There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
#71
(02-21-2011, 01:26 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Are you saying Babys baptisms dont count Catholic Johnny?
Of course not.  How can a baby depart from his baptism and persist in mortal sin?  But an unrepentant homosexual can.
Reply
#72
(02-21-2011, 01:30 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 01:26 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Are you saying Babys baptisms dont count Catholic Johnny?
Of course not.  How can a baby depart from his baptism and persist in mortal sin?  But an unrepentant homosexual can.
no but you implied that one must have faith to have a valid baptism in your previous post.
Also you didnt reply to my previous querys posted above...Quis answered his...would you like me to reprint them?
Reply
#73
(02-21-2011, 01:32 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 01:30 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 01:26 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Are you saying Babys baptisms dont count Catholic Johnny?
Of course not.  How can a baby depart from his baptism and persist in mortal sin?  But an unrepentant homosexual can.
no but you implied that one must have faith to have a valid baptism in your previous post.
Also you didnt reply to my previous querys posted above...Quis answered his...would you like me to reprint them?

I didn't say it, Jesus Christ said it (Mark 16:16).  The way I explained it is that a baptized person who persists in mortal sin should not be considered in a state of grace and it would be complicit in the grave sin of scandal to consider him so. 
Until the age or spiritual adulthood (around the time of the Sacrament of Confirmation) a child is culpable only in direct correspondence to their age, maturity and catechetical formation.  My remarks were directed to the Sacrament of Holy Orders and who is eligible. 
I did reply to three questions of yours in reply #61.
cj
Reply
#74
This may be helpful for this discussion:

Whether he who raises the unworthy to [Holy] Orders commits a sin?

On the contrary, It is worse to raise the wicked to the sacred ministry, than not to correct those who are raised already. But Heli sinned mortally by not correcting his sons for their wickedness; wherefore "he fell backwards . . . and died" (1 Kings 4:18). Therefore he who promotes the unworthy does not escape sin.

Further, spiritual things must be set before temporal things in the Church. Now a man would commit a mortal sin were he knowingly to endanger the temporalities of the Church. [i]Much more
therefore is it a mortal sin to endanger spiritual things. But whoever promotes the unworthy endangers spiritual things, since according to Gregory (Hom. xii in Evang.) "if a man's life is contemptible, his preaching is liable to be despised"; and for the same reason all the spiritual things that he dispenses. Therefore he who promotes the unworthy sins mortally.

I answer that, Our Lord describes the faithful servant whom He has set "over His household to give them their measure of wheat." Hence he is guilty of unfaithfulness who gives any man Divine things above his measure: and whoso promotes the unworthy does this. Wherefore he commits a mortal crime, as being unfaithful to his sovereign Lord, especially since this is detrimental to the Church and to the Divine honor which is promoted by good ministers. For a man would be unfaithful to his earthly lord were he to place unworthy subjects in his offices[/i].

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, QQ 36.4 (emphasis mine)

Reply
#75
(02-20-2011, 10:38 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: yeah well I couldnt imagine doing 7 hours of staright massages a day. You could pray the entire divine office in your spare time. What is the melkite breviary like? I suppose it's not even called that

Is the breviary the same thing as the liturgy of the hours?  If so, ours is called the Horologion.  Our schedule of prayers starts with Vespers, then Compline, Mesonyktikon, Matins, 1st, 3rd, 6th and 9th hours.  A complete horologion would also include the various kontakia and troparia of the menaion, and the octoechos.
Reply
#76
(02-21-2011, 02:38 AM)Melkite Wrote: Is the breviary the same thing as the liturgy of the hours?

Kinda sorta not really. In lower-case terms, they mean the same thing. In upper-case, the Roman Breviary is the Tridentine form of the Office (the word "breviary" refers to the book, or the set of books in the same way a Missal refers to a Mass-book), and the Liturgy of the Hours is the official name of its post-Vatican II revision. Even though the pre-Vatican II Office could still be called the liturgy of the Hours.....
Reply
#77
(02-21-2011, 01:14 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 12:49 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-20-2011, 10:41 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
Quote:Why would St. Paul be condemning homosexual behavior twice?  I.e., "effeminate" and "liers with mankind"?  He's not.

