Nicea why dont protestant churches accept all of the canons

[damo73]

To those of us that accept the council of Nicea and i would say that most of us do, since we believe in the Holy Trinity as being the one true God.

I would ask why we reject the other cannons of this council, since the church was one should we not accept all of them?

Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.

• Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
• Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
• Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
• Canon 5: Concerning the excomunicate.
• Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
• Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
• Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
• Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
• Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
• Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
• Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
• Canon 13:Indulgence to be granted toexcomunicated persons in danger of death.
• Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
• Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
• Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
• Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
• Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
• Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
• Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

I have also noted by reading the church fathers this early church does not seem to be anything like the protestant churches of today, so how is it that we are more like the early Christians?

And no i am not Catholic.

 

[S Walch]

Well, the simple answer is:

If a protestant is saying that the whole thing is like how the early church was. They're lying.

If a Roman Catholic says that the RC church is like how the early church was. They're lying.

And the same goes for most church denominations around today.

Also, people accept the Nicean Creed because people say that the NC is derived from Scripture, and therefore should actually be considered older than the Nicean council itself, and therefore the rest of the Canon's are just things that applied to the church in Constantines day.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Most people want to beleive that their church is 100% right. Because most people do not make time to study scripture with history to get all the facts they rely on their church leaders to do all that for them. This is true with any church.

 

[freespiritchurch]

It's easy to get the impression that Protestant churches aren't like the "early" church, but make sure you know what early church you're talking about. The Orthodox Church is far more like the church of the 3rd and 4th century than any other, but what about the church of the 1st century?

Also, you have to look beneath the surface. For example, people will point out that bishops were important to the church. OK, fine--but in the early church, the bishop was the pastor of a congregation. Bishops didn't become regional authorities until later, when Christianity began to expand to the point where it wasn't feasible to have a bishop in each church Also, bishops were elected by the people of the church, and then consecrated by other bishops. That might be closer to the Presbyterian/Reformed polity. And if you read the epistles of the New Testament, Paul talks about spiritual gifts in a way that sounds distinctly Pentecostal Which one is "really" like the early church? Honestly, we don't know.

 

[E.C.]

Also, bishops were elected by the people of the church, and then consecrated by other bishops. That might be closer to the Presbyterian/Reformed polity. And if you read the epistles of the New Testament, Paul talks about spiritual gifts in a way that sounds distinctly Pentecostal Which one is "really" like the early church? Honestly, we don't know.

If I remember correctly, the Orthodox way of finding a new bishop is something like so: the priests and other laity from each parish in a diocese get together and each priest can nominate a person whom they would like to be bishop (there are prerequisites of course) then I believe that the Synod approves a nominated person and that person is consecrated by three or four other bishops.


Anyway, back to the original question. To really understand the why, you really have to look at the canons and at history: the Reformation.

During ye olde Reformation days, people were pretty ticked at the Roman Catholic Church. Why? The leadership got a little corrupt. What's a good solution to this? Get rid of that style of leadership!

May not be entirely accurate, but is an educated guess.

 

[revanneosl]

The early church is fascinating. I spend approximately 40% of my life studying it. The early church is full of important lessons which, if we do not learn them, we will be doomed to repeat them.

However, time has moved on, as it tends to do, and the church has moved on with it. There is no church today that closely resembles the church of the fourth century (much less the church of the first century). Spending time at the tote-board of figuring out which church resembles the early church MOST or LEAST is time wasted.

The canons of the venerable fathers of Nicaea represent the best thinking about how to order the church for the salvation of the world 1600 years ago. However, if they had been adequate to address the organizational needs of the church for all time, there would never have been another council. There have been many other councils.

In short, no church today follows all of the canons of the council of Nicaea because
2007
- 325
1682 years worth of changing needs and situations

 

[a_ntv]

The canons of Nicea include both organiztive issues and doctrinal issues.

How many bishops shall attend a bishop ordination is a organizative issue, but the need of a sacramental ordination is a doctrinal issue.
Honours to the Jerusalem bishop is a organizative issue, the subordinate postion of deacon to priests is a theological issue.

nowaday ALL bishop-apostolic-churches (CC/EO/OO/ACoE/others) respect ALL the theological issues included in the canons (I'm focusing here on the canons, not on the Creed)

 

[simonthezealot]

Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.

We've been given the scriptures as our moral and faith guide... This contradicts scripture...
SEE BELOW...
1 Timothy
Chapter 4 1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions 2 through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. 3 They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer.

