DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: History
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9047--------------------------------------------------
Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 15, 2014, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First here is a list of the 20 canons passed by the Council of
Nicea. Some canons have been shortened in this particular list.
CANON 1 Eunuchs may be received into the number of the clergy,
but those who castrate themselves shall not be received.
CANON 2 Those who have come from the heathen shall not be
immediately advance to the priesthood. For without a probation
of some time a neophyte is of no advantage. But if after
ordination it be found out that he has sinned previously, let
him then be expelled from the clergy.
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."
CANON 4 "It is by all means proper that a bishop should be
appointed by all the bishops in the province. But should this be
difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of
distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages
of the absent bishops also being given and communicated in
writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every
province the ratification of what is done should be left to the
Metropolitan."
CANON 5 Such as have been excommunicated by certain bishops
shall not be restored by others, unless the excommunication was
the result of pusillanimity, or strife, or some other similar
cause. And that this may be duly attended to, there shall be in
each year two synods in every province--one before Lent, the
other toward autumn.
CANON 6 "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis
prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all
these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.
Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches
retain their privileges. And this is to be universally
understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent
of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a
man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops
shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common
suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with
the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority
prevail."
CANON 7 "Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that
the Bishop of Aelia [Capitolina = Jerusalem] should be honored,
let him (saving the due dignity to the Metropolis [Caesarea
Maritima]) have the next place of honor."
CANON 8 If those called Cathari come over, let them first make
profession that they are willing to communicate with the twice
married, and to grant pardon to the lapsed. And on this
condition he who happens to be in orders, shall continue in the
same order, so that a bishop shall be a bishop. Whoever was a
bishop among the Cathari let him, however, become a
Chorepiscopus, or let him enjoy the honor of a presbyter or a
bishop. For in one church there shall not be two bishops.
CANON 9 Whoever are ordained without examination, shall be
deposed if it be found out afterwards that they had been
guilty." [of, e.g., blasphemy, bigamy, heresy, idolatry, magic]
CANON 10 "If any who have lapsed have been ordained through the
ignorance, ore even with the [previous knowledge of the
ordainers, this shall not prejudice the Canon of the Church. For
when they are discovered, they shall be deposed."
CANON 11 As many as fell without necessity, even if therefore
undeserving of indulgence, yet some indulgence shall be shown
them and they shall be prostrators for twelve years.
CANON 12 Those who endured violence and were seen to have
resisted, but who afterwards yielded to wickedness, and returned
to the Army, shall be excommunicated for ten years. But in every
case the way in which they do their penance must be scrutinized.
And if anyone who is doing penance shows himself zealous in its
performance, the Bishop shall treat him more leniently than had
he been cold and indifferent.
CANON 13 The dying are to be communicated. But if any such get
well, he must be placed in the number of those who share in the
prayers, and with these only. [This refers to those who have
been excommunicated, or who are undergoing a major penance.]
CANON 14 "Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the Holy and
Great Synod has decreed that after they have passed three years
as mere hearers, they shall pray with the Catechumens."
CANON 15 Neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon shall be
transferred from city to city. But they shall be sent back
should they attempt to do so, to the Churches in which they were
ordained.
CANON 16 Such presbyters or deacons as desert their own Church
are not to be admitted into another, but are to be sent back to
their own diocese. But if any bishop should ordain one who
belongs to another Church without the consent of his own bishop,
the ordination shall be canceled.
CANON 17 Since many enrolled among the clergy, following
covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the Divine
Scripture, which says, `He heat not given his money upon usury
(Ex. 22.25; Deut. 23.29),' and in lending money asks for 1% per
month interest, the Holy and Great Synod thinks it just that if
after this Decree anyone be found to receive interest, whether
he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by
demanding `the whole and one half', or by using any other
contrivance whatever for filthy lucre's sake, he shall be
deposed from the Clergy and his name stricken from the list."
