Calvinism and the Nicene Creed

[PeterJens]

The context is the point, as once again, the Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. In other words, the creed was composed in the context of the Church's understanding of herself.

So once again, help me understand the logic of professing a belief in a Church which you reject?

Do you pick and choose things from the vast repertoire of other religions, such as Mormonism or Islam and use their creeds or statements of faith?

This is an interesting point. We 1600 years later are representing a different world and different understanding of faith. If you take the anglican church it separated itself from the RCC, yet keeps the same views and traditions.

The RCC is not the organisation that represents the elect on earth.
In many areas it is heretical and has corrupted the faith.

In our search for clarity, especially over gnostic notions of an eternal spirit, and struggle with sin and flesh, the past is looked at for emphasis. And the creed represents foundational beliefs that we all agree on, against various heretical other groups who we oppose.

Without analysing deeper issues of authority and argument, it is hard to say how much if we could go back, would we agree with these believers. Probably more than we realise. God bless you

 

[PeterJens]

Do you know about No Go Zones in London?
They follow sharia law and police are not allowed there.

My point is that it doesn't matter how many nice Muslims we know....
What is happening with them is still happening....
They do not integrate and they insist on changing the religious habits of those in the countries to which they migrate.

The above is not true. There are no "no go zones" in London.
There have been some radical muslims who patrolled the streets to try and stop haram behaviour, drunkeness, homosexuals etc. but it was stopped. These things made the news, but because of the radical nature of various groups, the government has actively been stopping them operate.

Advances is Koranic criticism there is now a good case to be made that the Koran as we know it is an invention 200 years after Mohammed. The strongest evidence for this is Petra is the city Muhammed grew up in. Everyone prayed towards the city until 100 years after Muhammeds death it switched to Mecca. This may seem minor, but it undermines the claim the Koran is untouched since the beginning, and nothing in the traditions was introduced. Clearly this is not true. The Koran is man made.

Morality in Islam is a serious issue, especially the rights of women. It may seem a secondary issue, but it is injustice, violence and oppression, that destroys the view Islam is this clean beautiful moral edifice. Rather it is a dictatorial oppressive belief system which hides corruption and violence, where the voice of the oppressed will change their views and what they actually believe. Islam will not survive or the radicals because they are just psychopaths with a religious justification.

 

[GodsGrace]

I feel the Nicene Creed is just as much Orthodox as it is Catholic, the churches were not divided then.

What it all has to do with Calvinism or Muslims I don't know.

I consider myself lowercase catholic and orthodox.

I have to consider uppercase Catholic and Orthodox to be simply DENOMINATIONS.

What does lower case catholic mean? Universal? Of the universal church?

So are you catholic or Orthodox?

 

[GodsGrace]

No, I am getting "hung up" on someone professing a belief in a creed describing a Church they actually reject.

Here again are some of the things this very Church which composed the Creed also did at the very same Council at Nicea...

- Declared Christ as the same substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) of the Father - contra sola Scriptura (Ecthesis of the Council)
- Supported the discipline of celibacy and clerical continence (Canon 3)
- Instructed on preserving valid Apostolic succession by requiring three bishops present for the consecration of subsequent bishops (Canon 4)
- Declaring Rome as the authority to grant jurisdiction to other Churches (Canon 6)
- Ruled on ordaining men to the priesthood (Canons 9 & 10)
- Instructed on giving viaticum to the dying (Canon 13)
- Instructed regarding catechumens (Canon 14)
- Affirmed the ordained episcopate, priesthood and deaconate (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the Eucharist as the literal “Body of Christ" (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the priests and bishops as they who "offer" the Eucharistic sacrifice. (Canon 18)

These are but a few examples, all of which are rejected by Protestants. Protestants reject the authority of Rome over the Church universal. Protestants reject the Eucharist as the actual body of Christ. Protestants reject the Catholic priesthood. Protestants reject a celibate priesthood. Protestants reject Apostolic succession via the episcopacy, etc.

