Priest Claims Church Could Accept Gay ‘Marriage’: ‘It Would be Wrong to Fight Against It’

LifeSite News ^ | 6/30/17 | Pete Baklinski

[marshmallow]

TORBAY, Newfoundland, June 30, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- A Catholic priest helping to run a gay-Pride ‘multi-faith service’ says that the Holy Spirit could direct the Church under Pope Francis to change its teaching on marriage and sexuality to accept gay “marriage.” And, if the Holy Spirit did so, “it would be wrong to fight against it,” he said.

“It's not like this was a teaching that was established in the time of Christ, or in the first three centuries, or by the Council of Nicea, or even by the Council of Trent,” said Fr. Paul Lundrigan, a pastor in active ministry at Holy Trinity Parish within the Archdiocese of St. John’s, Newfoundland, to LifeSiteNews.

“It was just never considered. It’s only in recent centuries — there were actions taken, there were things that were said — but there was no official teaching written down regarding these issues of sexuality,” he added.

Fr. Lundrigan is part of a committee organizing a gay Pride event that will be taking place next month at a Catholic retreat center run by religious sisters within the archdiocese, reported LifeSiteNews earlier this week. He called the pro-gay service an “opportunity to come together and not teach doctrine or promote one point of view or another, but to listen and to share faith.”

[ealgeone]

I understand what they're saying. The diefication of Mary that has resulted from it though was very doubtful as one of the outcomes.

The Council's aim was to clarify the nature of Jesus. Roman Catholics have shifted the focus away from this and have put it on Mary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The Council's aim was to clarify the nature of Jesus."

Well, at long last. Thank you, ealgeone. Keep that in mind and we will be at peace.

[Campion]

Is Jesus God or isn't he? Is Mary Jesus' mother, or isn't she?

If your answer is "yes" in both cases, then to reject calling Mary "Mother of God" is contradictory.

[FourtySeven]

Yeah I’ve tried to impose such restrictions on myself for reasons as you state. Sometimes can’t resist but I agree 100% with everything you wrote here.

[ealgeone]

And if Roman Catholics keep that in mind we will be at peace. It’s about Jesus....not Mary.

[ealgeone]

No. You’re putting the focus on Mary when the focus is on Jesus. That’s the problem with Roman Catholicism. Mary first, then Jesus.

[metmom]

Your evidence rejecting the term "Mother of God" is not convincing.

Nothing will convince someone who doesn't want to believe it.

Mary's address, mother of Jesus, is about identifying Mary, not Jesus.

Their argument for changing the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired title given to Mary is not convincing.

It's not even logic.

[piusv]

Just so you know, I understand completely. I am far from perfect. I just get especially annoyed when the old debates derail an otherwise good topic.

[ealgeone]

Sadly you’re right.

[ealgeone]

As it is this thread has been derailed once again by revisiting old Catholic vs Protestant debates with the same posters. Perhaps we could return to the original topic? I would think that this topic would bring more agreement than disagreement, no?

The issue I raised is a valid one.

If this pope said "x" is ok Catholics have to obey it. You really have no choice. Reference Unam Sanctum.

Further, as time goes by, the Catholic leadership is made to "by in" to the statement of the pope or they're out of a job...or else.

This is how a lot of prior Roman Catholic positions came to be.

Priests were afraid to speak out against the RCC lest they lose their job....at least until Luther showed up.

It doesn't matter if the new belief contradicts the NT as we've seen with much of Roman Catholicism.

The laity is required to believe and does not have the right to question the RCC leadership.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This truly inspires me to look deeply into what God calls Mary.

The "God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired title given to Mary" is "Kecharitomene," (Luke 1:28)

Kecharitomene

It merits careful reading.

Bottom line: the Greek neologism, used by an angel in Luke and used by nobody else of anybody else, ever, means "Totally filled wih grace."

The phrase rendered "full of grace" in (many) English translations, is mirrored only two other times in the Koine Greek of the NT: of Jesus, and of St. Stephen. However, the different forms of the root word "charis", "charitoo" = "grace" shows that this is meant in three distinguishable ways:

• M Christ, "active voice," = "He graces".

• St. Stephen, in "passive voice" = "he is graced."

• Mary, in "passive voice," to a plenary degree: "She has been totally graced."

Pretty good illustration of, respectively, latria, dulia, and hyperdulia.

Jesus (God) is the only source of grace. His GIFT is what grace is.

---

Just waiting for the next comment, which is likely to be, "Hmph, Kecharitomene? God-breathed, Holy Spirit-inspired title for Mary? Ho hum, on second thought, it's really no big deal."