Yes he is.  Effeminate refers to those who are passive in the sodomitic act (receive penile penetration) and liers with mankind refers to those who are active (perpetrate the penetration).  

First, that's ridiculous.  To justify that, you would have to assuming that St. Paul is thinking someone is going to split hairs and claim it's OK to take it but not to give it if he left out "effeminate".

[The Fathers I quote do not deny homosexual acts are sinful, no.  But they use effeminate to mean other than that, don't they?  Or does wearing fine clothes only apply to homosexuals?

We're not talking about Ezechial, we're talking about 1 Cor.   There is no dispute that sodomitical acts are condemned in the Bible.  That's not the question.  The question is does the Protestant translation you are using to argue your point reconcile with Catholic teaching on what effeminate means.  The answer is that it doesn't.

Quote:In any event, it is the New Birth in Christ that is the issue here.
"If so be that you have heard him, and have been taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus: To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who ...is corrupted according to the desire of error. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind: And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth." Eph.4:21-24

How can the new man created by God in justice and holiness of truth be defined by a proclivity to mortal sin? And what is the renewing of the mind?

That's a different topic.  We need to finish with 1 Corinthians first.  You clearly don't understand what is meant by "effeminate".

First of all, the Latin word used, molles, has nothing inherent to do with homosexuality.  Second, if you look in a dictionary the English word effeminate doesn't mean homosexual either.  It means:

: having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
: marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement

Which is exactly how the Church Fathers use it and how St. Thomas uses it.  It means being unmanly or delicate.  I.e., "molles" - soft or womanly.

The other problem with your argument using 1 Cor is that even if you are correct, which you aren't, you state that the sins are tied to acts.

Catholic Johnny Wrote:Effeminate refers to those who are passive in the sodomitic act (receive penile penetration) and liers with mankind refers to those who are active (perpetrate the penetration).

By your own definition, no act, no sin.  If someone isn't taking it from or giving it to another guy they are neither effeminate or liers with men according to your definition, right?

I would also like to answer your challenge about "homosexual persons" appearing before 1988, but you need to answer my question:

Quis Wrote:do you want me to find a pre-1986 use of the word homosexual in Catholic theology, or the exact phrase "homosexual persons"?  Since the word homosexual didn't even really exist before the late 1800's, can I find equivalent phrases such as "sodomitical person", or would those not count?

LOL, OK, you continue to strengthen my argument, Quis.   :laughing:
If you wish to define molle in accordance with the body of quotes you supplied, you actually widen the scope of those acts and persons who are condemned in 1 Cor. 6:9-11.   For by your own definitions it is not merely those who practice sodomitical acts but also those who betray their God-given sexual nature by an exaggerated effeminate affectation.  And then the passage immediately refers to liers with mankind (an obvious referral to Lev. 18:22) - which is explicit:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

and St. Paul, condemning both acts and persons:
Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  Rom. 1:32 D-R

I know what my definitions are; he is condemning those who are unmanly, who are soft, who lack perseverance.  You are the one who is claiming he is condemning people on the one hand because they receive a penis and on the other because they give it.  :laughing:

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. :tiphat:

Quote:
Quote:The other problem with your argument using 1 Cor is that even if you are correct, which you aren't, you state that the sins are tied to acts.
You are just being obstinate now, Quis.  How then can St. Paul say in the Spirit of Christ, "such were some of you" (identity) and not "such did some of you (acts) if he is only referring to acts and not identity?

Really?  I mean, really?  Well, alright.  The thing is, you have to tell me.  You said effeminate condemned those who take the penis, liers with men condemned those who gave the penis.  You're the one hung up on the acts.

My interpretation, which is the same as St. Thomas', btw, is that effeminate here refers to a lack of virtue.  Liers with mankind refers to those who engage in sodomitical acts, whether in the passive or active role.