If you don't accept these things, you reject the Church that composed the Creed you recite, which is the "Roman" Catholic Church.

I am just trying to understand the logic in using a Creed composed by a Church which one rejects.

All the canons sounded right the way you wrote them except for Canon 3, which is the following:

Canon 3
The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.


I caught this because celibacy was not required for priests till much later on,,,not sure when exactly - but even Popes were allowed to be married till that time.

Did you misunderstand Canon 3?

 

[GodsGrace]

The above is not true. There are no "no go zones" in London.
There have been some radical muslims who patrolled the streets to try and stop haram behaviour, drunkeness, homosexuals etc. but it was stopped. These things made the news, but because of the radical nature of various groups, the government has actively been stopping them operate.

Advances is Koranic criticism there is now a good case to be made that the Koran as we know it is an invention 200 years after Mohammed. The strongest evidence for this is Petra is the city Muhammed grew up in. Everyone prayed towards the city until 100 years after Muhammeds death it switched to Mecca. This may seem minor, but it undermines the claim the Koran is untouched since the beginning, and nothing in the traditions was introduced. Clearly this is not true. The Koran is man made.

Morality in Islam is a serious issue, especially the rights of women. It may seem a secondary issue, but it is injustice, violence and oppression, that destroys the view Islam is this clean beautiful moral edifice. Rather it is a dictatorial oppressive belief system which hides corruption and violence, where the voice of the oppressed will change their views and what they actually believe. Islam will not survive or the radicals because they are just psychopaths with a religious justification.

I have current friends living in London.
I am NOT speaking about groups that patrol their own neighborhood.

Will remember to ask her about this when I see her in a few days...but it was the case till just last year.

 

[stovebolts]

JohnDB and wondering
What i hear you both saying is that you both live your faith opposed to those who wreak atrocities regardless if they come from Westboro, White Supremacy groups or within the Catholic or mainstream Protestant faith. In essence, you have both separated yourselves from the atrocities of those who distort your understanding of what Christianity looks like and wish to be viewed as individuals and not merely clumped in with those within Christianity to which you both disagree, and for good measure!

However, we still have those pesky and evil Muslims to contend with...

Jesus is being tested and is asked what the two greatest commandments we're, which you both know very well. However, wanting to justify himself, the teacher asks, "Who is my neighbor". It is here that Jesus tells the story that we know as the Good Samaritan.

At that time, Jews viewed Samaritans with as much venom as many Christians view Muslims, (or the Muslims viewed Christians during the Crusades) and for good reason! The Jews and Samaritans were brutal toward each other and the Samaritans even defiled the Temple. If there were two groups that had reason to despise each other, it was the Jews and Samaritans.

So imagine the look on the teachers face when he had to call the Samaritan his neighbor, thus fulfilling one of the two greatest commandments.

In part, Jesus challenges us to see beyond the social stigma and personal prejudice and look at the person.

We don't like it when we have to defend ourselves from our Brethern we adamantly oppose against ideologies we don't support. So the way i figure it, Jesus calls us to see the person, and not simply the label.

 

[PeterJens]

I have current friends living in London.
I am NOT speaking about groups that patrol their own neighborhood.

Will remember to ask her about this when I see her in a few days...but it was the case till just last year.

Now this idea is interesting. There is perception of a no go area, and the actual reality. The problem in London has been scaling back police presence and walking the streets. If one lives in an area not patrolled, who can you say rules. The radicals will always claim lots of things, when people are just going about their daily lives.

I live in a part of London some of my childrens friends regarded as dangerous with murderers roaming the streets. But this is fear and perception. There are nut cases everywhere, and one just has to be careful. All you have to look at is knife crime and see many communities are dominated by gangs of youth, irrespective of faith.

