[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144648#msg144648 date=1315933206] Back to the satirical comments ... whatever man.
If you see a return of satirical comments it is probably because you are a walking satire and are deserving of such comments.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144648#msg144648 date=1315933206] So your strategy is that even they do not agree with what the priest says and insist that the Church is wrong and has to accept them the way they are, as well as, stirring havoc to change the congregation's view in accepting homosexuality as a fact and not a sin, you will still welcome them. Is that what you are saying?
Here is what is being suggested. I am going to use the Church as a hospital analogy as this is how the Fathers have often viewed the Church.
You have a friend who is sick. They don’t see that they are sick, but you, because you’ve read up a little bit on their condition, see the symptoms and want to help them. So, what do you do? You take your friend to the hospital. Your friend will probably be resistant at first as they do not feel they are sick. However, because of your genuine love and concern for them, they will oblige and allow you to take them to the hospital, despite not believing they are sick. So, you take them to the hospital and you see a doctor. The doctor suggests to your friend that they stay for some time so that the doctor can perform some tests and keep them under observation. The sick person is initially hesitant and may be utterly resistant to the idea. However, because of your genuine love, concern and persistence that they stay, they oblige for your sake (again, despite not believing they are sick). The doctor begins to run tests and tells the sick friend the results. The sick friend is still hesitant (and possibly resistant) to accept the fact that they are sick. The doctor continues to run tests and begins treatment while consulting the Chief of Medicine, who also takes an interest in the case and guides the doctor in performing the proper tests and prescribing the proper treatments. As more tests are performed, and as more results come in, and as greater treatment is prescribed, the sick patient begins to slowly realize that they may, in fact, be sick. Meanwhile, you are by your friend’s side the entire time, offering them words of comfort as they resist at first, but gradually begin to accept the test results and the ensuing treatment. The doctor, with the aid of the Chief of Medicine, continue to provide treatment and run tests to check on the progression of the illness until, eventually, the illness is treated.
THAT is what is expected of us. In this analogy: replace hospital with the Church; replace sick friend with sinner; replace doctor with priest; replace Chief of Medicine with Christ; replace run tests with pastoral care; replace treatment with the Sacraments and replace sick and illness with any variation of the word sin. The hospital, the doctor, the Chief of Medicine and even you do not change your view on the illness that your friend has. Rather, over time, it is your friend that comes to realize they are sick and accepts the treatment.
In the case of the homosexual, does it mean that when the ‘illness is treated’ they cease being homosexual? Of course not. They won’t magically become heterosexual. However, they will come to realize that homosexual acts are sinful and that part of the treatment they must perform, in addition to partaking of the Sacraments, is to live a life of celibacy.
Here is what you have been suggesting: A person brings their sick friend to the hospital, despite this sick friend not truly believing they are sick. imikhail is barring the door to the hospital and saying to this sick person, ‘You are not welcome in the hospital, despite being sick. Go away and come back when you acknowledge you are sick and are better. Then and only then are you worthy of entering this hospital.’
Thankfully, our God is far more merciful, compassionate and loving than you and welcomes all to Him.
Rather, over time, it is your friend that comes to realize they are sick and accepts the treatment.
Your key statement is "realize they are sick".
The scenario I created suggests that they won't listen and that they won't realize. You on the other hand created the scenario of having them listened and having them realized.
No one is suggesting to get rid of sinners from the Church without working with them first to realize that they are sinners. If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
We repent our sins to change for the sake of purity. Homosexuality does not repent and does not change for the sake of love. We share love but not repentance. One of the reasons we go to church is to be purified. So then what the homosexual offers isn't true and comes off like a bribe. Offering something good- love but behind it something bad- corrupt desire.
We repent our sins to change for the sake of purity. Homosexuality does not repent and does not change for the sake of love. We share love but not repentance. One of the reasons we go to church is to be purified. So then what the homosexual offers isn't true and comes off like a bribe. Offering something good- love but behind it something bad- corrupt desire.
Rather, over time, it is your friend that comes to realize they are sick and accepts the treatment.
Your key statement is "realize they are sick".
The scenario I created suggests that they won't listen and that they won't realize. You on the other hand created the scenario of having them listened and having them realized.
No one is suggesting to get rid of sinners from the Church without working with them first to realize that they are sinners. If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
A person who is in a hospital will be allowed to remain in the hospital treated by a doctor regardless of whether they realize they are sick or not. The only time a person in a hospital will not be treated is when they willfully check themselves out of the hospital and refuse treatment (often against the doctors wishes). The same is true within the Church. The fact that you keep bringing in the congregation is silly. The congregation will not be affected by the repentance (or unrepentance) of a sinner. That is between them and their priest, not the congregation as a whole. In the hospital analogy, this would be like the other patients being concerned about whether another patient believes they are sick or not. That would never happen as each patient in the hospital is more concerned about their own sickness and getting better, and the treatment prescribed is between them and their doctor.
How many people enter the church unrepentant of their sins? You have no bloody clue. And yet, if it were up to you, you'd banish the lot of them. That is utter insanity. The only place a sinner can get treatment is within the Church. Even if they may be unrepentant, that is between that person and the priest. The priest prescribes the treatment, not you, the congregation, or anyone else for that matter.
If homosexuals are so vocal about acceptance, maybe it's because of how vocal those who discriminate against them are. It seems that the homosexual's sin is infinitely greater than any other sin, and as such, they should be ostracized and put out of the Church. If they were treated with the same love, compassion and respect other sinners received, then maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't react in the way they do.
Rather, over time, it is your friend that comes to realize they are sick and accepts the treatment.
Your key statement is "realize they are sick".
The scenario I created suggests that they won't listen and that they won't realize. You on the other hand created the scenario of having them listened and having them realized.