CANON 18 Deacons must abide within their own bounds. They shall
not administer the Eucharist to Presbyters, nor touch it before
Presbyters do, nor sit among the Presbyters. For all this is
contrary to the canons and decent order.
CANON 19 Paulianists must be rebaptized, and if such as are
clergymen seem to be blameless let them be ordained. If they do
not seem to be blameless, let them be deposed. Deaconnesses who
have been led astray, since they are not sharers of ordination,
are to be reckoned among the Laity.
CANON 20 On the Lord's Day and at Pentecost all must pray
standing and not kneeling.
#Post#: 9048--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 15, 2014, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Now for more in depth discussion, I'll quote the longer
versions.
Canon 1 If anyone due to sickness has undergone a surgical
operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, he is
allowed to remain among the clergy. But if anyone enrolled among
the clergy has castrated himself when in perfect health, it is
good for him to leave the ministry. From now on, no such person
should be promoted to the clergy. But since this applies only to
those who willfully castrate themselves, if anyone has been made
a eunuch by barbarians, or by his master, and is otherwise fit
for office, church law admits him to the clergy.
It is said that self-castration was popular among the Arians, so
it is possible that this canon was directed at them. It strikes
me as somewhat odd to allow some castrated men to serve as
priests and not others. If this was based on the Old Testament,
the reason wouldn't matter. There were men then who thought
Jesus meant self-castration in Matthew 19:12; but I do not see
how that could be since castrated men could not serve as priests
under any conditions. In fact, they could enter the
congregation, restricting them to the Court of Women and the
Court of Gentiles. Of course, self-castration was a pagan rite
as well with devotees of Cybele or Attis sometimes castrating
themselves in a religious frenzy.
Strangely enough, this issue is resurfacing although today the
reason for castration is different. Some churches are
ordaining transgendered people who were born as men and who had
operations to become women.
#Post#: 9049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: James Date: September 15, 2014, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
transgendered people
Then because they have instigated the castration they have self
mutilated their bodies. Does this mean they are in or out as
priests? I would have thought they should not be taken into the
church by the canon (1)
#Post#: 9050--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 15, 2014, 10:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=James link=topic=862.msg9049#msg9049
date=1410786833]
transgendered people
Then because they have instigated the castration they have self
mutilated their bodies. Does this mean they are in or out as
priests? I would have thought they should not be taken into the
church by the canon (1)
[/quote]Hi James,
I' pretty sure the Catholic Church and the various Orthodox
Churches would not allow transgendered priests; but it has
become acceptable in several "mainstream" denominations here in
the US and Canada to have transgendered clergy.
The Methodists have had two. One is named Weekley. Calling it
the most "deeply personal message" of his career, Weekley, 58,
told his congregation that the man who had ministered to their
spiritual needs, married them, buried their parents and baptized
their children -- was actually born a girl. From ABC
HTML http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/congregation-embraces-transgender-minister-larger-church-rift/story?id=8706416:
"It was a little unnerving," the Methodist minister said about
his Aug. 30 sermon in which he disclosed to his congregation at
Epworth United Methodist Church that he was transgender.
VIDEO: Transgender pastor in Oregon opens up to his congregation
27 years after changing his sex.
null
"I was grateful for the day. The service began like any other
and I called the message that day 'My Book Report,' because the
congregation knew I was working on a manuscript but they didn't
know what the book was about. That it was my history, my life
story, my life in the church," he said.
When he finished his speech the congregation burst into
applause.
Weekley is only the second transgender Methodist minister to
openly disclose his former gender, and is but one of a small
number of transgender clergy people ministering to congregations
across the country.
I doubt the Catholics and Orthodox, who require priests to be
men, would be convinced that people born as women had become
men.
The United Church of Canada has one according to The Star
HTML http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2011/05/15/how_transgender_united_church_minister_ruth_wood_came_out_to_her_parishioners.html:
In 2008, the church’s governing body, the General Council, asked
members to encourage the participation of transgender clergy and
laity in the life of the church. A motion approved by the
council’s executive began: “God has brought forth human beings
as creatures who are male, female, and sometimes dramatically or
subtly a complex mix of male and female in their bodies.”