 

[revanneosl]

We've been given the scriptures as our moral and faith guide... This contradicts scripture...
SEE BELOW...
1 Timothy...

Welcome to the Church History forum. "We've been given the scriptures as our moral and faith guide" is a theological statement, not an historical statement. If by "we" you mean Christians, then historically speaking the vast majority of "us" have also been given the canons of the councils, the creeds, and the teachings of the various magesteria of the church "as our moral and faith guide"


The question "why has the church come to disregard some of the canons of the council of Nicaea"? I gave a simple answer appropriate to a Church History discussion. Neatly enough, the answer was "history"

Br. a-ntv gave a fuller answer, "historically we decided to disregard the organizational canons and keep the theological canons"

Scripture quotations are sometimes helpful in a discussion of the church's history, but only rarely.

Grace & Peace,
Anne

 

[simonthezealot]

Welcome to the Church History forum. "We've been given the scriptures as our moral and faith guide" is a theological statement, not an historical statement. If by "we" you mean Christians, then historically speaking the vast majority of "us" have also been given the canons of the councils, the creeds, and the teachings of the various magesteria of the church "as our moral and faith guide"


The question "why has the church come to disregard some of the canons of the council of Nicaea"? I gave a simple answer appropriate to a Church History discussion. Neatly enough, the answer was "history"

Br. a-ntv gave a fuller answer, "historically we decided to disregard the organizational canons and keep the theological canons"

Scripture quotations are sometimes helpful in a discussion of the church's history, but only rarely.

Grace & Peace,
Anne

Your insight is duly noted...
The OP asked; I would ask why we reject the other cannons of this council, since the church was one should we not accept all of them

I explained the reason canon 3 was rejected was cuz it contradicts scripture.

 

[simonthezealot]

I have also noted by reading the church fathers this early church does not seem to be anything like the protestant churches of today.

Really why not?
It seems to me most pre 5th century fathers relied very very heavily on the sufficiency of scripture as their guide, and this is clearly a protestant POV. So for you to make this claim you need to spell out what of the ECF's did not seem protestant.

 

[E.C.]

Did the early Church Fathers believe in the whole "faith alone" idea? No.
Did the early Church Fathers believe that whenever one wanted to, one could simply leave and start out one's own completely separate and new church that has almost nothing similar with others? No.
Did the early Church Fathers' worship consist of only a song or two followed by a very boring sermon? No.
Did the early Church Fathers believe that the bread and wine was only bread and wine and not the Body and Blood of Christ? No.

Also, by the end of the 5th century, there were already three Ecumenical Councils! All three of them had determined and established (by this point at least) what was and was not Christianity.

 

[S Walch]

Did the early Church Fathers believe that whenever one wanted to, one could simply leave and start out one's own completely separate and new church that has almost nothing similar with others? No.

Sorry, but protestants don't believe that's right either.

Just because people have done it, doesn't mean to say that Protestants think it's actually o.k.

But, just like God allows sin on the planet earth, we too also allow denominations.

Did the early Church Fathers' worship consist of only a song or two followed by a very boring sermon? No.

Sorry, but that's just an insult to all the great preachers of the Protestant Churches. I'll ask you to refrain from such again please.

 

[Trento]

Really why not?
It seems to me most pre 5th century fathers relied very very heavily on the sufficiency of scripture as their guide, and this is clearly a protestant POV. So for you to make this claim you need to spell out what of the ECF's did not seem protestant.

Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church --

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian and Parristic scholar from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-49

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

 

[Trento]

We've been given the scriptures as our moral and faith guide... This contradicts scripture...
SEE BELOW...
1 Timothy
Chapter 4 1Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions 2 through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. 3 They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer.

Read it in context. In 1 Timothy 4, Paul is speaking about those who have veered away from the Christian understanding of the goodness of marriage, opting for a false asceticism that denounces it. This heresy would later raise its head against the Church in the form of the Cathari, who condemned marriage and procreation as great evils. The fortunate element of the heresy is that it soon disappeared-it wasn't very hereditary!
Such an unbalanced idea of marriage is the opposite of the celibacy chosen by Catholic priests. Those who "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12 NAB) do so not because marriage is bad, but precisely because its goodness makes its renunciation a valuable and generous gift to offer to God. After all, the goodness of a gift determines the value of the sacrifice. This is why the Israelites offered God their first-fruits, not their leftovers.