No one is suggesting to get rid of sinners from the Church without working with them first to realize that they are sinners. If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
A person who is in a hospital will be allowed to remain in the hospital treated by a doctor regardless of whether they realize they are sick or not. The only time a person in a hospital will not be treated is when they willfully check themselves out of the hospital and refuse treatment (often against the doctors wishes). The same is true within the Church. The fact that you keep bringing in the congregation is silly. The congregation will not be affected by the repentance (or unrepentance) of a sinner. That is between them and their priest, not the congregation as a whole. In the hospital analogy, this would be like the other patients being concerned about whether another patient believes they are sick or not. That would never happen as each patient in the hospital is more concerned about their own sickness and getting better, and the treatment prescribed is between them and their doctor.
How many people enter the church unrepentant of their sins? You have no bloody clue. And yet, if it were up to you, you'd banish the lot of them. That is utter insanity. The only place a sinner can get treatment is within the Church. Even if they may be unrepentant, that is between that person and the priest. The priest prescribes the treatment, not you, the congregation, or anyone else for that matter.
If homosexuals are so vocal about acceptance, maybe it's because of how vocal those who discriminate against them are. It seems that the homosexual's sin is infinitely greater than any other sin, and as such, they should be ostracized and put out of the Church. If they were treated with the same love, compassion and respect other sinners received, then maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't react in the way they do.
How many people enter the church unrepentant of their sins? You have no bloody clue. And yet, if it were up to you, you'd banish the lot of them. That is utter insanity. The only place a sinner can get treatment is within the Church. Even if they may be unrepentant, that is between that person and the priest. The priest prescribes the treatment, not you, the congregation, or anyone else for that matter.
Sin, like disease, falls into categories of acuteness, is contagious, and will be dealt with accordingly.
When a homosexual starts advocating acceptance of homosexuality, like the ones I shared in post 53, this person has no place in the Church till s/he acknowledges that homosexuality is a sin and comes to the Church for cure.
If one does not listen to the Church and is arrogant about their sin and has the potential to affect the congregation - the Church needs and will put him away.
2 Corinthean 5:1 - 6 "1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump"
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144747#msg144747 date=1316054715] Sin, like disease, falls into categories of acuteness, is contagious, and will be dealt with accordingly.
When a homosexual starts advocating acceptance of homosexuality, like the ones I shared in post 53, this person has no place in the Church till s/he acknowledges that homosexuality is a sin and comes to the Church for cure.
You clearly didn't read my analogy. Read it again. Slowly. I've addressed the case of where a patient does not recognize they are sick. They are still welcome (in fact, encouraged) to remain in the hospital and receive treatment from the doctor. The doctor will never dismiss a patient or kick them out of the hospital just because the patient does not recognize their sickness. If the patient, of their own free will, chooses to leave the hospital, that is something else entirely. However, the doctor or the hospital will never kick the patient out.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144747#msg144747 date=1316054715] 2 Corinthean 5:1 - 6 "1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump"
If you're going to reference St. Paul, for the love of God, at least get it right. 1 Corinthians 5:1-6 is what you want.
Regarding that here is what St. John Chrysostom says:
It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one of you has his father's wife. And you are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you.
When he was discoursing about their divisions, he did not indeed at once address them vehemently, but more gently at first; and afterwards, he ended in accusation, saying thus, 1 Corinthians 1:11 "For it has been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you." But in this place, not so; but he lays about him immediately and makes the reproach of the accusation as general as possible. For he said not, "Why did such an one commit fornication?" but, "It is reported that there is fornication among you;" that they might as persons altogether aloof from his charge take it easily; but might be filled with such anxiety as was natural when the whole body was wounded, and the Church had incurred reproach. "For no one," says he, "will state it thus, 'such an one has committed fornication,' but, 'in the Church of Corinthians that sin has been committed.'"
And he said not, "Fornication is perpetrated," but, "Is reported—such as is not even named among the Gentiles." For so continually he makes the Gentiles a topic of reproach to the believers. Thus writing to the Thessalonians, he said, 1 Thessalonians 4:4-5, καὶ τιμῆ om. τὰ λοιπὰ inserted "Let every one possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification, not in the passion of lust, even as the rest of the Gentiles." And to the Colossians and Ephesians, Ephesians 4:17. cf. Colossians 3:6-7 "That you should no longer walk, as the other Gentiles walk." Now if their committing the same sins was unpardonable, when they even outdid the Gentiles, what place can we find for them? Tell me: "inasmuch as among the Gentiles," so he speaks, not only they dare no such thing, but they do not even give it a name. Do you see to what point he aggravated his charge? For when they are convicted of inventing such modes of uncleanness as the unbelievers, so far from venturing on them, do not even know of, the sin must be exceeding great, beyond all words. And the clause, "among you," is spoken also emphatically; that is, "Among you, the faithful, who have been favored with so high mysteries, the partakers of secrets, the guests invited to heaven." Do you mark with what indignant feeling his works overflow? With what anger against all? For had it not been for the great wrath of which he was full, had he not been setting himself against them all, he would have spoken thus: "Having heard that such and such a person has committed fornication, I charge you to punish him." But as it is he does not so; he rather challenges all at once. And indeed, if they had written first, this is what he probably would have said. Since however so far from writing, they had even thrown the fault into the shade, on this account he orders his discourse more vehemently.
2. "That one of you should have his father's wife." Wherefore said he not, "That he should abuse his father's wife?" The extreme foulness of the deed caused him to shrink. He hurries by it accordingly, with a sort of scrupulousness as though it had been explicitly mentioned before. And hereby again he aggravates the charge, implying that such things are ventured on among them as even to speak plainly of was intolerable for Paul. Wherefore also, as he goes on, he uses the same mode of speech, saying, "Him who has so done this thing:" and is again ashamed and blushes to speak out; which also we are wont to do in regard of matters extremely disgraceful. And he said not, "his step-mother," but, "his father's wife;" so as to strike much more severely. For when the mere terms are sufficient to convey the charge, he proceeds with them simply, adding nothing.
And "tell me not," says he, "that the fornicator is but one: the charge has become common to all." Wherefore at once he added, "and you are puffed up:" he said not, "with the sin;" for this would imply want of all reason: but with the doctrine you have heard from that person. This however he set not down himself, but left it undetermined, that he might inflict a heavier blow.