A year ago, Moderator Mardi Tindal preached at the ordination of
the church’s first known transgender minister, Rev. Cindy
Bourgeois, who — after graduating with a Master of Divinity —
was appointed to Central United Church in Stratford. “Not only
is it no problem,” says Tindal, “it was a day of great
celebration.”
Baptists are doing it. From Baptist church ordains transgender
woman
HTML http://abpnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/28922-baptist-church-ordains-transgender-woman:
A transgender woman who attended George W. Truett Theological
Seminary and pastored a church in Central Texas as a man has
returned to the pulpit.
Allyson Robinson began June 23 as transitions pastor at Calvary
Baptist Church in Washington. The calling is temporary — helping
with preaching, mentoring and pastoral care duties along with
the deacons until the church names a longer-term intentional
interim pastor — probably this fall.
Calvary Baptist reaffirmed Robinson’s ordination June 15, prior
to Pastor Amy Butler’s departure to become senior minister of
the historic and progressive Riverside Church in New York City.
The Presbyterians are joining the trend. From
HTML https://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/co...6minister.html
HTML https://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/co...6minister.html:
After struggling with gender issues for decades, ordained
minister Eric Swenson had a sex-change operation. Now known as
the Reverend Erin Swenson, she will preach and conduct a
workshop on transgender issues this week.
The Reverend Erin Swenson, a transgendered Presbyterian
minister, will be the guest preacher at the April 26 Protestant
worship service. The following day, she will conduct a workshop
titled "Transgender: Minding the Body or Embodying the Mind?"
At the worship service, Swenson will speak on the church's
acceptance of difference in the New Testament. Her sermon is
titled "Join This Chariot." The workshop will allow Swenson to
discuss the issues of gender in our culture and describe her
experiences of gender and truth in both her family and the
church. The workshop is open only to the MHC community, but the
worship service is open to all.
Swenson was born male, married, and fathered two daughters, but
struggled with gender issues for decades. Swenson was ordained
as a minister in the Presbyterian Church before she had a
sex-change operation. After completing the surgical procedures
to change gender, Swenson asked Presbyterian officials to let
her retain the ordination she'd received as Eric Swenson. The
church's response marked "the first time that any mainstream
church had upheld the ordination of a transsexual Christian
minister," according to a Newsweek article on the decision. The
magazine quoted Swenson as saying, "I'm no she-male or drag
queen, and I don't want to fight society. But I have as much
right as anyone to practice my livelihood."
And of course, the Episcopal Church got into the act. I read
they had a transgender priest at the National Cathedral
recently. From Episcopal Church Votes to Allow Transgender
Ministers
HTML http://www.christianpost.com/news/episcopal-church-votes-to-allow-transgender-ministers-77820/:
A day after a legislative body of the Episcopal Church voted to
sell the denomination's New York headquarters amid budget cuts
and declining membership, church leaders on Saturday adopted
legislation to give transgenders the right to become lay and
ordained ministers.
At the church's ongoing week-long General Convention in
Indianapolis, Ind., the House of Bishops approved proposal that
would amend two canons to prohibit discrimination based on
"gender identity or expression" in the lay and ordained ministry
discernment process and in the overall life, worship and
governance of the church, Episcopal News Service reported.
[hr]
Three things seem clear, no, make that four.
1. The early Church had castrated men acting as priests. No
one thinks to make a law prohibiting something unless people are
doing it. So is it acceptable or not? Some early Christians
seemed to think it was okay, but. . . .
2. The overall consensus at the Council was against the
practice.
3. We now have mainstream denominations who say they believe in
the Nicene Creed (more about that later, and that's highly
controversial too with its own scandalous history since I will
show that nobody today uses the original Nicene Creed) and they
say the Catholic Church was just fine when this Council was
held; but these denominations have now rejected other things the
Council of Nicea made rulings on.