---

I'm not, by the way, a Greek scholar. This is just what I've learned about the perfect passive participle form of a Greek root word. Schoolmarm-wise, I am very much a lowly substitute teacher doing remedial work with the Bluebird group. For more actual scholarship, you might try some of these:

Analyzing the word Kecharitomene (LINKS)

[piusv]

The issue you raised you (and others have) raised many other times. Hence, the thread was derailed into the usual Catholic vs Protestant debates. My post and point stands.

[ealgeone]

I don't know what link you copied this from but there are a number of errors in the Greek.

Bottom line: the Greek neologism, used by an angel in Luke and used by nobody else of anybody else, ever, means "Totally filled wih grace."

The phrase in question, and we'll address the translation in a moment, will only be used....ONCE!!!!

Why? Jesus is only going to be born of woman...ONCE!!!

The emphasis you're attempting to place on this verb by noting it is used once is not that surprising...as Jesus will only be born to Mary....ONCE!!!!

The phrase rendered "full of grace" in (many) English translations, is mirrored only two other times in the Koine Greek of the NT: of Jesus, and of St. Stephen. However, the different forms of the root word "charis", "charitoo" = "grace" shows that this is meant in three distinguishable ways:

This is patently a falsehood.

Of the major translations of Luke 1:28, only two render the passage as "full of grace". So it is not many as you falsely assert.

M Christ, "active voice," = "He graces". St. Stephen, in "passive voice" = "he is graced." Mary, in "passive voice," to a plenary degree: "She has been totally graced." Pretty good illustration of, respectively, latria, dulia, and hyperdulia.

From a Greek perspective this is patently wrong and amounts to advancing a falsehood.

In the passage regarding Stephen which I gather is from Acts 6:8.

In Greek it reads as follows:

Στέφανος δὲ πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως...

A literal rendering.

Stephen moreover, full of grace and power...

The Greek for grace, χάριτοςis, a noun....not a verb.

Variations of the word are used 157 times in the NT.

It conveys the meaning of xáris (another feminine noun from xar-, "favor, disposed to, inclined, favorable towards, leaning towards to share benefit") – properly, grace. 5485 (xáris) is preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people (because He is "always leaning toward them").

πλήρης is an adjective; HELPS Word-studies defines it as meaning: full; used of being full of the presence of the Lord (His provisions) which is the definition of a full life.

Interesting in John 1:14 the same words are used in description of Jesus that are used in Acts 6:8...πλήρης (full) χάριτος (of grace).

Now to Luke 1:28.

The phrase in question, Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη.

Wallace notes that Χαῖρε, a present imperative verb, is used as a greeting.

Sometimes the imperative is used in a stereotyped manner in which it has suppressed its original injunctive force. The imperative is reduced to an exclamation. This occurs especially in greetings (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammer Beyond the Basis, p.493).

Additionally he translates the phrase as Greetings, favored lady.

The verb, κεχαριτωμένη, is a perfect participle, middle/passive (though more probably a passive), vocative, feminine singular.

It conveys the meaning of:

properly, highly-favored because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritóō) is used twice in the NT (Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6), both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).

It has the same root word, charis, as does the word used in Acts 6:8 regarding Stephen, except in this case it's a verb and a noun regarding Stephen.

The key to understanding the perfect participle is this: it indicates a completed action with results continuing into the present of the speaker/writer....not the reader.

There is nothing in the Greek indicating Mary was somehow cleansed of all sin before her birth or preserved from sin after her birth.

I'm not, by the way, a Greek scholar.

On this last sentence we agree.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Wow. I read it all. And I am amazed that all that grammar-chopping did not even remotely refute the amazing point about Mary's "gracedness."

I do know enough to state with confidence that the A4changel's manner of addressing the Blessed Virgin (Luke 1) indicates God's overwhelming and unique favor to her, accomplished even before the Angelic Salutation.

Not only does he say "Full of Grace" (Kecharitomene) but he also says "the Lord is with you." This is before the was overshadowed by the power of the Holy Spirit, before she conceived. The Lord was with her before the arrival of the Archangel.

You seem to miss this as a beautiful manifestation of Mary as a prepared vessel of grace, not a vessel of sin. Your other remarks serve not to explain this, but to attempt--- as it seems --- to explain it away.

The compare-and-contrast approach to the root word "charitoo" (grace) as applied to Christ, Stephen, and Mary, is highly revealing from the standpoint of Bible-inspired teaching.

No one was ever called Kecharitomene before, nor was anyone ever called that again. That is fascinating. And for me, myself, personally, it arouses admiration, a desire to shout and sing and cheer about what the Lord has done for her: to magnify the Lord, not to minimize.

