When Same-Gender Marriage Was a Christian Rite
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man) overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men. Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died under torture. Sergius survived but was later beheaded. While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led scholars to believe they were lovers. The most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrdom describes them in New Testament Greek as "erastai,” or lovers. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by early Christian church historians. Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the former Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). These church rites had all the same ritual symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiated in the taking of the eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE), and his companion John. Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded. Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some of the ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel, and each other, and it shall be concluded". Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion. Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand years from the 8th to the 18th century. The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667). While homosexuality was technically illegal under Roman civil law from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same-sex unions continued to take place. At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality. For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort. It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the eucharist, in the name of, and in the presence of Jesus Christ.
|
Change Location:
|
Lol. I guess you CAN read what you want into anything! Thomas, just because the church makes a decision, does not make it the will of God. Look at this issue for example. Some churches believe gay marriages are ok. Others strongly oppose them. One must look a the bible for answers. Additionally, don't trust your own interpretation, one must look and the original language to understand the intent of the passage. As I have said before, you can love the sinner and hate the sin.
Realist,
Can you read Hebrew Greek and Aramaic?
Realist - What you say about today's churches is true. I don't dispute that. That's why I ignore them.
The whole point of the article is that the primitive church was more tolerant of homosexuality than today. It was generally ignored or accepted until the 13th or 14th century. Some of today's Christian non-issues, such as circumcision, toevah, niddah, women sitting among males, or men not wearing a head covering, etc., were big deal issues then. Could you imagine a minister baptizing completely nude adults and children of both genders, as was common practice in the second century?
Have you ever actually read the bible? I have. It's tribal nonsense, created history, mistakes, silly magic tricks, garbled myths, bad poetry, cultural borrowings and contradictions. It is a melange of mistranslations and misinterpretations. If a person would follow today the teachings of the Old Testament, they would be a criminal. If they would follow strictly the teachings of the New Testament, they would be insane. For mythic inspiration I prefer the Vedas or the Dhammapada.
"Love the SInner, Hate the Sin" is one of my favorite phony Christo-speak cop-out phrases. By the way, it's not in the Bible; Ghandi said it. What it really means is "you could be holy like me if you weren't queer but you are, so burn in Hell."
This mendacious mantra demonstrates yet another example of the delusional ignorance believers have about what the Bible really says, and it's a feeble attempt to make their god seem nicer than he really is.
Joszef - No Hebrew. A few words of Pe@&*%&#ta Aramaic and Greek. Milás eliniká?
ThosPayne,
ochi, just a little Hungarian and Norwegian.
Thomas, your bias makes you unable to see the truth. The Bible has been proven to be one of the most historically accurate books in existence.
I never said Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin was from the Bible, It is just a simple way to illustrate the concept. You can treat someone with love without accepting the part of their life that is unacceptable. Evenone has sin in their lives, that's why Christ is so necessary. Your interpretation of the phrase is silly....and you know it.
I think your hatred has made you blind and your ego has made you unwilling to quesion your beliefs.
Joszef: Jog förstår inte norsk. Talar du Svenska?
so, essentially what you are saying is we should revert to the 8th century ?
hey wait a minute, you're not Muslim are you ?
wasn't that close to the time Mohammed married 9 year old Aisha ?
I'll leave the candles on for you
c_s: The whole point of the article is that the Patristic Christian church was more oblivious to homosexuality than today.
ThosPayne:
and something from a thousand years ago means what to me today ?
please, blow out the candles and turn on the light
but honestly, it's not the church that voted against gay "marriage"
it was the people
and as I have long said, just don't call it "marriage" and I'd reckon most people are fine with it
at least the majority
it's like calling me a N-word (copyright Jesie Jackson) and try to cut my ___ off
I am white and don't go to a racist church in Chicago
so the term would not fit
it's about as stupid as calling a gay union, marriage
marriage has historically been a bond between man and woman to create a "family"
whether that family includes children or not, though biologically - it actually does
happen, all the time too
with gay unions, it is pretty much impossible
any doctors want to weigh in here, I am above my pay grade
When I combine two bottles of tomato juice into one before I make my bloody mary, I married them. Is it really a marriage or simply a union? What difference does it make what you call it? The same physical act has occurred.
Exactly Analyst! What does what anyone else chooses or calls their life mean to the Christians? It's simply none of their business! My mariage to my husband will still be a "marriage" no matter how many same sex couples enjoy the same rights as we do. Christianity needs to stay completely out of government and keep their preaching to the pulpits.
I had to laugh at the woman who called the other night to make sure I was going to support Prop 8. It shocked her sock off that I said I would never vote to change the CA Constitution to take away a group's right to be just like the rest of society. She was spechless and I hung up laughing.
"Alternative views are that this rite was used in many ways, such as the formation of permanent pacts between leaders of nations or between religious brothers. This was a replacement for "blood-brotherhoodBlood brother
Blood brother can refer to one of two things: two males related by birth, or two or more men not related by birth, who swear loyalty to one another. This is usually done in a ceremony, known as a Blood Oath, where the blood of each man is mingled together...
" which was forbidden by the church at the time. Others such as Brent Shaw
Brent D. Shaw is a historian who teaches ancient history at Princeton University.Shaw earned his B.A. and M.A. from the University of Alberta in 1968 and 1971, respectively, and then later his Ph.D...have maintained also that these unions were more akin to "blood-brotherhood" and had no sexual connotation."
Professor John Boswell, dead at age 47, another victim of AIDS.