I am therefore wary of generalisations. A major of a borough was prosecuted for manipulating the voting system, and using intimidation. If people have violence and will use it, any community has to be cautious, but it does not mean that dominates. God bless you

 

[PeterJens]

Islam and propoganda

A criminal walks down the street. They are violent, a nut case waiting to explode. A religious radical gets hold of them, puts a bomb around them and when they murder 10 people it is radical islam.

But the truth is an observant individual exploited a vulnerable dysfunctional individual attached a set of ideas to them that justified murdering innocents. Islam was just the packaging to insane behaviour. And one nut case doing this once involving 10 people, changes a mindset of millions. That is propoganda. Exploitation like this will always happen, but we can fight injustice, evil, hatred, violence, abuse, which happens daily and on a family by family basis where they believe it is ok, Allahs will. It is there is the battle, and the lying and denial that this is corruption and evil dressed up as allowable behaviour. The religious arguments are simple, the Koran is a flawed book, not what it appears. People simply need to see the facts.

 

[Anto9us2]

Wondering, yes, Universal is lower case Catholic.

I am Methodist

 

[JohnDB]

JohnDB and wondering
What i hear you both saying is that you both live your faith opposed to those who wreak atrocities regardless if they come from Westboro, White Supremacy groups or within the Catholic or mainstream Protestant faith. In essence, you have both separated yourselves from the atrocities of those who distort your understanding of what Christianity looks like and wish to be viewed as individuals and not merely clumped in with those within Christianity to which you both disagree, and for good measure!

However, we still have those pesky and evil Muslims to contend with...

Jesus is being tested and is asked what the two greatest commandments we're, which you both know very well. However, wanting to justify himself, the teacher asks, "Who is my neighbor". It is here that Jesus tells the story that we know as the Good Samaritan.

At that time, Jews viewed Samaritans with as much venom as many Christians view Muslims, (or the Muslims viewed Christians during the Crusades) and for good reason! The Jews and Samaritans were brutal toward each other and the Samaritans even defiled the Temple. If there were two groups that had reason to despise each other, it was the Jews and Samaritans.

So imagine the look on the teachers face when he had to call the Samaritan his neighbor, thus fulfilling one of the two greatest commandments.

In part, Jesus challenges us to see beyond the social stigma and personal prejudice and look at the person.

We don't like it when we have to defend ourselves from our Brethern we adamantly oppose against ideologies we don't support. So the way i figure it, Jesus calls us to see the person, and not simply the label.

Now the defiling of the Temple by the Samaritans was part of an ongoing civil war amongst the Israelites.
When the people were sent into exile by both Aram and then subsequently by Babylon not everyone went. Just the families went. Every culture has marginalized citizens. And the Israelites did as well. (David made his kingdom officials and warriors from this group but it's a story for another time)
The Samaritans were primarily of the northern tribes who's capital was Samaria. (Hence the name) Their family lines were often lost before, during, and after when the Israelites were in exile.
There was also some intermarriages with the people that were sent out to occupy the Land. But when the Jews came back they wished to be a part of the citizenry as well.
The only Torah scrolls available were from the Levites. (No Bible book store)
Torah scrolls (five books of Moses only) cost over an average person's years wages. So collections were taken in a community for their local Synagogue.
Since these "Samaritans" were marginalized citizens who "took over" for the upper crust of Israel when exiled they were viewed almost as carpetbaggers when the Jews returned. They had a "less than Semetic" appearance and speech. So the Levites sold them altered Torah scrolls where there was only "one place of worship" there was now two. The Samaritans were incensed by this. They weren't refunded the money and weren't allowed to purchase correct Torah scrolls. They weren't allowed to go to the Temple. So the two sides fought and deep divisions were formed.
Now the truth is that the Samaritans loved God and wanted to worship God...but the Jews were concerned about strict purity. (Considering the exile and the occupation by Greece and Rome for failing to follow the Law it was foregone conclusion they wouldn't relent) Which is why the Samaritans threw a corpse into the Temple for Atonement Day. Both sides started fighting and the Romans killed everyone fighting regardless of anything. (Jesus was actually in Egypt for two years during this period)
Which is a direct parallel to the Moslems issues of today. But now the radicals are migrating to Christian communities and stirring up trouble. Which isn't a parallel.

