malakas.  Is the greek word for abusers of themselves with men etymologically related to arsonist?
Before I answer you, can you clarify this statement?

Quote:Ok, so as someone who fits this category...
Are you someone with a homosexual orientation?
[/quote]

yes

Or, does koitai have to do with coitus, and arsenokoitai merely mean those who burn with lust?
Reply
#92
On the Greek: arsenokoithV is not found elsewhere, St Paul combines two words: an old form of "man" and " having sex". I'm not sure where the translation "abusers of themselves with men" is coming from, the two italicized words are not indicated by the etymology . It's just means someone who has sex with men.
Malakoi, on the other hand, is a little trickier. I found examples in several of the Greek historians, but mostly Thucydides, that use that word to mean "cowardly, a man who ran from the battle". That would support Quis' exerpts from the Fathers which interpret that word to mean someone overfond of luxuries and ease.
Reply
#93
(02-21-2011, 06:39 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
Quote:Sure, it helps me.  It clearly implies that the unworthy can be raised to Holy Orders only that the person who does so sins.
Sins mortally, and not alone. 

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Ep. ad Demophil.): "It seems presumptuous for such a man, one to wit who is not enlightened, to lay hands on priestly things; he is not afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does not see what he sees in himself; he thinks, by false pretense, to cheat Him Whom he falsely calls his Father; he dares to utter in the person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them prayers, over the Divine symbols." Therefore a priest is a blasphemer and a cheat if he exercises his order unworthily, and thus he sins mortally: and in like manner any other person in orders.

My fault.  I used an unclear modifier in "only".  I meant it as "excepting" rather than "solely".  No argument here.

Quote:I'm glad you mentioned that.  35.3 in Summa says

[i]"The character of orders presupposes the baptismal character as already on the soul.  It is the character impressed by baptism that renders a person capable of receiving the other sacraments." 

Holy Orders cannot confer sanctifying grace on one who is not living in accordance with their baptismal dignity (i.e., persistance in mortal sin). 

You're jumping from the requirement of baptism for the other Sacraments to "living in accordance with their baptismal dignity" with no argument in between.

Within the context of St. Thomas, that isn't true.  If you have additional citations to support  this, please present them, and I'll be happy to read them.  In the context of St. Thomas, the reception of Holy Orders confers Sanctifying Grace upon the recipient.

Quote:Not at all, dear brother Quis.  I am on very safe and solid footing here if one cares to follow my apologia.  Again, the larger contextual backdrop here is the destruction being wrought among the faithful by Modernist 'priests' with their sexual scandals, child abuse, support for antiCatholic causes, liturgical abuses, heterodox teaching and poisoning of the seminary system against wholesome, fully qualified and pious young men.  Its fun to debate abstracts and theoreticals, but the Church is in full-blown crisis right now and we must stop the hemorraging immediately.

You make a lot of speeches, play to the audience nicely, are good at grandstanding, etc., but your theological content is lacking.  Why do you keep going to Protestant sources, for example?  Maybe because the Catholic ones don't hold your arguments up?
Reply
#94
(02-21-2011, 03:22 PM)Anastasia Wrote: On the Greek: arsenokoithV is not found elsewhere, St Paul combines two words: an old form of "man" and " having sex". I'm not sure where the translation "abusers of themselves with men" is coming from, the two italicized words are not indicated by the etymology . It's just means someone who has sex with men.
Malakoi, on the other hand, is a little trickier. I found examples in several of the Greek historians, but mostly Thucydides, that use that word to mean "cowardly, a man who ran from the battle". That would support Quis' exerpts from the Fathers which interpret that word to mean someone overfond of luxuries and ease.
But this does not go to the main point that HS is a mortal sin that if one identifys with (is unrepentant of) makes a shipwreck of your faith making the term christian a misnomer.
Sexual sins have a character and do damage beyond that of others observes Deitrich Von Hildebrand who distinguishes three elements of the sin of impurity. He writes:

In the first place, I fling myself away by giving up this personal secret to another with no intention of a real and final surrender to that person or of entering thus into a lasting external union with my partner ....
. . Besides this squandering of self, which may be described as a specific degradation of myself and my partner, this abuse of sex always involves a second factor, a desecration. To perform the act which signifies the hallowed union of two human beings in one flesh, and should be the expression and fulfillment of a lasting and indissoluble bond of love, with a partner to whom we are not united by the sacred tie of matrimony is obviously a desecration of the most awful kind ....