[ealgeone]

The Greek you offered was shown to be in error. Your conclusions are built upon a false understanding of the Greek.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are mistaken. Nothing you quoted substantially changes the meaning of Kecharitomene. Mary is still hailed as Full of Grace, with the Greek form indicating a past completed action.

Archangel Gabriel’s very next words bear a congruent meaning: the LORD is with her. Not “will be” but “is.”

What you offered as, I suppose, a rebuttal, does not alter this meaning by one iota. I would invite any readers to open their hearts and ponder he significance of the Archangel’s greeting, which is so beautiful and unique, so precious.

[ealgeone]

The Lord is with all believers....not just Mary.

[ealgeone]

You seem to miss this as a beautiful manifestation of Mary as a prepared vessel of grace, not a vessel of sin. Your other remarks serve not to explain this, but to attempt--- as it seems --- to explain it away.

You're letting your Catholic dogma get in the way of understanding the meaning of the Greek in this passage.

The Greek does not convey sinlessness, no matter how much you want it to, to Mary.

She was a sinner who found favor in God's eyes to be the mother of Christ.

No one was ever called Kecharitomene before, nor was anyone ever called that again. That is fascinating.

And there's a reason why....Jesus is not going to be born again and again and again to Mary nor anyone else. That event will never happen again.

The compare-and-contrast approach to the root word "charitoo" (grace) as applied to Christ, Stephen, and Mary, is highly revealing from the standpoint of Bible-inspired teaching.

Yes it is. And the NT records both Jesus and Stephen as "full of grace". Not Mary.

But you attempted to pass off from whatever source you got your material that these were verbs referring to Jesus and Stephen and tried to compare to the verb describing Mary.

I showed you where your information was patently wrong.

If your source can't get that right then the remainder of what they claim is seriously called into question.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mrs Don-o: "No one was ever called Kecharitomene before, nor was anyone ever called that again. That is fascinating.

Ealgeone: And there's a reason why....Jesus is not going to be born again and again and again to Mary nor anyone else. That event will never happen again. "

Well, we agreee on that! Mary was Kecharitomene because she was uniquely prepared to be the grace-filled mother to whom God's Son would be born. I beg you to see that that's the whole point.

The arguments over Greek grammar have deteriorated into repetitious volleys between your translators vs my translators. I pointed out that none of it is quite to the point: none of your arguments actually touch the main message at all: that the LORD was with Mary even before the angelic visit, and Mary was --- uniquely, as you yourself explain --- Kecharitomene (root word "charito," grace): a one-time favor from God because of her one-time role to be Mother of the Messiah.

Anything beyond this will just be, I foresee, more volleys between Greek gammarians with a bone to pick between them.

I tend to give credence to the native-Greek speakers who knew very well what the Koine was getting at, for a whole millennium before the Europpean skeptics came along. If they say that she was Kecharitomene and Panagia and Theotokos because of he entire purity and sinlessness, through the incomparable gift of God, I trust them and the whole Church. As against these latter skeptics.

I'm going to leave off for now. The Savior's unique favor to Mary is to make her full of grace, in view of His handmaiden's role as the human cooperator in the Incarnation. We can both rejoice in that, and that's enough.

[ealgeone]

Well, we agreee on that! Mary was Kecharitomene because she was uniquely prepared to be the grace-filled mother to whom God's Son would be born. I beg you to see that that's the whole point.

That she was chosen to be the mother of Christ I agree.

But she was not cleansed from all sin. The text does not support that.

The RCC claim is in contradiction of Biblical teaching that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Well, we agreee on that! Mary was Kecharitomene because she was uniquely prepared to be the grace-filled mother to whom God's Son would be born. I beg you to see that that's the whole point.

She was the one who had found favor with God. She was no more grace filled than Stephen.

The arguments over Greek grammar have deteriorated into repetitious volleys between your translators vs my translators.

No. Your translators have not correctly explained the perfect participle. That's the main problem. It's leading to very inaccurate theology on the part of the RCC.

I tend to give credence to the native-Greek speakers who knew very well what the Koine was getting at, for a whole millennium before the Europpean skeptics came along. If they say that she was Kecharitomene and Panagia and Theotokos because of he entire purity and sinlessness, through the incomparable gift of God, I trust them and the whole Church. As against these latter skeptics.

However, that is not what they were saying in the NT church. It was a later development, as has been shown, in Roman Catholicism.

Roman Catholicism's own Catholic Encyclopedia Online notes what the Catholic is looking for regarding Mary's sinlessness cannot be supported in Scripture.

You continue to flail away at a non-Biblically supported position espoused by the RCC.