OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 02:28:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope says, "Who am I to judge Gay people". / Pope Francis Acceptance of Gays  (Read 7458 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,390


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #225 on: August 01, 2013, 09:39:25 PM »

WWJD? Or should I say, what DID Jesus do?


He let the children come to him and comforted them in a fatherly fashion, not acted like a buffon in order to get their attention.

We don't need to act childlike in order to reach children but act parent-like.

Sure, but parents often act like buffoons when playing with their children. 

I'm not disagreeing with you that this wasn't the best thing for a bunch of bishops to do.  I couldn't watch it without cringing, grimacing, and feeling awkward for them.  I just think the problem you guys face is multifaceted.  It's not like the post-Vatican II RCC has been marked by fidelity to church teaching, consistency of episcopal leadership, a healthy liturgical life, or any other "markers" of ecclesiastical health.  Do the bishops have the moral "authority" required merely to teach and expect the flock to lap it up?  Or have things gotten sufficiently lax and egalitarian that bishops will have to "smell like their flock" (as your new Pope supposedly says) and reach them where they are as they can?  Frankly, I think there are pros and cons to this more informal method of episcopal ministry as well as pros and cons to the more traditional model.     
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #226 on: August 01, 2013, 09:44:00 PM »

Never trust a person who is too proud to make a fool of themselves for a greater good.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #227 on: August 01, 2013, 10:37:43 PM »

Never trust a person who is too proud to make a fool of themselves for a greater good.
If there was every a lesson that I have learned in nearly a decade of teaching, it was this^
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #228 on: August 01, 2013, 11:15:30 PM »

Entertaining a desire or lusting after someone would be considered sinful regardless of who was the object according those guides on confession I have read.
Regardless of who was the object? Really? This seems a weird teaching. You mean a man would go to hell if he desires his wife? I don't believe this. At least in the RCC, I thought it was OK for a man to desire and have lust for his wife within marriage. 
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,390


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #229 on: August 01, 2013, 11:36:59 PM »

You mean a man would go to hell if he desires his wife? I don't believe this. At least in the RCC, I thought it was OK for a man to desire and have lust for his wife within marriage. 

There's a difference between desiring one's wife and lusting for her.  They aren't the same thing, not even in the RCC. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #230 on: August 01, 2013, 11:43:31 PM »

What Mor Ephrem said.  Though I wonder if some theologians might even have an issue with "desire," depending on what that meant. I'm thinking in particular of Sts. Gregory the Great, Augustine, and Caesarius of Arles. Though I'm not familiar enough to know for sure. But anyway, on the whole (speaking as a standard rule) there's no issue with desire. Certainly some Fathers spoke openly of attraction as a positive thing, some of whom I quoted on some thread or other on here (I can dig it up if desired -- har har).
« Last Edit: August 01, 2013, 11:44:13 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,390


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #231 on: August 01, 2013, 11:59:34 PM »

What Mor Ephrem said.  Though I wonder if some theologians might even have an issue with "desire," depending on what that meant.

You seriously wonder about that?  Of course "some" theologians might even have an issue with "desire".  God never created fun.  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #232 on: August 02, 2013, 12:36:32 AM »

Never trust a person who is too proud to make a fool of themselves for a greater good.
And I would say never to trust a person who is too proud to do good in virtue of negligence.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #233 on: August 02, 2013, 01:11:03 AM »

Seems while Francis is out there with his placating homosexuals, dancing bishops and refusing certain papal "privliges"," Mr. Humility" goes about with an iron fist crushing something so terrifying as the TLM..... Angry

While they're out there shutting down parishes and razing churches because no one is interested in the New age Mass these days , those out there desperately holding on to the foundations of Tradition, the bedrock of the Church are attempting to be muzzeled by Mr.Nice Guy on the Chair of Peter. Angry


http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/07/important-pope-francis-severely.html


IMPORTANT: Pope Francis severely restricts the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass, imposes the Novus Ordo on all their priestsUPDATE: FULL TEXT OF THE DECREE that abrogates Summorum for the FFI


wow

make a new thread for this

oh is this on catholic answers forum anywhere? i want to see the reactions

EDIT

nevermind found a thread about it on that forum ;p
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 01:16:29 AM by Gunnarr » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,351



« Reply #234 on: August 02, 2013, 03:29:31 AM »

FishEaters is more entertaining than CAF, imo. On CAF you'll get people defending conga drums and rumba dancing during the consecration, on FishEaters you'll get more of the outrage.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #235 on: August 02, 2013, 07:18:37 AM »

What Mor Ephrem said.  Though I wonder if some theologians might even have an issue with "desire," depending on what that meant.