. . . Every abuse of sex further involves a specific defilement.

. . . The aspects which sex displays when it is isolated and no longer “formed” from within by wedded love and the consciousness of God’s sanction — namely, the siren-song of sensual attraction with its poisonous sweetness, and diabolic evil lust — display a peculiar power to corrupt and defile the soul. The moment any man in his employment of sex “wills” one of these two aspects, and gives himself up to it, he incurs a mysterious defilement and separates himself in an altogether unique fashion from God.
Reply
#95
(02-21-2011, 05:23 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: To Reply #76:

1.  I did not concede that molle does not refer to homosexual identity or behavior; I said that by the body of quotations you supplied, the term is open to a wider application, not a narrower one, to include most definitely the catamites found in Corinth's cult of Aphrodite and the Greco-Roman debauchery of pederasty.

I didn't claim you concede that.  My claim was:

Quote:But I'm glad you finally concede the point that effeminate in this passage doesn't refer specifically to homosexuals and does refer to a wider group of individuals.

Or in other words, in case you misunderstood, that you concede effeminate refers not only to homosexuals but also to a wider group of individuals.

Quote:2.
Quote:First of all, you are still assuming effeminate in this passage means homosexual along with your heretical friends.  Since you appear to want to play to an audience (our readers) and show yourself a Scripture scholar, maybe you can explain why the Vulgate uses effeminati when it refers specifically to homosexuals everywhere else in the Bible and molles or soft in this particular passage and Prov 18:8 where it is clear it is effeminate in the sense of unmanly.

OK, Quis.  More etymology (since you enjoy it so much  ;)):
The Hebrew word translated effeminati in the Vulgate is qAdesh (cf 4 Kings 23:7). The Hebrew word for "holy" is qOdesh. In other words, the consonants for both words are exactly the same. Only a slight difference in the vowel alters the meaning of the word.  That is, what was once holy is now unclean. What was once right is now wrong. Ergo, a word meaning the OPPOSITE of holy is utilized here.  St. Jerome in the Latin Vulgate uses the word "effemenati", making it obvious how he viewed the Hebrew word qAdesh.  Strong's Concordance (sorry, could not find a Catholic Hebrew concordance) renders the term translated in English as effeminate as follows: 'from 'qadash' (6942); a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:-- sodomite, unclean'. 

St. Paul's explicit reference to Lev. 18:22 as sodomy in "liers with men" seems clear enough.   76 posts into this discussion, you still have not answered "such were some of you, but you are washed... sanctified...justified..." nor St. Paul's condemnation of homosexual persons and they that approve of them in Romans 1:32.

I will answer it after we have a common and relatively correct understanding of the passage.

Be that as it may, if anything you have explained why he used effeminati in those passages, and I already stated that.  It is clear they are referring to sodomitical practices.  You have not explained why he chose molles for Proverbs when it doesn't refer uniquely to sodomites.  As you point out, it is St. Jerome's understanding - where he understands sodomitical, he uses "effeminati" where he understands soft, unmanly, etc., he uses "molles".

If not, make an argument as to why he uses molles in Proverbs and effeminati everywhere else.

Quote:* BTW, an exegesis of the original Greek may apply to both types of male homosexuals: the passive partner (malakos, i.e. 'effeminate', or 'catamite') and the active partner (arsenokoites, i.e. 'one who goes to bed with males'). (CHRYS C. CARAGOUNIS, PhD, Greek scholar) *

I'll get to the use of malakos in the NT momentarily.

Quote:3.
Quote:You, and the Protestants, have the wrong understanding.  The Vulgate makes it clear in the difference between molles and effeminati.  Molles means lacking in the virtue of perseverance, being soft, being unmanly which can include being passive in sodomy.  Effeminati refers specifically to those who engage passively in sodomitical acts.
 
