?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Anthropologist Community
When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite 
11th-Dec-2009 10:47 am
Psyche
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late 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 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 officiatied 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.

Original Article or

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. 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 while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

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". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." 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 many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them 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 the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late 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 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 officiatied 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 same gender 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 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 committment 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.


Updates
Corrected Article Link

Article Written By
ThosPayne at The Colfax Record.

Books Written by Prof. John Boswell
Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe and Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century
Comments 
11th-May-2012 04:25 pm (UTC)
ATT: LLOYD BECKER
Let me start out by saying that, except for the civil rights issue, whether or not gay people can "marry" doesn't concern me a whole lot. If they want to be miserable like the rest of us, hell, let 'em find out about matrimonial bliss the hard way. As long as they don't point that thing at me! But Lloyd, allow me a few comments on your argument.
The Old Testament is based on Zoroastrian scripture and Leviticus is based on the Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi ruled Babylon for 42 years, ca. 1792 to 1750 BC according to the Middle chronology. In the preface to the law code, Hammurabi states, "Anu and Bel called me by name, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared Marduk, the chief god of Babylon (The Human Record, Andrea & Overfield 2005), to bring about the rule in the land."
In July, 2010, archaeologists reported that a fragmentary Akkadian cuneiform tablet was discovered at Tel Hazor, Israel, containing a ca. 1700 BC text that was said to be partly parallel to portions of the Hammurabi code. The Hazor law code fragments are currently being prepared for publication by a team from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
You refer to respected academics as liberal professors "of a reprobate mind" when they present information that conflicts with your monotheistic mythological fantasies. You quote the Bible as if this motley collection of irrational fairytales collected by some ancient tribe of gnarly desert nomads was the Word Of God (sarcasm intended) but deny facts of science.
You imply that Islam will become the dominant culture in America and kill not only gay people but "people of the book". Huh? Where in the Koran does it say that? Your telling a damned lie. In Islam, Jesus, while not the "Son of God" as in Christianity (and this only became Christian doctrine in 326 AD at the Council of Nice, 300 years after the crucifixion) he is, none the less, considered a prophet second only to Mohammad in importance.
And what are you blathering about, going on about "Lot's sons". He had two daughters not sons and he sent them out into the street so the clamoring crowd of men, who all had a hard-on for the two angels of the Lord sent warn Lot, "might know them" instead of molesting the angels. Wow, would you send your daughters out into the street to be raped by a crowd sexual deviants in order to protect strangers that "claimed" to be sent by the Lord?
And if you read your bible, Lloyd, it tells that once they made their getaway (except for that salty Mrs. Lot) Lot "knew" his daughters and they bore him children. Sounds to me like that bad boy Lot be pimpin'! Would you really want I guy like Lot to in your neighborhood? Maybe he could live in the corner house by your kid's bus stop? I'd hope his parole officer would make him register as a sex offender.
Blinded by your ignorance, foolhardy in your self-righteousness, bigoted in your beliefs and frankly, just fuckin' stupid, you'd make an outstanding leader of an American Christian Taliban. Check out the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. I think you'll feel right at home there. And when you do, tell Shirley (Shirley Phelps-Roper, the daughter of the church founder, Fred Phelps) that my friend Dealilah says hi from Los "Sodom" Angeles.
Sincerely,
Peter V. Newman
11th-May-2012 04:56 pm (UTC)
I stand to be corrected when you mentioned angels. I also knew that Lot had daughters.

I do believe I finally struck gold here. I would sincerely believe that you are either an extreme liberal, or you are an atheist. But either way, the only language these particular categories of people believe in is cussing, name calling and the belief that everything revolves around them.

So, you can cuss all you want, but it does not incite any brilliance of intelligence. Have a nice day. Any comment you place will be deleted.
12th-May-2012 09:11 am (UTC)
Haha. I can only laugh at you.

You are sooo far set in your ways nothing and nobody can prove you differently. But you know what? That's because you're from another generation. An older generation. A generation whose beliefs will fade just like that of the generation that thought slavery was alright.