You seriously wonder about that? 

I can't speak with certainty; but isn't that what Santagranddad is proposing:

Entertaining a desire or lusting after someone would be considered sinful regardless of who was the object according those guides on confession I have read.

(emphasis added)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Matthew79
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Currently an Evangelical/Baptist educated in reformed theology, but have been trying to learn about Orthodoxy and have been attending an Antiochian church.
Posts: 99



« Reply #236 on: August 02, 2013, 09:05:09 AM »

What Mor Ephrem said.  Though I wonder if some theologians might even have an issue with "desire," depending on what that meant. I'm thinking in particular of Sts. Gregory the Great, Augustine, and Caesarius of Arles. Though I'm not familiar enough to know for sure. But anyway, on the whole (speaking as a standard rule) there's no issue with desire. Certainly some Fathers spoke openly of attraction as a positive thing, some of whom I quoted on some thread or other on here (I can dig it up if desired -- har har).

Galatians 5:17 "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please."

If there is nothing wrong with our desires, then why does Paul tell us to fight against our fleshly ones? If there is nothing wrong with any of our desires, then we should be able to act on them as well, but when does anyone truly know what the want? According to this passage, some desires are good and some are bad. How can we tell if a desire is good or bad?- Well, if we acted on them would that action be godly or sinful? If the action would be sinful, then so is the desire; and therefore even those desires of our heart should be, as Paul says in 2Corinthians 10:5, "taken captive to make it obedient to Christ." I am all for fun, but I want to understand it as God does.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 09:15:24 AM by Matthew79 » Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #237 on: August 02, 2013, 10:09:23 AM »

An astute observation, Daedelus1138! I think you are most likely correct about this.

  To clarify, I don't consider homosexual acts to be necessarily sinful.   However,  I do think the issue is more complicated than Biblicism will permit.   And regardless of all the nuance, at the popular level a great many ordinary people, influenced by religion, interpret Christian teachings, showing that gay persons are defective in a unique way, thus opening then up to persecution and contempt.

What do you mean by "necessarily"? Are there situations where homosexuality is sinful or are you trying to give room for an unknown possibility? So desire is sinful, but attraction isn't? Can you explain more the difference between desire and attraction?


Entertaining a desire or lusting after someone would be considered sinful regardless of who was the object according those guides on confession I have read.

Silly old goat, must remember to take water with it!

IMPORTANT CLAUSE omitted: desire, except your husband or wife, or lusting......

Sorry  Kiss
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,317



« Reply #238 on: August 02, 2013, 10:14:07 AM »

Quote
Lust [luhst]
Noun
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by for ): a lust for power. 
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.

Here are the definitions.  I would tend to think that the type of lust that would be condemned in the context of marriage are the 2 & 3 definitions. Even in marriage, we must be in control of our desires and not let them overwhelm us.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,924


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #239 on: August 02, 2013, 10:34:31 AM »

LOL..The American PSYCOLOGICAL Association..not Physiological..Thanks Spell ck .

Your spell check still didn't get it right.  Roll Eyes  Grin

Pffff...thanks Obama !
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,390


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #240 on: August 02, 2013, 10:41:02 AM »

"Luhst" looks so much dirtier than "lust", it must be the bigger sin. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,317



« Reply #241 on: August 02, 2013, 10:46:10 AM »

"Luhst" looks so much dirtier than "lust", it must be the bigger sin. 

I often have the problem of women on this forum luhsting after me.  I beat them back with my holiness stick.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,390


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #242 on: August 02, 2013, 10:50:20 AM »

I'm surprised there wasn't a graphic associated with that image...
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,317



« Reply #243 on: August 02, 2013, 11:00:21 AM »

I'm surprised there wasn't a graphic associated with that image...
I looked really hard for a holiness stick, but I was unable to find anything that met my high standards.  Undecided
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,390


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #244 on: August 02, 2013, 11:05:40 AM »

FishEaters is more entertaining than CAF, imo. On CAF you'll get people defending conga drums and rumba dancing during the consecration, on FishEaters you'll get more of the outrage.

I'm not familiar with CAF, but I do like Fisheaters.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,299



« Reply #245 on: August 02, 2013, 11:31:42 AM »

FishEaters is more entertaining than CAF, imo. On CAF you'll get people defending conga drums and rumba dancing during the consecration, on FishEaters you'll get more of the outrage.