4. Almost no one takes anything the early Church taught too
seriously and they feel free to ignore history if it's something
they don't want to accept. They will advertise the bits they
like as being authentic historical Christianity but gloss over
the bits where they disagree. When we get to other canons, we
will see that even the Catholic Church has done this and the
Orthodox Church has done it too; indeed they felt free to start
breaking the rules almost as soon as they wrote them. No one
today takes all these things seriously; and history shows the
early Bishops also didn't.
#Post#: 9051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 15, 2014, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Canon 2. It has occurred that men who recently converted to the
faith from heathenism, after a short period of instruction, have
been immediately brought to the spiritual bath and then advanced
to the priesthood or even episcopate as soon as they have been
baptized. Whether this has been done because of a lack of
ministers or simply from impatience, it is contrary to church
law. Therefore we have decided that this will not be done in the
future. A catechumen needs more time for a longer trial after
baptism. The apostolic saying is clear, “He must not be a recent
convert, or he may become blinded and fall into judgment and the
Devil’s snare?” [1 Tim 3:6]. If, as time goes on, the man is
discovered to have committed some sensual (psychikos) sin, and
is convicted by two or three witnesses, let him leave the
clergy. Anyone who violates these enactments will imperil his
own position among the clergy, as a person who presumes to
disobey the great Council.
Modern churches aren't as bad as the early churches were on this
one. Today most churches require their clergy study for years;
and while some people may not understand the need for this, I
think Canon 2 gives a good reason other than the studying part.
It's simply unwise to make someone a minister until you see if
he has stay powering or not, until you see if he's attracted by
power, by money or by lust. But even after the Council of
Nicea ruled on this, the practice continued. People felt they
could break this rule if they wanted to. We have two examples
of prominent men being made Bishops in quite a rush.
Ambrose was elected Bishop of Milan before he had even been
baptized. From Wikipedia
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose:
In the late 4th century there was a deep conflict in the diocese
of Milan between the Catholics and Arians. In 374 the bishop of
Milan, Auxentius, an Arian, died, and the Arians challenged the
succession. Ambrose went to the church where the election was to
take place, to prevent an uproar, which was probable in this
crisis. His address was interrupted by a call "Ambrose,
bishop!", which was taken up by the whole assembly.
Ambrose was known to be Catholic in belief, but also acceptable
to Arians due to the charity shown in theological matters in
this regard. At first he energetically refused the office, for
which he was in no way prepared: Ambrose was neither baptized
nor formally trained in theology. Upon his appointment, Ambrose
fled to a colleague's home seeking to hide. Upon receiving a
letter from the Emperor Gratian praising the appropriateness of
Rome appointing individuals evidently worthy of holy positions,
Ambrose's host gave him up. Within a week, he was baptized,
ordained and duly consecrated bishop of Milan.
Ambrose will probably show up later as this thread goes on; but
the point for now is how lightly people took these canons from
Nicea. It's true he had been reared in a Christian family; but
for some reason, he was not baptized. This also calls into
question the Catholic assertion that infant baptism was
regularly practiced in the early Church. It appears to me that
their position has changed over time.
Then we have an example in the Eastern Church of Nectarius who
became an Archbishop most irregularly. Gregory of Naziensus had
been Archbishop and he was supposed to preside over the Council
of Constantinople; but no sooner had that council convened when
several Bishops objected to Gregory since he too had been
ordained irregularly -- in violation of canon 15 or 16 (we will
discuss his case later). So Gregory resigned, and the Emperor
was given a list of candidates and he chose a man who was
unbaptized!
When the Emperor Theodosius I wanted the Bishops at the Council
to suggest new candidates and reserving to himself the right of
making the choice, the Bishop of Antioch put at the bottom of
his list, Nectarius' name. The Emperor having read the lists,
declared Nectarius to be his choice. This caused some amazement
amongst the Fathers who wanted to know - who and what was this
Nectarius? He was still only a catechumen. There was much
astonishment at the emperor's unexpected choice, but the people
of Constantinople were delighted at the news as was the whole
council.