And mark the good sense of Paul. Having first overthrown the wisdom from without, and signified that it is nothing by itself although no sin were associated with it; then and not till then he discourses about the sin also. For if by way of comparison with the fornicator who perhaps was some wise one, he had maintained the greatness of his own spiritual gift; he had done no great thing: but even when unattended with sin to take down the heathen wisdom and demonstrate it to be nothing, this was indicating its extreme worthlessness indeed. Wherefore first, as I said, having made the comparison, he afterwards mentions the man's sin also.
And with him indeed he condescends not to debate, and thereby signifies the exceeding greatness of his dishonor. But to the others he says, "You ought to weep and wail, and cover your faces, but now ye do the contrary." And this is the force of the next clause, "And you are puffed up, and did not rather mourn."
"And why are we to weep?" some might say. Because the reproach has made its way even unto the whole body of your Church. "And what good are we to get by our weeping?" "That such an one should be taken away from you." Not even here does he mention his name; rather, I should say, not any where; which in all monstrous things is our usual way.
And he said not, "You have not rather cast him out," but, as in the case of any disease or pestilence, "there is need of mourning," says he, "and of intense supplication, 'that he may be taken away.' And you should have used prayer for this, and left nothing undone that he should be cut off."
Nor yet does he accuse them for not having given him information, but for not having mourned so that the man should be taken away; implying that even without their Teacher this ought to have been done, because of the notoriety of the offense.
3. "For I verily being absent in body, but present in spirit."
Mark his energy. He suffers them not even to wait for his presence, nor to receive him first and then pass the sentence of binding: but as if on the point of expelling some contagion before that it have spread itself into the rest of the body, he hastens to restrain it. And therefore he subjoins the clause, "I have judged already, as though I were present." These things moreover he said, not only to urge them unto the declaration of their sentence and to give them no opportunity of contriving something else, but also to frighten them, as one who knew what was to be done and determined there. For this is the meaning of being "present in spirit:" as Elisha was present with Gehazi, and said, Went not my heart with you? 2 Kings 5:26 Wonderful! How great is the power of the gift, in that it makes all to be together and as one; and qualifies them to know the things which are far off. "I have judged already as though I were present."
He permits them not to have any other device. "Now I have uttered my decision as if I were present: let there be no delays and puttings off: for nothing else must be done."
Then lest he should be thought too authoritative and his speech sound rather self-willed, mark how he makes them also partners in the sentence. For having said, "I have judged," he adds, concerning him that has so wrought this thing, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan.
Now what means, "In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ?" "According to God;" "not possessed with any human prejudice."
Some, however, read thus, "Him that has so wrought this thing in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," and putting a stop there or a break, then subjoin what follows, saying, "When you are gathered together and my spirit to deliver such an one unto Satan:" and they assert that the sense of this reading is as follows, "Him that has done this thing in the Name of Christ," says St. Paul, "deliver ye unto Satan;" that is, "him that has done insult unto the Name of Christ, him that, after he had become a believer and was called after that appellation, has dared to do such things, deliver ye unto Satan." But to me the former exposition (ἐκδοσις . It seems to mean "enunciation.") appears the truer.
What then is this? "When you are gathered together in the Name of the Lord." That is; His Name, in whose behalf you have met, collecting you together.
"And my spirit." Again he sets himself at their head in order that when they should pass sentence, they might no otherwise cut off the offender than as if he were present; and that no one might dare to judge him pardonable, knowing that Paul would be aware of the proceedings.
4. Then making it yet more awful, he says, "with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ;" that is, either that Christ is able to give you such grace as that you should have power to deliver him to the devil; or that He is Himself together with you passing that sentence against him.
And he said not, "Give up" such an one to Satan, but "deliver;" opening unto him the doors of repentance, and delivering up such an one as it were to a schoolmaster. And again it is, "such an one:" he no where can endure to make mention of his name.
"For the destruction of the flesh." As was done in the case of the blessed Job, but not upon the same ground. For in that case it was for brighter crowns, but here for loosing of sins; that he might scourge him with a grievous sore or some other disease. True it is that elsewhere he says, "Of the Lord are we judged, 1 Corinthians 11:32 when we suffer these things." But here, desirous of making them feel it more severely, he "delivers up unto Satan." And so this too which God had determined ensued, that the man's flesh was chastised. For because inordinate eating and carnal luxuriousness are the parents of desires, it is the flesh which he chastises.
"That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus;" that is the soul. Not as though this were saved alone, but because it was a settled point that if that were saved, without all controversy the body too would partake in its salvation. For as it became mortal because of the soul's sinning: so if this do righteousness, that also on the other hand shall enjoy great glory.
But some maintain, that "the Spirit" is the Gracious Gift which is extinguished when we sin. "In order then that this may not happen," says he, "let him be punished; that thereby becoming better, he may draw down to himself God's grace, and be found having it safe in that day." So that all comes as from one exercising a nurse's or a physician's office, not merely scourging nor punishing rashly and at random. For the gain is greater than the punishment: one being but for a season, the other everlasting.
And he said not simply, "That the spirit may be saved," but "in that day." Well and seasonably does he remind them of that day in order that both they might more readily apply themselves to the cure, and that the person censured might the rather receive his words, not as it were of anger, but as the forethought of an anxious father. For this cause also he said, "unto the destruction of the flesh:" proceeding to lay down regulations for the devil and not suffering him to go a step too far. As in the instance of Job, God said, Job 2:6 "But touch not his life."
5. Then, having ended his sentence, and spoken it in brief without dwelling on it, he brings in again a rebuke, directing himself against them;
Don't see anything about kicking a person out of the Church.
As I explained earlier, Corinthians 5:1-6 allows for casting those who do not adhere to the Church and cause disease among the congregation, like the ideology of homosexuals, to be cast out
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was nt practiced by the Church.
"that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you" = cast out of the communion of the Church. = Excommunication
Don't see anything about kicking a person out of the Church.
As I explained earlier, Corinthians 5:1-6 allows for casting those who do not adhere to the Church and cause disease among the congregation, like the ideology of homosexuals, to be cast out
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was nt practiced by the Church.