So

 

[stovebolts]

But now the radicals are migrating to Christian communities and stirring up trouble. Which isn't a parallel.

I have read article and news reports from Europe that the Muslims are creating their own communities and enforcing their own Sharia laws, but I really haven't read anything that shows that these Muslim communities are going out of their way to be aggressive to Christians. On the contrary, I do hear about Christians going into Dearborn Mi which has the largest Middle Eastern Muslim community in the US stirring up trouble during their Ramadan and other Muslim holidays. It's worthy to note that another Detroit suburb has a very healthy Jewish community and I've never read nor heard of either Muslims or Christians giving that community a hard time.

I will admit that I don't pay attention to the news much and my news consumption is primarily NPR and ABC Nightly News. Regardless, our Neighbor is one who has a heart for helping others, and it doesn't matter which mountain they worship on.

 

[atpollard]

The Hadith teach to follow the example of Mohammad. When you are in the minority, play the part of the victim and seek the protection of infidels. When you are a stronger community, seek to provoke the society around you (as Mohammad harassed the Temple services of the city that was protecting him). Once Islam is in the majority, claim the land for Allah as the verse of the Sword command.

He who has ears, let him hear.

 

[Walpole]

All the canons sounded right the way you wrote them except for Canon 3, which is the following:

Canon 3
The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.


I caught this because celibacy was not required for priests till much later on,,,not sure when exactly - but even Popes were allowed to be married till that time.

Did you misunderstand Canon 3?

Misunderstand Canon 3? It confirms exactly what I stated, that the Fathers at Nicea "supported the discipline of celibacy and clerical continence." Do Protestants support the disciple of celibacy and clerical continence? No, of course not. Hence this example is used to further illustrate the illogicalness of Protestants professing belief in a Church which they positively reject.

If you know Church history, celibacy was the practice of the vast majority of the Apostolic Fathers (those who immediately succeeded the Apostles). Married clergy in the early Church was merely a concession, since the faith's first adherents were mostly already married. Clergy were never permitted to marry after ordination. The Apostles were married PRIOR to being called to their office. Hence this established the tradition: One can be married and become a priest, but one cannot be a priest and then get married. However, for those clergy who were married, they were expected to practice clerical continence, as supported again by Canon 3 at Nicea. This is still the case today.

 

[GodsGrace]

Your answer hits my point exactly on the head. You know enough to not hold John accountable. We need to learn the same with Muslims. Not all support Sharia Law. The one's I have met that do come from the Middle East, and i assume these are the same one's in London that you speak of.

You have a right to speak out against the one's in London, and you should. But those in London don't represent the whole of Islam any more than Rome represents the whole of Christianity.

Unfortunately, it's not the hierarchy of Islam ONLY that is doing the damage, but the members themselves.

It's as if the Pope and Priests were advocating the harm
and JohnDB was doing the actual harm.

I didn't hit anything on the head...it's different.

 

[GodsGrace]

JohnDB and wondering
What i hear you both saying is that you both live your faith opposed to those who wreak atrocities regardless if they come from Westboro, White Supremacy groups or within the Catholic or mainstream Protestant faith. In essence, you have both separated yourselves from the atrocities of those who distort your understanding of what Christianity looks like and wish to be viewed as individuals and not merely clumped in with those within Christianity to which you both disagree, and for good measure!

The above is all true.
But the clump of Christianity is a peace-loving clump.
And we do separate ourselves from the hate-mongering groups...even the Christian ones.

But Muslims are not an individual...they ARE a group and they all believe the same even though not all are violent or terrorists.
I think I already said that the only peaceful Muslims are the ones that DO NOT practice their faith...the ones that obey the Qur'an are in agreement that they have the religion that is true and that the rest of the world should be made to follow.