Nectarius was duly baptized and his clothes were changed for the
robes of a Bishop of the Imperial city and became at once
president of the Second Ecumenical Council.
Nectarius ruled the church for upwards of 16 years, and is
thought of as having been a good prelate. His name heads the 150
signatures to the canons of the Second Ecumenical Council. The
3rd canon declares that, "...the Bishop of Constantinople shall
hold the first rank after the bishop of Rome, because
Constantinople is the new Rome." However, it was not until 1439
that the Roman Catholic Church recognized the Patriarchate of
Constantinople as holding this position at the Council of
Florence.
Isn't it strange? The Bishops objected to Gregory as being
made Archbishop against canon law but then voted in another
person in violation of canon law? Of course, it led to
trouble. Most of the Bishops at Constantinople were Eastern;
and the Pope and others in the West objected.
Unfortunately the Bishops of the West opposed the election
result and asked for a common synod of East and West to settle
the succession and so the Emperor Theodosius, soon after the
close of the second council, summoned the Imperial Bishops to a
fresh synod at Constantinople; nearly all of the same bishops
who had attended the earlier second council were assembled again
in early summer of 382. On arrival they received a letter from
the synod of Milan, inviting them to a great general council at
Rome; however they indicated that they must remain where they
were, because they had not made any preparations for such long a
journey. However, they sent three --Syriacus, Eusebius and
Priscian—with a synodal letter to Pope Damasus I, archbishop
Saint Ambrose and the other bishops assembled in the council at
Rome.
The Roman synod to which this letter was addressed was the fifth
under Damasus. No formal account remains of its proceedings, nor
of how its members treated the question of Nectarius.
Theodosius, did however, send commissaries to Rome in support of
his synod.
In his 15th letter (to the bishops of Illyria) he indicated that
the church in Rome had finally agreed to recognize both
Nectarius and Flavian.
Six letters from Nectarius remain extant in the files of his
predecessor Gregory Nazianzus. In the first he expresses his
hearty good wishes for his episcopate. The last is of great
importance, urging him not to be too liberal in tolerating the
Apollinarians.[1]
In 383 a third synod at Constantinople was held. In spite of the
decrees of bishops and emperor, the Arians and Pneumatomachians
continued to spread their doctrines. Theodosius summoned all
parties to the Imperial city for a great discussion in June,
hoping to reconcile all differences. Before this he had sent for
the Archbishop and told him that all questions should be fully
debated.[1]
After this, Nectarius returned home, full of anxiety and
consulted the Novatianist Bishop Agelius, who felt himself
unsuited to arbitrate on such a controversy. However he did have
a reader, Sisinnius, a philosopher and theologian, to whom he
referred the argument with the Arians. Sisinnius suggested that
they should produce the testimonies of the old Fathers of the
Church on the doctrine of the Son, and first ask the heads of
the several parties whether they accepted these authorities or
desired to anathematize them.
Both the Archbishop and the Emperor agreed to this suggestion
and when the Bishops met, the Emperor asked whether they
respected "...the teachers who lived before the Arian division?"
They confirmed that they did and he then asked if they
acknowledged, "...them sound and trustworthy witnesses of the
true Christian doctrine?".
This question however produced divisions and so the emperor
ordered each party to draw up a written confession of its
doctrine. When this was done, the Bishops were summoned to the
Imperial palace, where the emperor received them with kindness
and retired to his study with their written confessions.
Theodosius however rejected and destroyed all except that of the
orthodox, because he felt that the others introduced a division
into the Holy Trinity.
After this, Theodosius forbade all sectaries, except the
Novatianists, to hold divine services or to publish their
doctrines or to ordain clergy, under threat of severe civil
penalties.
In 385 the emperor's wife Aelia Flaccilla (or Placilla) and
their daughter Pulcheria died. The archbishop asked Gregory of
Nyssa to preach the funeral sermons for both of them.