I'm not familiar with CAF, but I do like Fisheaters.
It’s an online gathering spot for neo-Caths to discuss pop-Catholicism, how much they like Scott Hahn’s beard, how Protestants are lame-o and how Lifeteen Masses were the best, but folks here like to discuss CAF in terms of being a spiraling abyss of anti-Eastern Latinization.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 11:33:14 AM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,146


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #246 on: August 02, 2013, 12:05:41 PM »


"Who am I?" asked himself, the Pope Roll Eyes God's representative numero uno on planet earth!
I think the Catholic church is now officially controled by Satan. Christians are murdered every day, priestes are kidnapped and slaughtered like a sheep, and the Pope celebrates a joyeful feast in one of the most sodomite places of the world:m Copacabana. We are in trouble!


Yes, "we" ARE in trouble--all of us.  And NOT because a Pope (or any other priest or bishop, Catholic or Orthodox) decided to celebrate a joyful feast in Copacabana.

From Mark 2--[15]"And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him.

[16] And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
[17] And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." 


Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #247 on: August 02, 2013, 02:23:59 PM »

An astute observation, Daedelus1138! I think you are most likely correct about this.

  To clarify, I don't consider homosexual acts to be necessarily sinful.   However,  I do think the issue is more complicated than Biblicism will permit.   And regardless of all the nuance, at the popular level a great many ordinary people, influenced by religion, interpret Christian teachings, showing that gay persons are defective in a unique way, thus opening then up to persecution and contempt.

What do you mean by "necessarily"? Are there situations where homosexuality is sinful or are you trying to give room for an unknown possibility? So desire is sinful, but attraction isn't? Can you explain more the difference between desire and attraction?


Entertaining a desire or lusting after someone would be considered sinful regardless of who was the object according those guides on confession I have read.

Silly old goat, must remember to take water with it!

IMPORTANT CLAUSE omitted: desire, except your husband or wife, or lusting......

Sorry  Kiss
OK
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #248 on: August 02, 2013, 02:25:05 PM »

You mean a man would go to hell if he desires his wife? I don't believe this. At least in the RCC, I thought it was OK for a man to desire and have lust for his wife within marriage. 

There's a difference between desiring one's wife and lusting for her.  They aren't the same thing, not even in the RCC. 
Could you explain the difference for us ignorant ones? thanks.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,390


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #249 on: August 02, 2013, 02:37:06 PM »

There's a difference between desiring one's wife and lusting for her.  They aren't the same thing, not even in the RCC. 
Could you explain the difference for us ignorant ones? thanks.

Since you're RC, I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Compare the definition of lust in para. 2351 with the teachings on marriage in para. 2360 &ff.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #250 on: August 02, 2013, 03:09:14 PM »

There's a difference between desiring one's wife and lusting for her.  They aren't the same thing, not even in the RCC. 
Could you explain the difference for us ignorant ones? thanks.

Since you're RC, I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Compare the definition of lust in para. 2351 with the teachings on marriage in para. 2360 &ff.   
"CCC 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
Yes, you are right,  if you define lust to be something disordered and isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. But isn't lust generally ordered and unitive if you lustfully desire your wife? Unless, I suppose, you are thinking of some sort of masochistic activity?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #251 on: August 02, 2013, 03:12:58 PM »

Well, let's look at it this way: can you think of a passage in Scripture, or the Fathers, that uses the word lust in a positive sense?
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #252 on: August 02, 2013, 03:21:25 PM »

What Mor Ephrem said.  Though I wonder if some theologians might even have an issue with "desire," depending on what that meant. I'm thinking in particular of Sts. Gregory the Great, Augustine, and Caesarius of Arles. Though I'm not familiar enough to know for sure.

Concupiscence.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,317



« Reply #253 on: August 02, 2013, 03:22:53 PM »

There's a difference between desiring one's wife and lusting for her.  They aren't the same thing, not even in the RCC. 
Could you explain the difference for us ignorant ones? thanks.

Since you're RC, I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Compare the definition of lust in para. 2351 with the teachings on marriage in para. 2360 &ff.   
"CCC 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
Yes, you are right,  if you define lust to be something disordered and isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. But isn't lust generally ordered and unitive if you lustfully desire your wife? Unless, I suppose, you are thinking of some sort of masochistic activity?