The decision to remain celibate is freely chosen by seminarians, and it is not the Church that is forbidding them to marry. They may choose married or celibate life according to where the Lord is calling them. Making such a pledge of celibacy is not foreign to the New Testament. In fact, one chapter after Paul denounces those who forbid marriage, he mentions Christian widows who make a pledge of celibacy-and how they will incur condemnation if their sensuality estranges them from Christ by enticing them to marry. By reading Paul's words on marriage and celibacy in context, it becomes clear that forbidding marriage is one thing and freely making a vow of virginity is another.
Biblical evidence for the discipline of celibacy can be found in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old, Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry better. "The word of the Lord came to me: 'You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place'" (Jer. 16:1-2).

Also in the Old Testament, God asked even married couples to practice celibacy on certain occasions. For example, Moses asked the Israelites to abstain from marital intimacy while he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15), and Jewish tradition attests that he remained celibate for life following the command of Exodus 9:15 and Deuteronomy 5:28. The Lord also asked that the priests refrain from sexual relations with their wives during their time of service in the temple. In yet another example, the priests ordered King David and his people to abstain from marital relations on the occasion of eating the holy bread (1 Sam. 21:4).

In all these instances, there is a theme of abstaining from marital relations due to the presence of something very holy. It is not that the marital act is sinful, but that when one is in such proximity to God, it is right to offer him an undivided mind, heart, and body. If it was fitting under the Old Covenant to serve the temple, to approach God, and receive the holy bread with a consecrated body, it is no surprise that permanent celibacy is fitting for a Roman Catholic priest, since his priestly service is continual.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus states, "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (19:12 NAB). This is an invitation from Christ to live as he did, and there can be nothing unacceptable in that.

Paul recognized the wisdom in this, and encouraged celibacy in order to free a man to be anxious about the things of the Lord and to serve him undividedly (1 Cor 7:8,32-35). In his words, "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Cor. 7:8, 32-35, 38).

 

[E.C.]

Sorry, but that's just an insult to all the great preachers of the Protestant Churches. I'll ask you to refrain from such again please.

I'm sorry it slipped. I've had a lot of bad luck with many many Protestants because up until last August I was Roman Catholic and many many Protestants I encountered thought that that was reason to ridicule, insult and humiliate.

Now that I'm Orthodox, some still see that as reason to ridicule, insult and humiliate.

 

[S Walch]

I'm sorry it slipped. I've had a lot of bad luck with many many Protestants because up until last August I was Roman Catholic and many many Protestants I encountered thought that that was reason to ridicule, insult and humiliate.

Now that I'm Orthodox, some still see that as reason to ridicule, insult and humiliate.

Welcome to the world

You'll always find idiots who can't talk to you normally.

I find it's just best to ignore people like that

 

[simonthezealot]

Did the early Church Fathers believe in the whole "faith alone" idea? No.
Did the early Church Fathers believe that whenever one wanted to, one could simply leave and start out one's own completely separate and new church that has almost nothing similar with others? No.
Did the early Church Fathers' worship consist of only a song or two followed by a very boring sermon? No.
Did the early Church Fathers believe that the bread and wine was only bread and wine and not the Body and Blood of Christ? No.

Also, by the end of the 5th century, there were already three Ecumenical Councils! All three of them had determined and established (by this point at least) what was and was not Christianity.

The answer is not no to all of these!!!!
Some did in each case... I can share them if you'd like?

 

[E.C.]

The answer is not no to all of these!!!!
Some did in each case... I can share them if you'd like?

Sure, and afterward I can give some counter examples.

 

[simonthezealot]

Read it in context. In 1 Timothy 4, .

You can twist your scrippture however you or newadvent chooses... HERE is the facts...

TYPOLOGY... a WARNING for future apostasy...​

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times ....​

forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)​

The two teachings given ("forbidding to marry" and "to abstain from foods") by which to identify the ones to whom this text applies.



CCC #1580, speaking in the context of "priests" it states:

In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.​

(i'd say that means forbidding)​

It is well known that both priests and nuns are forbidden to marry and it identifies those who are practioners as ungodly wicked people (1 Timothy 4:1-3).

You say it is their choice!!! BUT!!!
It is still forbidden!
1 Timothy 4:3 simply says, "forbidding to marry",