And this is what they WISH would happen and are working toward it.

However, we still have those pesky and evil Muslims to contend with...

Jesus is being tested and is asked what the two greatest commandments we're, which you both know very well. However, wanting to justify himself, the teacher asks, "Who is my neighbor". It is here that Jesus tells the story that we know as the Good Samaritan.

At that time, Jews viewed Samaritans with as much venom as many Christians view Muslims, (or the Muslims viewed Christians during the Crusades) and for good reason! The Jews and Samaritans were brutal toward each other and the Samaritans even defiled the Temple. If there were two groups that had reason to despise each other, it was the Jews and Samaritans.

So imagine the look on the teachers face when he had to call the Samaritan his neighbor, thus fulfilling one of the two greatest commandments.

The Jews hated the Samaritans for inter-marrying with outsiders.
I don't think it's the same.

In part, Jesus challenges us to see beyond the social stigma and personal prejudice and look at the person.

We don't like it when we have to defend ourselves from our Brethern we adamantly oppose against ideologies we don't support. So the way i figure it, Jesus calls us to see the person, and not simply the label.

Social stigma?
Who's doing the terrorism?
Who's plowing into persons with vehicles?
Setting off bombs?
Why do my shoes need to be checked at an airport?
etc.

And this is not personal prejudice.
I waited to know about Islam BEFORE making a decision about it.
Prejudiced persons do not do this and judge before they know a person or organization.

 

[GodsGrace]

Now this idea is interesting. There is perception of a no go area, and the actual reality. The problem in London has been scaling back police presence and walking the streets. If one lives in an area not patrolled, who can you say rules. The radicals will always claim lots of things, when people are just going about their daily lives.

I live in a part of London some of my childrens friends regarded as dangerous with murderers roaming the streets. But this is fear and perception. There are nut cases everywhere, and one just has to be careful. All you have to look at is knife crime and see many communities are dominated by gangs of youth, irrespective of faith.

I am therefore wary of generalisations. A major of a borough was prosecuted for manipulating the voting system, and using intimidation. If people have violence and will use it, any community has to be cautious, but it does not mean that dominates. God bless you

I'm sorry Peter...I forgot that you live in London.
I know that knife attacks are a problem too.

I'm not saying that Muslims are causing a lot of crime....this is not what they tend to do, although, as you've stated - there are no generalizations and anyone could do anything.

There were reported to be some small areas in London where the police are not welcomed because they follow sharia law --- to avoid problems with the residents of those neighborhoods, or small areas, police kept out. This was confirmed to me by a friend that lives in Northern London (really in the suburbs, but it's still London).

I hear things are getting even worse.
I hope to see her in the next few days...she's coming here on vacation.

Could you confirm what I've written?

 

[GodsGrace]

I have read article and news reports from Europe that the Muslims are creating their own communities and enforcing their own Sharia laws, but I really haven't read anything that shows that these Muslim communities are going out of their way to be aggressive to Christians. On the contrary, I do hear about Christians going into Dearborn Mi which has the largest Middle Eastern Muslim community in the US stirring up trouble during their Ramadan and other Muslim holidays. It's worthy to note that another Detroit suburb has a very healthy Jewish community and I've never read nor heard of either Muslims or Christians giving that community a hard time.

I will admit that I don't pay attention to the news much and my news consumption is primarily NPR and ABC Nightly News. Regardless, our Neighbor is one who has a heart for helping others, and it doesn't matter which mountain they worship on.

Dearborn confirms what JohnDB and I are saying.
There is no integrating...there is only taking over where they migrate to.

The Jewish community in the other Detroit suburb does not terrorize anyone.