Not to be graphic, but does this mean that during orgasm I should be thinking "Do not allow this to create inordinate enjoyment, do not allow this to create inordinate enjoyment, do not allow this to create inordinate enjoyment, do not allow..."
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #254 on: August 02, 2013, 03:27:14 PM »


I hate that word.  Cheesy It shows up quite a bit in a translation of St. Maximos that I've read and am reading, and I always have to pause and remind myself what it's talking about.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,146


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #255 on: August 02, 2013, 03:41:10 PM »

There's a difference between desiring one's wife and lusting for her.  They aren't the same thing, not even in the RCC. 
Could you explain the difference for us ignorant ones? thanks.

Since you're RC, I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Compare the definition of lust in para. 2351 with the teachings on marriage in para. 2360 &ff.   
"CCC 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
Yes, you are right,  if you define lust to be something disordered and isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. But isn't lust generally ordered and unitive if you lustfully desire your wife? Unless, I suppose, you are thinking of some sort of masochistic activity?


"Lust is disordered desire....."  If I am married and my wife and I sexually desire each other for procreative and unitive purposes, the desire is in order and is not lust.  If I am married and sexually desire another woman or man or animal or cartoon character or whatever that desire is disordered and therefore, lust.

If I am married and force myself on my wife or insist that we have sex more than she is willing or if I rape her, the sexual desire is disordered and is lust.

Or so it seems to me..... Smiley
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,390


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #256 on: August 02, 2013, 03:42:47 PM »

"CCC 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
Yes, you are right,  if you define lust to be something disordered and isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. But isn't lust generally ordered and unitive if you lustfully desire your wife? Unless, I suppose, you are thinking of some sort of masochistic activity?


But if your "lust" is "generally ordered and unitive" because it's directed toward your wife, it's not "lust".  The over-legislation against anything to do with sexual pleasure in Christianity in general but in Roman Catholicism in particular (at least in the West, since that's where we live), combined with copious amounts of premarital sexual activity, has led, IMO, to the unfortunate association of sexual desire/pleasure with sin, both in the theoretical realm as well as within the minds/hearts of individuals.  Within this context, it's difficult to see how St Paul can have such a positive view of marriage and sexuality in his epistles, and yet he does.  

That said, there can certainly be "lust" in marriage.  Discerning the difference need not be difficult, but often can be for some.      
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,390


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #257 on: August 02, 2013, 03:44:45 PM »

Not to be graphic, but does this mean that [deleted]

There you go!! 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #258 on: August 02, 2013, 03:55:01 PM »

There's a difference between desiring one's wife and lusting for her.  They aren't the same thing, not even in the RCC. 
Could you explain the difference for us ignorant ones? thanks.

I wouldn't have remembered the specific quote from the CCC, but what Mor's saying agrees with how I learned it at a Catholic university: that lust, by definition, is wrong even if it is towards one's spouse.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #259 on: August 02, 2013, 06:22:57 PM »

LOL..The American PSYCOLOGICAL Association..not Physiological..Thanks Spell ck .

Your spell check still didn't get it right.  Roll Eyes  Grin

Pffff...thanks Obama !

That's the first (and only) time you've made me genuinely and non-ironically laugh out loud, Marc. Nice job!  Cool
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #260 on: August 02, 2013, 07:38:47 PM »

There's a difference between desiring one's wife and lusting for her.  They aren't the same thing, not even in the RCC. 
Could you explain the difference for us ignorant ones? thanks.

I wouldn't have remembered the specific quote from the CCC, but what Mor's saying agrees with how I learned it at a Catholic university: that lust, by definition, is wrong even if it is towards one's spouse.
OK. I guess it depends on your definition. Some people define lust as a strong desire for sex. If you have a strong desire for sex with your wife and she is agreeable and you are open to life, I don't see that as a sin. But then according to a church or bible definition of lust, this would not be (sinful) lust since it would not be disordered. The church definition of lust may not be the same as what you might find in some dictionaries.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #261 on: August 02, 2013, 08:26:52 PM »

FishEaters is more entertaining than CAF, imo. On CAF you'll get people defending conga drums and rumba dancing during the consecration, on FishEaters you'll get more of the outrage.

I'm not familiar with CAF, but I do like Fisheaters.
It’s an online gathering spot for neo-Caths to discuss pop-Catholicism, how much they like Scott Hahn’s beard, how Protestants are lame-o and how Lifeteen Masses were the best, but folks here like to discuss CAF in terms of being a spiraling abyss of anti-Eastern Latinization.
When I was there the Eastern Christianity sub forum was nearly anti-catholic. Lol
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,299



« Reply #262 on: August 03, 2013, 03:08:44 PM »

FishEaters is more entertaining than CAF, imo. On CAF you'll get people defending conga drums and rumba dancing during the consecration, on FishEaters you'll get more of the outrage.

