Homosexuality in geneology?

[Mea_Culpa]

Do you mind elaborating about this?

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans (AD 110)

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deaconsas you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid.

This is the earliest use of the term Catholic Church. It was also in Antioch that believers were first called Christians. St. Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch, and considered an Apostolic Father because he directly heard the teaching of the Apostle John. He was martyred for the faith, facing wild beasts in the Arena in Rome.

 

[bullfrog543]

for it is also said for two or more gather in my name i will be present and it will be considered also to be of my church

 

[truagape]

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans (AD 110)

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deaconsas you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid.

This is the earliest use of the term Catholic Church. It was also in Antioch that believers were first called Christians. St. Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch, and considered an Apostolic Father because he directly heard the teaching of the Apostle John. He was martyred for the faith, facing wild beasts in the Arena in Rome.

Is that also the “earliest” period of what you call the “early Church”?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Is that also the “earliest” period of what you call the “early Church”?

No, the earliest period of Church history is chronicled in the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[truagape]

No, the earliest period of Church history is chronicled in the Acts of the Apostles.

And during that period, “the earliest part of the Church”, is the formation of the term “Christians”, presented?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

And during that period, “the earliest part of the Church”, is the formation of the term “Christians”, presented?

I don’t know what the point is, but you can read Acts of the Apostles and see it yourself in 11:25-26:

So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul;
and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

 

[truagape]

I don’t know what the point is, but you can read Acts of the Apostles and see it yourself in 11:25-26:

So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul;
and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

In the passage you posted, it uses the word church. Are you suggesting that it’s talking about the “Catholic” church?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

In the passage you posted, it uses the word church. Are you suggesting that it’s talking about the “Catholic” church?

This is getting off topic, but yes, the churches founded by the apostles and their disciples did become the Catholic Church, which is why we are called “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and the Pope is the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. This is historical fact. 1400 years later, different sects started breaking away from the One True Faith and they don’t have Apostolic succession. Catholics trace their Church back in an unbroken chain to Jesus Christ himself. No other church can make that claim.

 

[truagape]

This is getting off topic, but yes, the churches founded by the apostles and their disciples did become the Catholic Church, which is why we are called “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and the Pope is the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. This is historical fact. 1400 years later, different sects started breaking away from the One True Faith and they don’t have Apostolic succession. Catholics trace their Church back in an unbroken chain to Jesus Christ himself. No other church can make that claim.

You’re right it is getting off topic. Because I wasn’t interested in what you claim the referenced “church” later came to be recognized as. I was interested in the fact that the scripture which saw fit to identify the followers of Christ as being “christians”, says absolutely nothing about their church being “Catholic”. And this fact present itself in what indeed is the “early Church”. So when you say that "the early church even called itself the “Catholic Church”, (and you underlined early to make your point), that is misleading to say the least. That statment hides the fact that your reference point for “early” is actually after the penning of Scripture". And for Catholics who erroneously assert that the Catholic church “practically wrote the new testament” (as a poster in another thread retorted), oddly enough that same “Church”, left its own name out. Because not one verse in all of scripture ever referes to the “early church” as being “Catholic”. Out of the two fundamental elements of Catholicism: “Catholic”, and “Christian”, one is sorely missing from the pages of God’s Word.

 

[peduzzi89]

Whoa whoa whoa WHOA. You are entitled to your opinion, but I need to take issue with something, MC and Bennie. You seem to imply that married heterosexual couples only have sex for procreation…and that having it solely for pleasure is wrong. Why then does the church accept the rhythm method? That would leave room for sex for pleasure. Are you saying that that sex is only lust? The point is, same-sex couples CAN feel the same about eachother as heterosexual couples do. All you say is about that is: WRONG. Is that all you have to say? Once again you are thinking you understand something you do not. I have felt it and seen it before. My Uncles have been partners for 5 years. They love eachother, they complement eachother’s personalities, and the have the same sort of relationship that married couples better, oftentimes better in fact. Are you saying I’m imagining this? Biblical times didn’t have couples like that, and it doesnt condemn that particular kind. About leviticus…do you ever wear clothing woven from more than one cloth? We are no longer bound by the entire code of leviticus…or else we would be Jewish. I was referring to slavery in the old testament (very close to where you found that leviticus quote)

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I was interested in the fact that the scripture which saw fit to identify the followers of Christ as being “christians”, says absolutely nothing about their church being “Catholic”. And this fact present itself in what indeed is the “early Church”. So when you say that "the early church even called itself the “Catholic Church”, (and you underlined early to make your point), that is misleading to say the least. .

That wasn’t me that said that. Even so, AD110 is pretty early.

Oh, and SO WHAT? Is this supposed to prove something?

 

[truagape]

That wasn’t me that said that.

Oh, so now you’ll conveniently seperate yourself from those words, what for? Because I asked for an elaboration, and it was you who responded.

 

[truagape]

Even so, AD110 is pretty early.

As opposed to what?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Whoa whoa whoa WHOA. You are entitled to your opinion, but I need to take issue with something, MC and Bennie. You seem to imply that married heterosexual couples only have sex for procreation…and that having it solely for pleasure is wrong. Why then does the church accept the rhythm method? That would leave room for sex for pleasure. Are you saying that that sex is only lust?

No, sex in the context of a marriage is valid. And a marriage is between a man and a woman, so I’m not talking about a fake “gay” marriage.