 

[GodsGrace]

Misunderstand Canon 3? It confirms exactly what I stated, that the Fathers at Nicea "supported the discipline of celibacy and clerical continence." Do Protestants support the disciple of celibacy and clerical continence? No, of course not. Hence this example is used to further illustrate the illogicalness of Protestants professing belief in a Church which they positively reject.

If you know Church history, celibacy was the practice of the vast majority of the Apostolic Fathers (those who immediately succeeded the Apostles). Married clergy in the early Church was merely a concession, since the faith's first adherents were mostly already married. Clergy were never permitted to marry after ordination. The Apostles were married PRIOR to being called to their office. Hence this established the tradition: One can be married and become a priest, but one cannot be a priest and then get married. However, for those clergy who were married, they were expected to practice clerical continence, as supported again by Canon 3 at Nicea. This is still the case today.

I think what you're saying is that Protestants should have made up their own creed.

I believe it would have turned out to be the same. The same beliefs, I mean.

As to the marriage of priests and popes and the early fathers,,,
The Vatican itself states that marriage was not forbidden in the early age of Christianity. Here are some excerpts, but I am not going to read the entire statement.

After the 300's or 400's it become apparent that what you say is true.

Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church​ Roman Cholij Secretary of the Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainian Catholics in Great Britain​ It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men. It is also clear from epigraphy, the testimony of the Fathers, synodal legislation, papal decretals and other sources that in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us.1 And yet, paradoxically, one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline. In the patristic era, clerical celibacy, strictly speaking meant the inability to enter marriage once a higher Order had been received. The first legislative expression of this is found in the eastern councils of Ancyra (314), c. 10, and Neocaesarea (ca. 314-325), c. 1, for deacons and priests respectively. An Armenian collection of canons, probably from 365, includes this prohibition of marriage2 and it is clearly expressed in the Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic Canons of the late fourth century.3 Canon 14 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) likewise endorses this discipline (albeit indirectly), and it is found in other documents of the fifth and subsequent centuries which consider the practice to be an ancient and timeless tradition.4

Although perhaps strange to our own modern ways of thinking, absolute marital continence was far from unknown or unesteemed in patristic times. Tertullian, himself a married man, informs us in his Catholic period, of lay people who practise continence within marriage «pro cupiditate regni coelestis».11 So do Jerome and Augustine in the following century.12 The rapid growth of monasticism and an attraction to the ascetic life led many couples to renounce their intimacy and to enter a monastery13 or to live in continence within more domestic settings. Church authorities had to intervene decisively when the enthusiasm for continence was deemed excessive and tainted with heretical motives, but at the same time praising those who lived the life of continence for the right motives.14 Four centuries later the Second Nicene Council (787) would still endorse the possibility of monastic vocations for the married.15Neither should one forget the continence that the separated and divorced were required to live. Augustine did not hesitate to invoke the example of some of the married clergy, who had had their difficulties in adjusting to a life of continence, in order to encourage men separated from their wives to live continently. He also applies the celibacy logion «eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven» (Mt 19:12) to divorcees.16 source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ts/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

 

[Walpole]

I think what you're saying is that Protestants should have made up their own creed.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying and some sects do have their own creeds or "statements of faith." Using their own creeds makes perfect sense. What does not make sense is using the creed of another religion that professes faith in a Church one positively rejects.

I believe it would have turned out to be the same. The same beliefs, I mean.

Hardly, since you cannot arrive at orthodox Trinitarian theology using sola Scripture. Recall Arius and his followers accused the Catholics of going outside of Scripture to define their dogma of the Trinity.

"...[the Arians] blaming the Nicene bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture..." - St. Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I.9.30

"...the Arians, after all the past detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, still to complain like the Jews, 'Why did the Fathers at Nicea use terms not in Scripture, 'Of the essence' and 'One in essence?'" - St. Athanasius, De Decretis, 1:1

Furthermore, they wouldn't be professing faith in a Church they don't believe in.