I'm not familiar with CAF, but I do like Fisheaters.
It’s an online gathering spot for neo-Caths to discuss pop-Catholicism, how much they like Scott Hahn’s beard, how Protestants are lame-o and how Lifeteen Masses were the best, but folks here like to discuss CAF in terms of being a spiraling abyss of anti-Eastern Latinization.
When I was there the Eastern Christianity sub forum was nearly anti-catholic. Lol
I only meant to mention present perceptions rather than past realities.

If this was the elementary school playground, I would think that OC.net has an unrequited inftatuation with CAF based on how much people reference it here and the terms they use when discussing it. Classic spurned-crush language. Also, weird.

While I've got no interest in it now, CAF was good to me because it managed to show me in a quick glance how monolithic Catholicism isn't. There's the Eastern forum and the Traditional forum, but also lots of folks there who love guitar mass, EWTN and take Karl Keating seriously as an apologist. The only representation really missing was Latin American folk Catholicism.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2013, 03:09:54 PM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #263 on: August 03, 2013, 04:58:12 PM »

Quote
The only representation really missing was Latin American folk Catholicism.
eh, prob not knowing enough english and otherwise busy picking strawberries, waiting tables, painting or mowing lawns for their anglo brethren.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,817



« Reply #264 on: August 03, 2013, 05:03:02 PM »

Quote
The only representation really missing was Latin American folk Catholicism.
eh, prob not knowing enough english and otherwise busy picking strawberries, waiting tables, painting or mowing lawns for their anglo brethren.
as opposed to being crushed by their La Raza brethren back home.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #265 on: August 13, 2013, 07:47:26 AM »

If this was the elementary school playground, I would think that OC.net has an unrequited inftatuation with CAF based on how much people reference it here and the terms they use when discussing it. Classic spurned-crush language. Also, weird.

I can see how you would think that. However, I think a better analogy is in Oz the Great and Powerful (minor spoiler alert),




how Oz still had affection for an evil woman who had once been good.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #266 on: August 13, 2013, 11:54:53 AM »

If this was the elementary school playground, I would think that OC.net has an unrequited inftatuation with CAF based on how much people reference it here and the terms they use when discussing it. Classic spurned-crush language. Also, weird.

I can see how you would think that. However, I think a better analogy is in Oz the Great and Powerful (minor spoiler alert),




how Oz still had affection for an evil woman who had once been good.

Heck, you didn't have to go back to Oz for that, you could have just pointed out that apparently (according to the Book of Job, anyway), God still has an affection for Satan in spite of the fact that he (Satan) keeps wanting to do bad things to humans. (If not, why was Satan allowed in the presence of God?)
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,822



« Reply #267 on: August 13, 2013, 01:19:05 PM »

If this was the elementary school playground, I would think that OC.net has an unrequited inftatuation with CAF based on how much people reference it here and the terms they use when discussing it. Classic spurned-crush language. Also, weird.

I can see how you would think that. However, I think a better analogy is in Oz the Great and Powerful (minor spoiler alert),




how Oz still had affection for an evil woman who had once been good.

Heck, you didn't have to go back to Oz for that, you could have just pointed out that apparently (according to the Book of Job, anyway), God still has an affection for Satan in spite of the fact that he (Satan) keeps wanting to do bad things to humans. (If not, why was Satan allowed in the presence of God?)

Instead of affection, may be hope?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #268 on: August 13, 2013, 08:39:13 PM »

Or even the ultimate embodiment of “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”  The way I see it, God loves everything He created, including Satan.  This does not mean God is not just and will punish evil, only that He still loves everything He created.  This flies in the face of those who say God is disengaged, doesn’t love people, allows bad to happen to good people, etc.  Maybe God sees Satan as a wayward child.  This does not mean He hates Satan, only he is very, very sad for him.

Then again, I have no idea what God thinks in these matters.  I am only guessing.

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #269 on: August 14, 2013, 06:46:23 PM »

He says he doesn't want to judge homosexuals, but in some sense this is not acceptable, since if people don't judge, the government is going to do the judging for them. For example, in Russia, it is not allowed for same sex couples to adopt  a Russian child, and this law extends to foreign countries where same sex adoption is allowed. However, in the USA, it is allowed for same sex couples to adopt children. Shouldn't people make a judgment about this? Isn't it part of our religious and civil duty to uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage?
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.151 seconds with 72 queries.