The point is, same-sex couples CAN feel the same about eachother as heterosexual couples do. All you say is about that is: WRONG. Is that all you have to say? Once again you are thinking you understand something you do not. I have felt it and seen it before. My Uncles have been partners for 5 years. They love eachother, they complement eachother’s personalities, and the have the same sort of relationship that married couples better, oftentimes better in fact.

Homosexuals (unnatural) can never have the same sort of relationship (natural) that married couples (I assume you’re talking about man-woman real marriages here) have.

Are you saying I’m imagining this? Biblical times didn’t have couples like that, and it doesnt condemn that particular kind.

Like what? Pretending to be married? If SSA is natural and genetic, why weren’t there any “couples like that” in “Biblical times”?

About leviticus…do you ever wear clothing woven from more than one cloth? We are no longer bound by the entire code of leviticus…or else we would be Jewish. I was referring to slavery in the old testament (very close to where you found that leviticus quote)

If Leviticus isn’t relevant, why worry about what it says about slavery (again no reference). SSA is condemned in the New Testament plenty, so we don’t need to go to the OT.

Here are the infallible teachings of the Magisterium on this subject, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You have free will to accept them or reject them, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are the Truth of Christ as revealed to His Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, 141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

 

[truagape]

Oh, and SO WHAT? Is this supposed to prove something?

You tell me, did I successfully convey my point to you or not?

 

[truagape]

No, sex in the context of a marriage is valid. And a marriage is between a man and a woman, so I’m not talking about a fake “gay” marriage.

Homosexuals (unnatural) can never have the same sort of relationship (natural) that married couples (I assume you’re talking about man-woman real marriages here) have.

Like what? Pretending to be married? If SSA is natural and genetic, why weren’t there any “couples like that” in “Biblical times”?

If Leviticus isn’t relevant, why worry about what it says about slavery (again no reference). SSA is condemned in the New Testament plenty, so we don’t need to go to the OT.

Here are the infallible teachings of the Magisterium on this subject, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You have free will to accept them or reject them, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are the Truth of Christ as revealed to His Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, 141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

Since you appear to be a point and a click away from refernces, perhaps you can conjure up a list of all the “Church Fathers” that used the Greek word “arsenokoite(s)” (found in 1 Cor.6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10) to refer to homosexuality. Would you please?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

As opposed to what?

As opposed to later, I guess. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle, as I stated above. He is a Early Father of the Church, was a Bishop of the Church, and was the first to use the term “Catholic Church,” around 110 AD.

If your point is that Jesus, in Matthew 16, didn’t say “You are Peter, and on this rock I will found my CATHOLIC church.” - you are right. He didn’t say “my CHRISTIAN church” either. He just called it “my church.” And the Church founded by Peter and the Apostles was the Catholic Church.

I’m not seeing what you think you’re proving by pointing out that the word “Catholic” isn’t in the Holy Scriptures. Could you please explain that?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Since you appear to be a point and a click away from refernces, perhaps you can conjure up a list of all the “Church Fathers” that used the Greek word “arsenokoite(s)” (found in 1 Cor.6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10) to refer to homosexuality. Would you please?

If you have a point to make or something to say, why not say it? Tap dancing around your little innuendos is getting tiring.

And putting Church Fathers, many of whom were martyred for the Faith, in quotations marks as if they aren’t really Church Fathers, is incredibly insulting to a Catholic.

 

[truagape]

As opposed to later, I guess. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle, as I stated above. He is a Early Father of the Church, was a Bishop of the Church, and was the first to use the term “Catholic Church,” around 110 AD.

If your point is that Jesus, in Matthew 16, didn’t say “You are Peter, and on this rock I will found my CATHOLIC church.” - you are right. He didn’t say “my CHRISTIAN church” either. He just called it “my church.” And the Church founded by Peter and the Apostles was the Catholic Church.

I’m not seeing what you think you’re proving by pointing out that the word “Catholic” isn’t in the Holy Scriptures. Could you please explain that?

Sure! But perhaps you should first be reminded that my original response was to the following statement (which by the way you did not write so I apologize for the error) :
“…the early Church even called itself the Catholic Church”

The whole thrust of your response to my request was to show just how far back in history the term “Catholic” extended. And to add credence to your position you even sighted the letters of St. Ignatius to validate the term’s heritage. And to validate St. Ignatius, you referenced how he “directly heard the teachings of John.” I proceeded to followed your lead, and found that the teachings of John, who was personally taught by Jesus, who’s followers the Bible calls “Christians”, never refered to their Church as it being the “Catholic Church”. In fact you even made the remark that “Even so AD110 is pretty early”, as if to say the earlier the better. The fact is, for you to even support the statement that “even the early Church called itself Catholic…”, is to deny that the “early Church”, is the same Church discussed in the book of Acts.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

The fact is, for you to even support the statement that “even the early Church called itself Catholic…”, is to deny that the “early Church”, is the same Church discussed in the book of Acts.

The churches at Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, etc. that are discussed in the Acts of the Apostles are the nucleus of what became the Catholic Church. They weren’t officially called “Catholic” until 110 AD., but they were the same churches that made up the Catholic Church from it’s beginning.

Are you trying to imply that the churches in Acts of the Apostles went on to become some other church? If so, which one? Baptist? Mormon?

Jesus told Peter “You are Peter, and on this rock I will found my church.” Peter and the other apostles went on to build a Church. After awhile, that Church became known as the Catholic Church. I don’t see why this is complicated.