"that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you" = cast out of the communion of the Church. = Excommunication
So you think you know more than St. John Chrysostom, a man who was a theologian, patriarch, saint and prolific writer? You put yourself above him and say you know what St. Paul meant better than him and that he is 'not specific'?! There is a reason St. John was given the title 'Chrysostom' (golden-tongue). It's because he had a way with words. He said what he meant and meant what he said. He was never 'not specific'.
Furthermore, you don't know what excommunication is. It is not expulsion from the Church.
Eastern Orthodox churches
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy. The Moscow Patriarchate declared Sergius Bulgakov a heretic in this fashion because of his pronouncements on Sancta Sofia being something like a fourth dimension to the Trinity.
So you think you know more than St. John Chrysostom, a man who was a theologian, patriarch, saint and prolific writer? You put yourself above him and say you know what St. Paul meant better than him and that he is 'not specific'?!
Furthermore, you don't know what excommunication is. It is not expulsion from the Church
Did I ever mention expulsion, anathema or you are the one who keep putting words in my mouth.
Here are my words: Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was practiced by the Church.
You are the one who chose to interpret my words as if I am speaking of anathema. Either you misunderstood, or you intentionally chose to misrepresent what I said to pick a feud.
Excommunication means not to partake of the communion, be outside the community till repentance is offered.
Here is more information for you:
Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive, suspend or limit membership in a religious community. The word means putting [someone] out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community.
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy. Source
So in Cor 5:1-6 St Paul excommunicated that person, who married his step mother, with the goal of having him realize the seriousness of his sin. This is what many fathers explained including St John Chrysostom.
When one is not allowed to approach the holy mysteries and not allowed to be in communion with the faithful, s/he will realize the seriousness of s/his mistake and how holy s/he needs to be to restore the relationship with God.
This approach is evident in the Church history and has turned many sinners to great saints.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144709#msg144709 date=1316019619] If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144758#msg144758 date=1316064399] As I explained earlier, Corinthians 5:1-6 allows for casting those who do not adhere to the Church and cause disease among the congregation, like the ideology of homosexuals, to be cast out
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144758#msg144758 date=1316064399] "that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you" = cast out of the communion of the Church. = Excommunication
It is clear to me you don't even understand what you're saying. Note the bolded red words. All you have been saying is expel them from the Church. I have provided the definition of excommunication within the context of the Church. To show you that it is not a fluke, I will provide another source:
Excommunication is the exclusion of an Orthodox Christian from the Eucharist, that is from Communion. It is a form of church discipline. The act of excommunication is considered a transient action concerning a member who has done something that separates him from the church community as attempts are made of restoring the member to full communion.
The word excommunication is from the Latin, ex meaning out of, and communio or communicatio meaning communion, thus ‘exclusion from the communion’.
For serious acts, such as unrepentant heresy, the church pronounces an anathema as a means of expulsion that leaves the person outside of the Church and to his own devices.
You are the one who has subtly brought in the concept of anathema because you are talking about 'casting sinners out of the Church'. That is the definition of anathema. It is all well and good that you think you're clever in providing a broad definition of what excommunication means. Unfortunately for you, there is a specific definition used within the context of the Church that applies to those in the Church. As such, what do I care about how other religions define or apply the term excommunication. The only definition that matters is that of the Church's. As can also be seen above, excommunication is not casting someone out of the Church. It is a pastoral act that prevents the individual from partaking of the Eucharist (also called communion). I can see why someone like you would have difficulty with understanding the different nuances of the word 'communion'.
Additionally, here is what the expression 'cast out' means:
Phrasal Verbs:
cast about/around 1. To make a search; look: had to cast about for an hour, looking for a good campsite. 2. To devise means; contrive.
cast off 1. To discard; reject: cast off old clothing. 2. To let go; set loose: cast off a boat; cast off a line. 3. To make the last row of stitches in knitting. 4. Printing To estimate the space a mansucript will occupy when set into type.
cast on To make the first row of stitches in knitting.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144767#msg144767 date=1316087340] Here are my words: Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was practiced by the Church.
Because you like to repeat yourself (thinking that it helps reinforce your point), I will be happy to oblige:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12337.msg144761#msg144761 date=1316071383] + Irini nem ehmot,
So you think you know more than St. John Chrysostom, a man who was a theologian, patriarch, saint and prolific writer? You put yourself above him and say you know what St. Paul meant better than him and that he is 'not specific'?! There is a reason St. John was given the title 'Chrysostom' (golden-tongue). It's because he had a way with words. He said what he meant and meant what he said. He was never 'not specific'.
Since you say 'many fathers' say something, back it up; because quite frankly, just because you say something means absolutely nothing.
It is clear to me that this is an exercise in futility. There is no point in continuing this 'discussion' with you.
Since you say 'many fathers' say something, back it up; because quite frankly, just because you say something means absolutely nothing.
So, do you deny the fact that many fathers explain the verses of 1 Cor 5:1-6 as excommunication? Are you saying that there is no back up to what I am saying? Do you always have to have proof to believe? Do you always have the inclination to doubt anything else, other than your own?
If you need proof, let me know and I will provide several fathers' quotations, so your mind may be at ease.
Word of caution: Just because you lack the knowledge of something does not mean it does not exist.
It is clear to me you don't even understand what you're saying. Note the bolded red words. All you have been saying is expel them from the Church. I have provided the definition of excommunication within the context of the Church.
Church is the community of the faithful. Cast out of the Church = excommunication. Since you are fond of looking up in the dictionaries, here is something for you about the verb "cast out":
Main Entry: banish Part of Speech: verb Definition: expel from place or situation Synonyms: ban, cast out, deport, discard, discharge, dislodge, dismiss, dispel, drive away, eject, eliminate, eradicate, evict, exclude, excommunicate, exile, expatriate, expulse , extradict, get rid of, isolate, ostracize, oust, outlaw, proscribe, relegate, remove, rusticate, sequester, shake off, shut out, transport
Antonyms: allow, keep, welcome
Source: Thesaurus.com
Again, you pick what you like of these definitions, apply it to what I said and voila you are on to debate. Grow up.