Towards the close of his episcopate, Nectarius abolished the
office of presbyter penitentiary, whose duty appears to have
been to receive confessions before communion. His example was
followed by nearly all other Bishops. The presbyter penitentiary
was added to the ecclesiastical roll about the time of the
Novatianist schism, when that party declined to communicate with
those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution. Gradually there
were fewer lapsed to reconcile, and his duties became more
closely connected with preparation for communion. A disgraceful
occurrence induced Nectarius to leave the participation in holy
communion entirely to individual consciences and abolish the
office.
Nectarius died in office on 17 September 397 and was succeeded
by Saint John Chrysostom.
This last succession was also against the canons of Nicea and
led to great conflict in the Eastern Church and to great
personal tragedy for Saint John Chrysostom.
#Post#: 9052--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 15, 2014, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Would anyone care to comment on this one?
Canon 3 The great Council has stringently forbidden any bishop,
priest, deacon, or any of the clergy, to have a woman living
with him, except a mother, sister, aunt, or some such person who
is beyond all suspicion.
#Post#: 9053--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: coldwar Date: September 15, 2014, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
^ 'Canon 3 The great Council has stringently forbidden any
bishop, priest, deacon, or any of the clergy, to have a woman
living with him, except a mother, sister, aunt, or some such
person who is beyond all suspicion"
I'm reading with interest. It's so hard for me to understand
where this all came from to be perfectly honest. (more on that
shortly)
Canon 3 seems especially reprehensible, to forbid a normal
married relationship for any and all Clergy, especially as
you've (rightly) observed how some of the other Canons have lead
to some allowance of abnormal relations among Clergy. Please
excuse my use of the terms "normal and abnormal" --- it's the
way I see things personally, but others here might prefer the
terms "traditional" ad "non-traditional" --- OK let's stick with
that. My point is, this is only a few hundred years removed from
Old Testament times, when it was mandatory for Temple and
Synagogue Priests and Rabbis to be in a traditional
relationship, and now this is just as dogmatically saying that
this is to be stringently forbidden! To me, it seems
anti-Semitic and satanic, and obviously would, and has, led to
all sorts of trouble.
Then there's the "beyond all suspicion" part. Suspicion of
what?" Sex? A Bishop's mother obviously had sex, otherwise the
Bishop wouldn't exist. I know what it means - I don't need an
explanation for that; what I do need is an explanation of why
the Roman Church so strictly adheres to this Canon even up to
our day. Eastern Clergy does not forbid marriage, yet the great
Filioque controversy between east and west was not over this
matter at all. For some reason, my brain cannot even comprehend
what the Filioque controversy was all about - I can't comprehend
the difference between the two sides. It seems to me that this
Canon 3 business should have been regarded as far more important
than the Filioque! Am I making sense?
All Clergy should be allowed to be married, but if some choose
not to be, that ought to be also OK. I'd qualify that by saying
that the unmarried ones ought to be monitored more closely than
the married ones... we recently here in New Brunswick had a
(un-named) City Councillor sentenced to 18 years for child porn
and taking advantage of children in his care as both a church
and broader community youth worker... and he was not, and never
was, a Roman Catholic. In fact, I knew the guy, and served with
him in connection with the Vineyard Church leadership for a
short time, and also knew he was connected with the Anglican
Church. He got away with absolutely un-speakable things for a
very long time, and nobody suspected a thing.
#Post#: 9054--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: James Date: September 15, 2014, 1:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Coldwar got there just before me , I was going to say that since
we have already seen that the laws could be bent when suited, I
wonder they are not actively flouted following the revelations
concerning the priesthood and the ill use of children.
Would this law not be seen as the reason so many men gave way to
their perversion.
#Post#: 9055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: coldwar Date: September 15, 2014, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the entire collection of Canons, it seems to be a
whole lot to do with "jostling for places of honour" - something
the Lord expressly forbade. Some of the doctrinal positions are
biblical, but most aren't. Curiously, Canon 19 mentions
"Paulianists" - that they must be re-baptised. Wierd! Our former
C of E Priest wouldn't re-baptise anybody, even if they
requested it, if they were already baptised as an unknowing
infant.