I'm not worried, marriage equality will come, sooner or later. And you can do nothing about it :)
I'm happy about that.
12th-May-2012 01:24 pm (UTC)
Oh heavens, the commenter above used swearwords, and this completely absolves you from any necessity to actually engage with WHAT HE SAID. Yeah, right. Very mature and steadfast attitude on your part.
You also chose to label this person an atheist, apparently a "category" entirely worthy of dismissal. How nice. He may have been dismissive of the Old Testament in his descriptions, but no more dismissive than you seem of everything that is not your deranged version of Christianity. You yourself are atheist about a whole lot of gods, are you not? So how does that one work out?
Your complete failure to acknowledge the actual reasoning behind the points the above poster made is amazing. Your factual errors, which he corrected, mean that your entire point was flawed and misleading. Don't agree? Engage with the arguments and rebut them. Can't? Admit defeat.
13th-May-2012 12:14 am (UTC)
On top of the sin of pride, Lloyd has no sense of humor or of irony.
12th-May-2012 10:09 pm (UTC)
Attaboy, Lloyd. If you can't dispute 'em, just delete 'em.
12th-May-2012 10:14 pm (UTC)
Lloyd, just in case you do read this prior to deleting in a fit of pharisaic frenzy I have to say that I'm most impressed that you admitted to my correcting you about anything!
Now let me correct you further, I am not an atheist. I am an ordained minister in the Ministry of Salvation Church, the headquarters of which are in Chula Vista, CA. My calling has taken me to aid the spiritual needs of the poor in the Caribbean islands of Puerto Rico, St. Martin and Anguilla. Neither am I a liberal. My political views, while unimportant in the eyes of the Lord (as Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto the Lord what is the Lord's) I'd describe myself as a libertarian and have great respect for Ron Paul. But stereotyping atheists and liberals as the ones most likely to use offending epithets or resort to name-calling is very telling. When Jesus threw the moneylenders out of the temple, do you think he said "Golly, gosh, gee whiz! You naughty boys get a big thumbs down!"? No, he angrily screamed and shouted at these odious thugs and loan-sharks. This was a tough, violent, dangerous time in history and these were tough, violent, dangerous individuals. Yet Jesus physically assaulted them, smashed their tables, scattered their coinage, and hurled them out of the temple. I'm sure the actual words that Jesus spoke as he did all this was the Aramaic equivalent of the language one might hear in a Martin Scorsese film. With all that said Lloyd, you're still a fucking idiot. Whoops! As Britney Spears said, I did it again.
Most Sincerely,
Peter V. Newman
13th-May-2012 03:25 pm (UTC)
Oh come on, Peter V. Newman's comment was witty - and intelligent and well-informed. Grammar could use some work though. How can you possibly want to delete his comments. This is what debate is about and if your argument can't withstand this kind of rigorous criticism, then perhaps it's not that strong an argument. Rather try to respond to the very good points he raises - should make for interesting reading. Perhaps you could ask him to cuss less if you like. I agree with him. Why was Lot spared? Casting out his daughters to a rabid and libidinous crowd, and then later "knowing" them and having sons by them. Personally, I think ol' Lot should have gone down with the rest of 'em.
12th-May-2012 01:50 pm (UTC)
=O
4th-Aug-2012 03:14 pm (UTC)
I'll preface this response to your argument by just saying this: in a community where people are academically discussing, is it really necessary to insult a person with whom you disagree? "Blinded by your ignorance, foolhardy in your self-righteousness, bigoted in your beliefs and frankly, just fuckin' stupid"... now don't get me wrong, Lloyd's response was not great (although he does admit fault on some cases) but honestly, do you expect a respectful response from such a disrespectfully scathing insult? That being said, your argument definitely has a few holes, and I would be happy to point them out for you. =)

In dealing with the bible, there's two ways to look at it: as a fully true, God-breathed book that is inerrant and useful in its entirety (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Sam. 7:28, Titus 1:2), or as a flawed book in which you determine which parts you believe are true or necessary to subscribe to. Seeing as the latter causes much discourse and we seem to be relying on all parts of scripture on this discussion page, I'll opt to use the first method. And I think that you, as an "ordained minister" of God should as well. That being said, I find it strange that you refer to the Bible as a "motley collection of irrational fairytales" while you choose to debate on it and help those Puerto Ricans under its banner.

Thus, when you questioned Lot's action of giving his daughters to protect the angels, what you really did was question the actuality of the two men being angels ("strangers that "claimed" to be sent by the Lord"). I know that if it was between protecting two of my daughters and two Heavenly dieties, I would probably choose to help the angels (beings who, when seen, cause fear and awe). And if you read your Bible, Peter, it tells that Lot "did not know when she lay down or when she arose" for either or his daughters (Gen. 19:33, 35). Call him a pimpin' bad boy sex offender if you want, but you and the Bible clearly are talking about two different Lots.

Regarding the Muslims coming to kill Christians, I don't have a lot to say on that topic due to the fact that I have had few encounters with the Islamic faith or the Koran, but I do know that the two religions paint two distinctly different Gods: one triune, loving, redemptive, and judgmental; the other more exact, works-based, and deistic (correct me if I'm wrong here). And if Muslims are called to kill all of those who believe in something different (even if they have similar roots such as Christ) then I'm afraid Christians are screwed along with everybody else.

That's about all I have to say. I hope you can see a clearer sense of who God is through this.
This page was loaded Nov 15th 2019, 2:49 pm GMT.