I think about Jesus throwing out the money lenders out of the temple because it was a holy place and the money lenders understood it was a holy place. So I guess in fairness they couldn't complain being denyed access. Jesus didn't take a docter appoach.
I think about Jesus throwing out the money lenders out of the temple because it was a holy place and the money lenders understood it was a holy place. So I guess in fairness they couldn't complain being denyed access. Jesus didn't take a docter appoach.
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=12337.msg144782#msg144782 date=1316122730] I think about Jesus throwing out the money lenders out of the temple because it was a holy place and the money lenders understood it was a holy place. So I guess in fairness they couldn't complain being denyed access. Jesus didn't take a docter appoach.
Actually ...
"Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
This woman, that Jesus forgave in Simon's house did recognize that she was a sinner.
What we are talking about regarding excommunication is for those who do not recognize that they are sineers, do not want to listen to the Church, pose a danger to the flock.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144805#msg144805 date=1316181012] This woman, that Jesus forgave in Simon's house did recognize that she was a sinner.
What we are talking about regarding excommunication is for those who do not recognize that they are sineers, do not want to listen to the Church, pose a danger to the flock.
Then invite them to a special meeting just for them, and keep the young impressionable members of the flock away from them. Let the adults handle them. We are not all endangered by speaking to them, in fact for most servants there is no danger at all. Why not invite them to the Church and speak to them about things unrelated to homosexuality - let them see the real core of the Church (charity, egalitarian love etc.) and then perhaps they will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say about their sexual orientation.
Christ didn't leave us the option of choosing who we do and don't let into the Church. ALL are welcome, ALL must be chased after - Christ didn't ignore the prostitutes or tax collectors, and neither must we. If it takes convincing, then we shall do everything in our power to convince them and leave the rest up to God. If simply pointing to Romans 1 doesn't work (and it rarely does) then we must change our tack.
[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=12337.msg144809#msg144809 date=1316184130] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144805#msg144805 date=1316181012] This woman, that Jesus forgave in Simon's house did recognize that she was a sinner.
What we are talking about regarding excommunication is for those who do not recognize that they are sineers, do not want to listen to the Church, pose a danger to the flock.
Then invite them to a special meeting just for them, and keep the young impressionable members of the flock away from them. Let the adults handle them. We are not all endangered by speaking to them, in fact for most servants there is no danger at all. Why not invite them to the Church and speak to them about things unrelated to homosexuality - let them see the real core of the Church (charity, egalitarian love etc.) and then perhaps they will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say about their sexual orientation.
Christ didn't leave us the option of choosing who we do and don't let into the Church. ALL are welcome, ALL must be chased after - Christ didn't ignore the prostitutes or tax collectors, and neither must we. If it takes convincing, then we shall do everything in our power to convince them and leave the rest up to God. If simply pointing to Romans 1 doesn't work (and it rarely does) then we must change our tack.
God bless
Very good suggestions.
I believe you are mixing between spiritual meetings and liturgical services. What I am addressing here is excommunication from liturgical services.
At the end of the day excommunication is dealt with on a case by case basis. There is no formula that you plug in variables and come up with an answer. It is left to the wisdom of the clergy and the guidance of the Spirit.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12337.msg144811#msg144811 date=1316192782] At the end of the day excommunication is dealt with on a case by case basis. There is no formula that you plug in variables and come up with an answer. It is left to the wisdom of the clergy and the guidance of the Spirit.
I understand what you are saying unworthy .. in all my posts I said the Church is the one that excommunicate because quite frankly, individual members do not have the authority to do so.
1 Cor 5:1-6 is the perfect example of what I am talking about.
this is kinda funny...its not like the church has a stack of 'excommunication certificates' in the priest's drawer waiting to be filled out and distributed. Excommunication is the church's very last resort in the battle for the person's salvation within the Church Body. Also, please note that a priest himself cannot excommunicate anyone. He can of course, bring up cases to his local bishop who then decides based on the circumstances whether or not this case is unfortunate enough to have to be excommunicated from the Body of Christ. In a normal scenario, hopefully the priest would try and try and try with this person to what we call in arabic 'netfa7em ma3 ba3d" lol or in other words to try and gently make the individual come to terms with his own condition and the Church's teaching. This is called PASTORAL CARE and every priest should excercise it during sensitive cases surrounding relationships, death, illness, and sin etc.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12337.msg144820#msg144820 date=1316209198] this is kinda funny...its not like the church has a stack of 'excommunication certificates' in the priest's drawer waiting to be filled out and distributed. Excommunication is the church's very last resort in the battle for the person's salvation within the Church Body. Also, please note that a priest himself cannot excommunicate anyone. He can of course, bring up cases to his local bishop who then decides based on the circumstances whether or not this case is unfortunate enough to have to be excommunicated from the Body of Christ. In a normal scenario, hopefully the priest would try and try and try with this person to what we call in arabic 'netfa7em ma3 ba3d" lol or in other words to try and gently make the individual come to terms with his own condition and the Church's teaching. This is called PASTORAL CARE and every priest should excercise it during sensitive cases surrounding relationships, death, illness, and sin etc.
You are confusing excommunication with anathema ...
Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive, suspend or limit membership in a religious community. The word means putting [someone] out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community.
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy. Source
So in Cor 5:1-6 St Paul excommunicated that person, who married his step mother, with the goal of having him realize the seriousness of his sin.
There is a difference between a sermon and a discussion. So the intention, once again, of this podcast is to propagate (healthy) discussion. Which you inadvertently pointed out, isn't happening at church on the scale you mentioned.
If a social issue like homosexuality is only viewed as a sin by the church community, then this is a problem since belief inform actions, and in this case people have and most likely will only ever perceive homosexuals as intentional sinners and be almost entirely ignorant of the kinds of struggles that one would face as a homosexual internally and in mainstream society, let a lone a culture that knows almost nothing about sexual identity.
So healthy discussion (hearing both sides of something then discussing and listening to other people's opinions) may lead to education which may lead to the better treatment of people.