There is very little here which I actually understand!
#Post#: 9057--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 15, 2014, 8:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=coldwar link=topic=862.msg9053#msg9053
date=1410805441]
^ 'Canon 3 The great Council has stringently forbidden any
bishop, priest, deacon, or any of the clergy, to have a woman
living with him, except a mother, sister, aunt, or some such
person who is beyond all suspicion"
I'm reading with interest. It's so hard for me to understand
where this all came from to be perfectly honest. (more on that
shortly)
Canon 3 seems especially reprehensible, to forbid a normal
married relationship for any and all Clergy, especially as
you've (rightly) observed how some of the other Canons have lead
to some allowance of abnormal relations among Clergy. Please
excuse my use of the terms "normal and abnormal" --- it's the
way I see things personally, but others here might prefer the
terms "traditional" ad "non-traditional" --- OK let's stick with
that. My point is, this is only a few hundred years removed from
Old Testament times, when it was mandatory for Temple and
Synagogue Priests and Rabbis to be in a traditional
relationship, and now this is just as dogmatically saying that
this is to be stringently forbidden! To me, it seems
anti-Semitic and satanic, and obviously would, and has, led to
all sorts of trouble.[/quote]Ha, ha! The language in Canon 3 is
so imprecisely written, I had to read it three times and still
wouldn't have derived its proper meaning from it alone -- I
would have thought they meant no women period.
Did you notice that the list does not include "wife"? The
language is not very precise! They had married priests then.
The Orthodox Church still allows married clergy.
[quote]Then there's the "beyond all suspicion" part. Suspicion
of what?" Sex? A Bishop's mother obviously had sex, otherwise
the Bishop wouldn't exist. I know what it means - I don't need
an explanation for that; what I do need is an explanation of why
the Roman Church so strictly adheres to this Canon even up to
our day. Eastern Clergy does not forbid marriage, yet the great
Filioque controversy between east and west was not over this
matter at all. For some reason, my brain cannot even comprehend
what the Filioque controversy was all about - I can't comprehend
the difference between the two sides. It seems to me that this
Canon 3 business should have been regarded as far more important
than the Filioque! Am I making sense?[/quote]"Beyond suspicion"
is a wonderfully vague phrase. If someone thought the Pope was
involved in an incestuous relationship with his daughter, would
that mean the daughter couldn't live with her father? I don't
know if Lucrezia Borgia ever lived with her father Alexander VI;
but we do know that her mother did not. From Wikipedia
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannozza_dei_Cattanei:
Vannozza dei Cattanei (13 July 1442–24 November 1518) Giovanna
dei Cattanei, nicknamed "Vannozza" was an Italian woman who was
one of the many mistresses of Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, later to
become Pope Alexander VI. Among them, she was the one whose
relationship with him lasted the longest.
Born in 1442, most likely in Mantua, Vannozza moved to Rome
where she was landlady of several inns (Osterie), at first in
the Borgo, then in Campo de' Fiori. Before becoming Borgia's
mistress, she allegedly had a relationship with Cardinal
Giuliano della Rovere, the future Pope Julius II.
Everyone knew about Alexander's affairs; but it seems that his
mistresses did not live with him, and he almost felt obliged to
have his daughter married. At least some effort was put into
maintaining "avoiding the appearance of wrong doing." I could
be wrong; but I believe Pope Pius XII was the first Pope to have
a woman living in the Vatican. Again from Wikipedia
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascalina_Lehnert:
Madre (Mother) Pascalina Lehnert (25 August 1894, Ebersberg,
Kingdom of Bavaria, German Empire – 13 November 1983, Vienna,
Austria), born Josefina Lehnert, was a German Roman Catholic nun
who served as Pope Pius XII's housekeeper and secretary from his
period as Apostolic Nuncio to Bavaria in 1917 until his death as
pope in 1958. She managed the papal charity office for Pius XII
from 1944 until the pontiff's death in 1958. She was a Sister of
the Holy Cross, Menzingen order.