And both are condemned as identities that exclude men from the kingdom of God.  You seem to be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, dear brother.  You also are not interpreting the passage in the light of the entire canon of Sacred Scripture from which I have supplied sundry references to help us appertain the mind of Christ on this important issue.  It is not a stand alone passage and must be read in its context and in that of the entire Canon.

Then let's look at how malakos is used in the rest of the New Testament to see what it means contextually.  It is used in two other places.

Matt 11:8
But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are clothed in soft garments, are in the houses of kings

Luke 7:25
But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are in costly apparel and live delicately, are in the houses of kings.

ETA:  You will note St. Jerome translated these using molles for malakos as well.

Quote:I believe this covers all the bases, Quis.  Effeminati is used in the Old Testament to describe ritual male cult prostitution. 

Sure, but St. Jerome didn't use effeminati in 1 Cor.  He used molles to translate malakos, and the only other places in the NT malakos is used is to refer to soft and unmanly things.

Reply
#96
(02-18-2011, 10:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why can't someone 'be' a homosexual and also a Christian?  Afterall, a sin isn't something you 'are,' it's something you do.
,

You've answered your own question. Homosexuality is an act of the will,a sin, a thing and not a state  of existential ontology as we are being led to believe today in the sense that we are being conditioned to accept homoism as being a full time existential proposition  (by virtue of a biolgical gene) as opposed to it being a sin one commits from time to time like any other.
Reply
#97
(02-21-2011, 10:22 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: Re: 1 Corinthinas 6:10, a very simple and practical translation from the Koine Greek:

ADULTERERS,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G3120
μαλακοι
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES AS WOMEN,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G733
αρσενοκοιται
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MEN,

http://christianisrael.freevar.com/1+Corinthians+6:9

:deadhorse:

Stop using Protestant sources and we won't have to beat the horse.

We have a Doctor of the Church explaining that the effeminacy referred to is a strike against perseverance.  We have the fact that St. Jerome used molles instead of effeminati.  We have the fact that malakos when used elsewhere in the NT is referring to fine clothing and a delicate lifestyle.

Why do you want to reject Catholic commentary on the passage and cling to Protestant interpretation?

Are you an ex-Protestant?
Reply
#98
(02-21-2011, 05:08 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why can't someone 'be' a homosexual and also a Christian?  Afterall, a sin isn't something you 'are,' it's something you do.
,

You've answered your won question. Homosexuality is an act of the will,a sin, a thing and not a state existential ontology....
its not just any sin, its a sin that cries out to God for vengeance.
Reply
#99
(02-21-2011, 05:08 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why can't someone 'be' a homosexual and also a Christian?  Afterall, a sin isn't something you 'are,' it's something you do.
,

You've answered your won question. Homosexuality is an act of the will,a sin, a thing and not a state existential ontology....

Going back to basics, let's look up what the word homosexual means:

http://m-w.com
of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

That's all it means.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It doesn't mean someone acts on it or is their sine-qua-non.  It means they have sexual desires towards members of the same sex.

And this relates to "homosexual persons" and why I think it was used, but we aren't that far in the discussion yet.  At least I'm not.  I'm trying to get Johnny Catholic to stop using Protestant sources.

Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:10 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 10:22 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: Re: 1 Corinthinas 6:10, a very simple and practical translation from the Koine Greek:

ADULTERERS,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G3120
μαλακοι
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES AS WOMEN,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G733
αρσενοκοιται
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MEN,

http://christianisrael.freevar.com/1+Corinthians+6:9

:deadhorse:

Stop using Protestant sources and we won't have to beat the horse.

We have a Doctor of the Church explaining that the effeminacy referred to is a strike against perseverance.  We have the fact that St. Jerome used molles instead of effeminati.  We have the fact that malakos when used elsewhere in the NT is referring to fine clothing and a delicate lifestyle.

Why do you want to reject Catholic commentary on the passage and cling to Protestant interpretation?

Are you an ex-Protestant?
Ad Hominum
[-] The following 1 user Likes voxxpopulisuxx's post:
  • Catholic Johnny
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)