Comments
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144648#msg144648 date=1315933206] Back to the satirical comments ... whatever man.
If you see a return of satirical comments it is probably because you are a walking satire and are deserving of such comments.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144648#msg144648 date=1315933206] So your strategy is that even they do not agree with what the priest says and insist that the Church is wrong and has to accept them the way they are, as well as, stirring havoc to change the congregation's view in accepting homosexuality as a fact and not a sin, you will still welcome them. Is that what you are saying?
Here is what is being suggested. I am going to use the Church as a hospital analogy as this is how the Fathers have often viewed the Church.
You have a friend who is sick. They don’t see that they are sick, but you, because you’ve read up a little bit on their condition, see the symptoms and want to help them. So, what do you do? You take your friend to the hospital. Your friend will probably be resistant at first as they do not feel they are sick. However, because of your genuine love and concern for them, they will oblige and allow you to take them to the hospital, despite not believing they are sick. So, you take them to the hospital and you see a doctor. The doctor suggests to your friend that they stay for some time so that the doctor can perform some tests and keep them under observation. The sick person is initially hesitant and may be utterly resistant to the idea. However, because of your genuine love, concern and persistence that they stay, they oblige for your sake (again, despite not believing they are sick). The doctor begins to run tests and tells the sick friend the results. The sick friend is still hesitant (and possibly resistant) to accept the fact that they are sick. The doctor continues to run tests and begins treatment while consulting the Chief of Medicine, who also takes an interest in the case and guides the doctor in performing the proper tests and prescribing the proper treatments. As more tests are performed, and as more results come in, and as greater treatment is prescribed, the sick patient begins to slowly realize that they may, in fact, be sick. Meanwhile, you are by your friend’s side the entire time, offering them words of comfort as they resist at first, but gradually begin to accept the test results and the ensuing treatment. The doctor, with the aid of the Chief of Medicine, continue to provide treatment and run tests to check on the progression of the illness until, eventually, the illness is treated.
THAT is what is expected of us. In this analogy: replace hospital with the Church; replace sick friend with sinner; replace doctor with priest; replace Chief of Medicine with Christ; replace run tests with pastoral care; replace treatment with the Sacraments and replace sick and illness with any variation of the word sin. The hospital, the doctor, the Chief of Medicine and even you do not change your view on the illness that your friend has. Rather, over time, it is your friend that comes to realize they are sick and accepts the treatment.
In the case of the homosexual, does it mean that when the ‘illness is treated’ they cease being homosexual? Of course not. They won’t magically become heterosexual. However, they will come to realize that homosexual acts are sinful and that part of the treatment they must perform, in addition to partaking of the Sacraments, is to live a life of celibacy.
Here is what you have been suggesting:
A person brings their sick friend to the hospital, despite this sick friend not truly believing they are sick. imikhail is barring the door to the hospital and saying to this sick person, ‘You are not welcome in the hospital, despite being sick. Go away and come back when you acknowledge you are sick and are better. Then and only then are you worthy of entering this hospital.’
Thankfully, our God is far more merciful, compassionate and loving than you and welcomes all to Him.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144648#msg144648 date=1315933206] Back to the satirical comments ... whatever man. Whatever man.
The scenario I created suggests that they won't listen and that they won't realize. You on the other hand created the scenario of having them listened and having them realized.
No one is suggesting to get rid of sinners from the Church without working with them first to realize that they are sinners. If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
We repent our sins to change for the sake of purity. Homosexuality does not repent and does not change for the sake of love. We share love but not repentance. One of the reasons we go to church is to be purified. So then what the homosexual offers isn't true and comes off like a bribe. Offering something good- love but behind it something bad- corrupt desire.
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=12337.msg144726#msg144726 date=1316036384]
We repent our sins to change for the sake of purity. Homosexuality does not repent and does not change for the sake of love. We share love but not repentance. One of the reasons we go to church is to be purified. So then what the homosexual offers isn't true and comes off like a bribe. Offering something good- love but behind it something bad- corrupt desire.
???
What?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144709#msg144709 date=1316019619] Your key statement is "realize they are sick".
The scenario I created suggests that they won't listen and that they won't realize. You on the other hand created the scenario of having them listened and having them realized.
No one is suggesting to get rid of sinners from the Church without working with them first to realize that they are sinners. If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
A person who is in a hospital will be allowed to remain in the hospital treated by a doctor regardless of whether they realize they are sick or not. The only time a person in a hospital will not be treated is when they willfully check themselves out of the hospital and refuse treatment (often against the doctors wishes). The same is true within the Church. The fact that you keep bringing in the congregation is silly. The congregation will not be affected by the repentance (or unrepentance) of a sinner. That is between them and their priest, not the congregation as a whole. In the hospital analogy, this would be like the other patients being concerned about whether another patient believes they are sick or not. That would never happen as each patient in the hospital is more concerned about their own sickness and getting better, and the treatment prescribed is between them and their doctor.
How many people enter the church unrepentant of their sins? You have no bloody clue. And yet, if it were up to you, you'd banish the lot of them. That is utter insanity. The only place a sinner can get treatment is within the Church. Even if they may be unrepentant, that is between that person and the priest. The priest prescribes the treatment, not you, the congregation, or anyone else for that matter.
If homosexuals are so vocal about acceptance, maybe it's because of how vocal those who discriminate against them are. It seems that the homosexual's sin is infinitely greater than any other sin, and as such, they should be ostracized and put out of the Church. If they were treated with the same love, compassion and respect other sinners received, then maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't react in the way they do.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144709#msg144709 date=1316019619] Your key statement is "realize they are sick".
The scenario I created suggests that they won't listen and that they won't realize. You on the other hand created the scenario of having them listened and having them realized.