"Madre Pascalina", as she was called, led the Pacelli household
in the nunciature in Munich, Bavaria from 1917 to 1925 and in
the nunciature to Germany and Prussia in Berlin from 1925 to
1929, where Nuncio Pacelli was Dean of the Diplomatic Corps.
There she became known for organizing the Pacelli parties,
"which were auspicious, tastefully sprinkling glitter with the
strictest European etiquette.... The nunciature was soon a major
center of Germany’s social and official worlds. Streams of
aristocrats, including President Paul von Hindenburg (one of
Germany’s Field Marshals during World War I), were frequent
callers, blending with students and workers, anyone whom
Pacelli, the shrewdest of diplomats, chose to smile upon".[1]
Pacelli was recalled to Rome in 1929 to become Cardinal
Secretary of State. Madre Pascalina soon resided as housekeeper
with two other sisters in the Vatican, and were the only women
inside the Papal conclave, which, on 2 March 1939, elected
Pacelli to become the successor of Pope Pius XI.
Did it lead to suspicion? Yes. From archeloas.com
HTML http://www.archelaos.com/popes/details.aspx?id=299:
In 1918, while on holiday in Menzingen, Switzerland, Archbishop
Pacelli met Sister Pasqualina Lehnert, a German nun. She later
moved in with him as his housekeeper. Rumours grew over the
obscure relationship until Pius XII himself demanded a full
investigation. His sister and nephew both pleaded with him to
remove her. On Mar 2, 1939, the cardinals voted unanimously in
defense of Pius XII's innocence, and to allow him to continue
his "peculiar way of living". Because she often decided who
could have an audience with Pius XII or which Vatican documents
he could even see, she was nicknamed "La Popessa" (Popess).
After Pius XII's death in 1958, she was removed from the Vatican
city.
I don't know if anything was going on, but I do know it lead to
speculation. The Pope was ignoring canon 3; and the Cardinals
enabled him. When canon 3 talks about "beyond all suspicion,"
I take that as a reference to:
1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Your point is well taken about how far things have gone. Few
men ever become rabbis if not settled down in marriage; and I
still believe Paul meant that Bishops must be married or
widowers. I do not think it wise to promote an unmarried priest
to Bishop. It may not be wise to have unmarried priests even.
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of
one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to
hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but
patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he
take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the
condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without;
lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not
given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the
office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober,
faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their
children and their own houses well.
[quote]All Clergy should be allowed to be married, but if some
choose not to be, that ought to be also OK. I'd qualify that by
saying that the unmarried ones ought to be monitored more
closely than the married ones... we recently here in New
Brunswick had a (un-named) City Councillor sentenced to 18 years
for child **** and taking advantage of children in his care as
both a church and broader community youth worker... and he was
not, and never was, a Roman Catholic. In fact, I knew the guy,
and served with him in connection with the Vineyard Church
leadership for a short time, and also knew he was connected with
the Anglican Church. He got away with absolutely un-speakable
things for a very long time, and nobody suspected a
thing.[/quote]If you read that section from 1 Timothy 3 again, I
think you can see that Paul means there are big advantages to
having married clergy with a proven record of knowing how to
deal with people in their own families. I can see allowing
some clergy to be unmarried; but I think the position of Bishop
is so important that only married men or widowers who were
happily married should be considered for the job.
There are too many risks for scandals like the one you mention.
You get the men who are secretly gay or those who are attracted
to children. If I get the time, I may post some scandals from
the Orthodox Churches like the Bishop involved in a heterosexual
**** and the Bishop who enjoyed almost everything including
underaged girls and boys and male strippers. They might have
done better to have a live-in girlfriend -- I'm joking, of
course -- they would have done much better to have been married.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page