Quote:You are obscuring the entire construction of the NT doctrine of the new birth and conversion.  How can a new creation "be" a "homosexual person"?  This either makes God the author of sin in natural creation or Christ the author of sin in the new creation, both concepts that are untenable for a Roman Catholic.

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.

Quote:The words of the double tongued are as if they were harmless: and they reach even to the inner parts of the bowels. Fear casteth down the slothful: and the souls of the effeminate shall be hungry. [9] He that is loose and slack in his work, is the brother of him that wasteth his own works.

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.
Reply
#78
(02-21-2011, 02:21 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: This may be helpful for this discussion:

Whether he who raises the unworthy to [Holy] Orders commits a sin?

On the contrary, It is worse to raise the wicked to the sacred ministry, than not to correct those who are raised already. But Heli sinned mortally by not correcting his sons for their wickedness; wherefore "he fell backwards . . . and died" (1 Kings 4:18). Therefore he who promotes the unworthy does not escape sin.

Further, spiritual things must be set before temporal things in the Church. Now a man would commit a mortal sin were he knowingly to endanger the temporalities of the Church. [i]Much more
therefore is it a mortal sin to endanger spiritual things. But whoever promotes the unworthy endangers spiritual things, since according to Gregory (Hom. xii in Evang.) "if a man's life is contemptible, his preaching is liable to be despised"; and for the same reason all the spiritual things that he dispenses. Therefore he who promotes the unworthy sins mortally.

I answer that, Our Lord describes the faithful servant whom He has set "over His household to give them their measure of wheat." Hence he is guilty of unfaithfulness who gives any man Divine things above his measure: and whoso promotes the unworthy does this. Wherefore he commits a mortal crime, as being unfaithful to his sovereign Lord, especially since this is detrimental to the Church and to the Divine honor which is promoted by good ministers. For a man would be unfaithful to his earthly lord were he to place unworthy subjects in his offices[/i].

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, QQ 36.4 (emphasis mine)

Sure, it helps me.  It clearly implies that the unworthy can be raised to Holy Orders only that the person who does so sins.

If you feel like reading on, St. Thomas also states in Q.35 A.1 that Holy Orders confers Sanctifying Grace.  So now you have the additional problem that if someone is baptized yet a "homosexual person" as well as receiving Holy Orders he receives the Sanctifying Grace necessary to receive the Sacrament.

Kind of puts a spanner in the works for you, eh?

Reply
#79
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.

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.

* 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) *

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.

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


Reply
#80
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.

Further, holiness of life is required in one who receives an order, that he may be qualified to exercise it. Now a man sins mortally if he present himself for orders in mortal sin. Much more therefore does he sin mortally whenever he exercises his order.
  Q 64.A6

Quote:If you feel like reading on, St. Thomas also states in Q.35 A.1 that Holy Orders confers Sanctifying Grace.  So now you have the additional problem that if someone is baptized yet a "homosexual person" as well as receiving Holy Orders he receives the Sanctifying Grace necessary to receive the Sacrament.

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

"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).  Those who self-identify as homosexual persons (as defined earlier) capitulate to deep-seated concupiscience and deny the properties inherent in the new birth  (again, their culpability may be mitigated due to this flowing from unsound doctrine).  A possible exception applies only to those who do not practice ANY homosexual actions (as Christ taught, even the adultery in the heart is tantamount to true guilt cf Matthew 5:25-30).  Even this however, is doubtful as Pope Benedict XVI explained in his Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies lack the qualities of spiritual patrimony required by priesthood.  Those who do practice homosexual acts (and by anecdotal evidences, this percentage is not negligible) are guilty of mortal sin as explained by the Angelic Doctor and cannot possibly be valid Catholic Priests, nor even Christians.  This of course is entirely rectifiable predicated upon true contrition, absolution, repentance and bringing forth the fruits of conversion. 

Quote:Kind of puts a spanner in the works for you, eh?

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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)