No one is suggesting to get rid of sinners from the Church without working with them first to realize that they are sinners. If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
A person who is in a hospital will be allowed to remain in the hospital treated by a doctor regardless of whether they realize they are sick or not. The only time a person in a hospital will not be treated is when they willfully check themselves out of the hospital and refuse treatment (often against the doctors wishes). The same is true within the Church. The fact that you keep bringing in the congregation is silly. The congregation will not be affected by the repentance (or unrepentance) of a sinner. That is between them and their priest, not the congregation as a whole. In the hospital analogy, this would be like the other patients being concerned about whether another patient believes they are sick or not. That would never happen as each patient in the hospital is more concerned about their own sickness and getting better, and the treatment prescribed is between them and their doctor.
How many people enter the church unrepentant of their sins? You have no bloody clue. And yet, if it were up to you, you'd banish the lot of them. That is utter insanity. The only place a sinner can get treatment is within the Church. Even if they may be unrepentant, that is between that person and the priest. The priest prescribes the treatment, not you, the congregation, or anyone else for that matter.
If homosexuals are so vocal about acceptance, maybe it's because of how vocal those who discriminate against them are. It seems that the homosexual's sin is infinitely greater than any other sin, and as such, they should be ostracized and put out of the Church. If they were treated with the same love, compassion and respect other sinners received, then maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't react in the way they do.
TRUE DAT.
What I was concerned about is what they are sharing and if it is shared does that make it acceptible?
When a homosexual starts advocating acceptance of homosexuality, like the ones I shared in post 53, this person has no place in the Church till s/he acknowledges that homosexuality is a sin and comes to the Church for cure.
If one does not listen to the Church and is arrogant about their sin and has the potential to affect the congregation - the Church needs and will put him away.
2 Corinthean 5:1 - 6
"1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump"
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144747#msg144747 date=1316054715]
Sin, like disease, falls into categories of acuteness, is contagious, and will be dealt with accordingly.
When a homosexual starts advocating acceptance of homosexuality, like the ones I shared in post 53, this person has no place in the Church till s/he acknowledges that homosexuality is a sin and comes to the Church for cure.
You clearly didn't read my analogy. Read it again. Slowly. I've addressed the case of where a patient does not recognize they are sick. They are still welcome (in fact, encouraged) to remain in the hospital and receive treatment from the doctor. The doctor will never dismiss a patient or kick them out of the hospital just because the patient does not recognize their sickness. If the patient, of their own free will, chooses to leave the hospital, that is something else entirely. However, the doctor or the hospital will never kick the patient out.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144747#msg144747 date=1316054715]
2 Corinthean 5:1 - 6
"1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump"
If you're going to reference St. Paul, for the love of God, at least get it right. 1 Corinthians 5:1-6 is what you want.
Regarding that here is what St. John Chrysostom says: Source
Don't see anything about kicking a person out of the Church.
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was nt practiced by the Church.
"that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you" = cast out of the communion of the Church. = Excommunication
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144758#msg144758 date=1316064399] As I explained earlier, Corinthians 5:1-6 allows for casting those who do not adhere to the Church and cause disease among the congregation, like the ideology of homosexuals, to be cast out
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was nt practiced by the Church.
"that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you" = cast out of the communion of the Church. = Excommunication
So you think you know more than St. John Chrysostom, a man who was a theologian, patriarch, saint and prolific writer? You put yourself above him and say you know what St. Paul meant better than him and that he is 'not specific'?! There is a reason St. John was given the title 'Chrysostom' (golden-tongue). It's because he had a way with words. He said what he meant and meant what he said. He was never 'not specific'.
Furthermore, you don't know what excommunication is. It is not expulsion from the Church. Source
Expulsion from the Church is by anathema only, not excommunication.
So seeing as how you have proven you don't have a leg to stand on, why not just bow out before you embarrass yourself further.
Here are my words:
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was practiced by the Church.
You are the one who chose to interpret my words as if I am speaking of anathema. Either you misunderstood, or you intentionally chose to misrepresent what I said to pick a feud.
Excommunication means not to partake of the communion, be outside the community till repentance is offered.
Here is more information for you:
Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive, suspend or limit membership in a religious community. The word means putting [someone] out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community.
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy.
Source
So in Cor 5:1-6 St Paul excommunicated that person, who married his step mother, with the goal of having him realize the seriousness of his sin. This is what many fathers explained including St John Chrysostom.
I agree completely with you.
When one is not allowed to approach the holy mysteries and not allowed to be in communion with the faithful, s/he will realize the seriousness of s/his mistake and how holy s/he needs to be to restore the relationship with God.
This approach is evident in the Church history and has turned many sinners to great saints.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144709#msg144709 date=1316019619]
If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144758#msg144758 date=1316064399]
As I explained earlier, Corinthians 5:1-6 allows for casting those who do not adhere to the Church and cause disease among the congregation, like the ideology of homosexuals, to be cast out
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144758#msg144758 date=1316064399]
"that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you" = cast out of the communion of the Church. = Excommunication
It is clear to me you don't even understand what you're saying. Note the bolded red words. All you have been saying is expel them from the Church. I have provided the definition of excommunication within the context of the Church. To show you that it is not a fluke, I will provide another source: Source
You are the one who has subtly brought in the concept of anathema because you are talking about 'casting sinners out of the Church'. That is the definition of anathema. It is all well and good that you think you're clever in providing a broad definition of what excommunication means. Unfortunately for you, there is a specific definition used within the context of the Church that applies to those in the Church. As such, what do I care about how other religions define or apply the term excommunication. The only definition that matters is that of the Church's. As can also be seen above, excommunication is not casting someone out of the Church. It is a pastoral act that prevents the individual from partaking of the Eucharist (also called communion). I can see why someone like you would have difficulty with understanding the different nuances of the word 'communion'.
Additionally, here is what the expression 'cast out' means: Source
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144767#msg144767 date=1316087340]
Here are my words:
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was practiced by the Church.
Because you like to repeat yourself (thinking that it helps reinforce your point), I will be happy to oblige:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12337.msg144761#msg144761 date=1316071383]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
So you think you know more than St. John Chrysostom, a man who was a theologian, patriarch, saint and prolific writer? You put yourself above him and say you know what St. Paul meant better than him and that he is 'not specific'?! There is a reason St. John was given the title 'Chrysostom' (golden-tongue). It's because he had a way with words. He said what he meant and meant what he said. He was never 'not specific'.