As to the marriage of priests and popes and the early fathers,,,
The Vatican itself states that marriage was not forbidden in the early age of Christianity. Here are some excerpts, but I am not going to read the entire statement.

After the 300's or 400's it become apparent that what you say is true.

Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church​ Roman Cholij Secretary of the Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainian Catholics in Great Britain​ It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men. It is also clear from epigraphy, the testimony of the Fathers, synodal legislation, papal decretals and other sources that in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us.1 And yet, paradoxically, one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline. In the patristic era, clerical celibacy, strictly speaking meant the inability to enter marriage once a higher Order had been received. The first legislative expression of this is found in the eastern councils of Ancyra (314), c. 10, and Neocaesarea (ca. 314-325), c. 1, for deacons and priests respectively. An Armenian collection of canons, probably from 365, includes this prohibition of marriage2 and it is clearly expressed in the Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic Canons of the late fourth century.3 Canon 14 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) likewise endorses this discipline (albeit indirectly), and it is found in other documents of the fifth and subsequent centuries which consider the practice to be an ancient and timeless tradition.4

Although perhaps strange to our own modern ways of thinking, absolute marital continence was far from unknown or unesteemed in patristic times. Tertullian, himself a married man, informs us in his Catholic period, of lay people who practise continence within marriage «pro cupiditate regni coelestis».11 So do Jerome and Augustine in the following century.12 The rapid growth of monasticism and an attraction to the ascetic life led many couples to renounce their intimacy and to enter a monastery13 or to live in continence within more domestic settings. Church authorities had to intervene decisively when the enthusiasm for continence was deemed excessive and tainted with heretical motives, but at the same time praising those who lived the life of continence for the right motives.14 Four centuries later the Second Nicene Council (787) would still endorse the possibility of monastic vocations for the married.15Neither should one forget the continence that the separated and divorced were required to live. Augustine did not hesitate to invoke the example of some of the married clergy, who had had their difficulties in adjusting to a life of continence, in order to encourage men separated from their wives to live continently. He also applies the celibacy logion «eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven» (Mt 19:12) to divorcees.16 source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ts/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

I am not arguing marriage was forbidden in the early Church. Re-read what you posted, as it supports exactly what I have written.

Again, marriage in the early Church was a concession. The clergy who were married were expected to practice clerical continence. (See Nicea, Canon 3 and the document you quoted above.)

Celibacy was certainly practiced in the early Church, as the majority of the Apostolic Fathers were celibate. However, celibacy as a rule came to the Latin rite much later.

 

[stovebolts]

The above is all true.
But the clump of Christianity is a peace-loving clump.
And we do separate ourselves from the hate-mongering groups...even the Christian ones.

But Muslims are not an individual...they ARE a group and they all believe the same even though not all are violent or terrorists.
I think I already said that the only peaceful Muslims are the ones that DO NOT practice their faith...the ones that obey the Qur'an are in agreement that they have the religion that is true and that the rest of the world should be made to follow.

And this is what they WISH would happen and are working toward it.


The Jews hated the Samaritans for inter-marrying with outsiders.
I don't think it's the same.


Social stigma?
Who's doing the terrorism?
Who's plowing into persons with vehicles?
Setting off bombs?
Why do my shoes need to be checked at an airport?
etc.

And this is not personal prejudice.
I waited to know about Islam BEFORE making a decision about it.
Prejudiced persons do not do this and judge before they know a person or organization.

True, the Jews despised the Samaritans for intermarrying, but as you know, it goes back to Solomons day as even Solomon intermarried and worse yet, offered his own children to the flame. This is why the kingdom later split, and the Samaritans can be traced back to.

But i degrees, the reason that the Jews and Samaritans despised one another is secondary to Jesus story. You had two groups which despised one another, yet Jesus tells the story in a way that forces a man of God with good reason to hate another tribe to actually see beyond the social stigma and animosity between the two groups and see his ' enemy' as an individual.

In other words, a Muslim could very well be your neighbor.