Since you say 'many fathers' say something, back it up; because quite frankly, just because you say something means absolutely nothing.
It is clear to me that this is an exercise in futility. There is no point in continuing this 'discussion' with you.
If you need proof, let me know and I will provide several fathers' quotations, so your mind may be at ease.
Word of caution: Just because you lack the knowledge of something does not mean it does not exist.
Since you are fond of looking up in the dictionaries, here is something for you about the verb "cast out":
Main Entry: banish
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: expel from place or situation
Synonyms: ban, cast out, deport, discard, discharge, dislodge, dismiss, dispel, drive away, eject, eliminate, eradicate, evict, exclude, excommunicate, exile, expatriate, expulse , extradict, get rid of, isolate, ostracize, oust, outlaw, proscribe, relegate, remove, rusticate, sequester, shake off, shut out, transport
Antonyms: allow, keep, welcome
Source: Thesaurus.com
Again, you pick what you like of these definitions, apply it to what I said and voila you are on to debate. Grow up.
Hope you have learned something.
I think about Jesus throwing out the money lenders out of the temple because it was a holy place and the money lenders understood it was a holy place. So I guess in fairness they couldn't complain being denyed access. Jesus didn't take a docter appoach.
I also think it is hard for them to repent because they are a political body.
I think about Jesus throwing out the money lenders out of the temple because it was a holy place and the money lenders understood it was a holy place. So I guess in fairness they couldn't complain being denyed access. Jesus didn't take a docter appoach.
???
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=12337.msg144783#msg144783 date=1316122993]
I also think it is hard for them to repent because they are a political body.
???
:-\
I think about Jesus throwing out the money lenders out of the temple because it was a holy place and the money lenders understood it was a holy place. So I guess in fairness they couldn't complain being denyed access. Jesus didn't take a docter appoach.
Actually ...
"Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
What we are talking about regarding excommunication is for those who do not recognize that they are sineers, do not want to listen to the Church, pose a danger to the flock.
This woman, that Jesus forgave in Simon's house did recognize that she was a sinner.
What we are talking about regarding excommunication is for those who do not recognize that they are sineers, do not want to listen to the Church, pose a danger to the flock.
Then invite them to a special meeting just for them, and keep the young impressionable members of the flock away from them. Let the adults handle them. We are not all endangered by speaking to them, in fact for most servants there is no danger at all. Why not invite them to the Church and speak to them about things unrelated to homosexuality - let them see the real core of the Church (charity, egalitarian love etc.) and then perhaps they will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say about their sexual orientation.
Christ didn't leave us the option of choosing who we do and don't let into the Church. ALL are welcome, ALL must be chased after - Christ didn't ignore the prostitutes or tax collectors, and neither must we. If it takes convincing, then we shall do everything in our power to convince them and leave the rest up to God. If simply pointing to Romans 1 doesn't work (and it rarely does) then we must change our tack.
God bless
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144805#msg144805 date=1316181012]
This woman, that Jesus forgave in Simon's house did recognize that she was a sinner.
What we are talking about regarding excommunication is for those who do not recognize that they are sineers, do not want to listen to the Church, pose a danger to the flock.
Then invite them to a special meeting just for them, and keep the young impressionable members of the flock away from them. Let the adults handle them. We are not all endangered by speaking to them, in fact for most servants there is no danger at all. Why not invite them to the Church and speak to them about things unrelated to homosexuality - let them see the real core of the Church (charity, egalitarian love etc.) and then perhaps they will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say about their sexual orientation.
Christ didn't leave us the option of choosing who we do and don't let into the Church. ALL are welcome, ALL must be chased after - Christ didn't ignore the prostitutes or tax collectors, and neither must we. If it takes convincing, then we shall do everything in our power to convince them and leave the rest up to God. If simply pointing to Romans 1 doesn't work (and it rarely does) then we must change our tack.
God bless
Very good suggestions.
I believe you are mixing between spiritual meetings and liturgical services. What I am addressing here is excommunication from liturgical services.
At the end of the day excommunication is dealt with on a case by case basis. There is no formula that you plug in variables and come up with an answer. It is left to the wisdom of the clergy and the guidance of the Spirit.
I understand what you are saying unworthy .. in all my posts I said the Church is the one that excommunicate because quite frankly, individual members do not have the authority to do so.
1 Cor 5:1-6 is the perfect example of what I am talking about.
this is kinda funny...its not like the church has a stack of 'excommunication certificates' in the priest's drawer waiting to be filled out and distributed. Excommunication is the church's very last resort in the battle for the person's salvation within the Church Body. Also, please note that a priest himself cannot excommunicate anyone. He can of course, bring up cases to his local bishop who then decides based on the circumstances whether or not this case is unfortunate enough to have to be excommunicated from the Body of Christ. In a normal scenario, hopefully the priest would try and try and try with this person to what we call in arabic 'netfa7em ma3 ba3d" lol or in other words to try and gently make the individual come to terms with his own condition and the Church's teaching. This is called PASTORAL CARE and every priest should excercise it during sensitive cases surrounding relationships, death, illness, and sin etc.
You are confusing excommunication with anathema ...
Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive, suspend or limit membership in a religious community. The word means putting [someone] out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community.
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy.
Source
So in Cor 5:1-6 St Paul excommunicated that person, who married his step mother, with the goal of having him realize the seriousness of his sin.
There is a difference between a sermon and a discussion. So the intention, once again, of this podcast is to propagate (healthy) discussion. Which you inadvertently pointed out, isn't happening at church on the scale you mentioned.
If a social issue like homosexuality is only viewed as a sin by the church community, then this is a problem since belief inform actions, and in this case people have and most likely will only ever perceive homosexuals as intentional sinners and be almost entirely ignorant of the kinds of struggles that one would face as a homosexual internally and in mainstream society, let a lone a culture that knows almost nothing about sexual identity.
So healthy discussion (hearing both sides of something then discussing and listening to other people's opinions) may lead to education which may lead to the better treatment of people.
Cy