[Annewsded]

Concerning the "men" part, how do you explain the Christian teaching in Matthew 5:32? It doesn't seem to agree with what you just wrote. See also 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Oh goodie, another Biblical scholar.

Matthew 5:32 goes proves my point: a man could divorce his wife for adultery, but not the other way round. And even in Jesus' mind, divorcing your wife was acceptable if she was unfaithful to you.

(I think Islam is one of the few religions where a wife could divorce her husband, but they got around that by making single women non-people.)

In a society with text-based religion, you have three different sets of rules: you have what the text tells you you're supposed to do, what the religious leaders tell you you can do and what people actually do.

Even in primitive societies, anthropologists have found a disconnect between the society's social mores and how people actually behave. They're a name for this, but it escapes me now.

[DarrenBent]

Oh goodie, another Biblical scholar.

Oh, Morley, you make me laugh. If I knew who you were, I'd send a beer to your table.

[wsbizwsa]

"man-made construct"? What about the 10 Commandments, for those of us who believe?

OldMama, on the subject of baptism, in the Nicene Creed, which you are most likely familiar with, it states: "I believe in ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins...", which means if you are baptized legitimately in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in ANY Christian denomination, you don't need to be baptized again in another denomination.

Nope! There were no other denominations in 325 AD. Well, denominations you could be part of and not be killed in any civilized part of the world. During that period of Christianity, there was no such thing as confession. Your sins were forgiven ONCE at Baptism, and after that you had to be on your best behavior. Hence why the likes of Constantine I of the eastern Roman Empire were baptized on their deathbed. That is what that line refers to, not what you're referring to, which is a post-Reformation spin on the Creed. Confession came later. Much later, and a retrofit happened.

[Ternneowns]

Nope! There were no other denominations in 325 AD. Well, denominations you could be part of and not be killed in any civilized part of the world. During that period of Christianity, there was no such thing as confession. Your sins were forgiven ONCE at Baptism, and after that you had to be on your best behavior. Hence why the likes of Constantine I of the eastern Roman Empire were baptized on their deathbed. That is what that line refers to, not what you're referring to, which is a post-Reformation spin on the Creed. Confession came later. Much later, and a retrofit happened.

I would consider that far back to be "pre-Jesuit"

The Catholic faith had not yet formed into the complex socio-political organ and was pretty much grouped into a loose collection of believers scattered between present-day Italy and present-day Iraq, with the bulk of them them living near Rome and in Constantinople.


AD 325 is important is because that's when Christianity first jumped from being an "underground" religion into a highly-complex social order thanks to Emperor Constantine.


If it weren't for him, the Catholic Church would not exist.

Two of the tapestries in the great hall of the Philadelphia Museum of Art are dedication tapestries to Constantine.

[VladFal]

I thought the whole series was about Constantine.

And yeah, the 4th Century was way before the Jesuits.

[WaydayTew]

I thought the whole series was about Constantine.

And yeah, the 4th Century was way before the Jesuits.

Actually I think you're right about those.

Been meaning to yank one of those "drapes" off the wall. I need a new living room rug.

[TOPERink]

If you damage something that historical, I will hunt you down.

I get history orgasms just driving by that place, that used to only happen to me by the Pennsylvania State House (Independence Hall is such a touristy name) until I took a Sunday to explore that entire museum. Six hours on one Sunday gave me more awesome than the $30 trip to the Star Trek exhibit at the Franklame Institute ever could have.

[SoOW2LeA]

"We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". If a person in today's world is baptized in any denomination of Christianity, he/she need not be re-baptized if changing to another denomination. The key point is ONE baptism.

[Liabmeasez]

I'm just giving some historical background on the subject, and what that line meant when it was codified.

[Patamuta]

"We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". If a person in today's world is baptized in any denomination of Christianity, he/she need not be re-baptized if changing to another denomination. The key point is ONE baptism.

Southern Baptists (indeed, most Baptist sects) will not recognize infant baptism, or any of that sprinkled water stuff. They require full immersion of a person old enough to understand the consequences of their decision. Baptists, it seems, follow the not-so-nicene creed.

[Niiinioa]

This is an interesting discussion but if you read my post, I wasn't talking about Baptism. I was talking about Confirmation, another sacrament entirely.

The Episcopalians did not re-confirm me. Since I had been confirmed by a Roman Catholic bishop (Krol, in fact), the Episcopalians considered me confirmed by a bishop in the line of succession from Peter. Therefore, my Roman Confirmation was just fine. Another adult in that "Confirmation class" had been confirmed in the Lutheran Church. She was then re-confirmed in the Episcopal church because the Lutheran bishops are not seen as in the line of succession from Peter. I was just "received" which consisted basically of a handshake from the bishop and a blessing. I wore a red dress anyway. The nuns taught me well.

[viagraman]

I thought the whole series was about Constantine.

Philadelphia Museum of Art - Collections : Gallery Highlights

They're based on a series on the Life of Constantine executed by Raphael and his workshop in the Sala di Costantino in the papal apartments in the Vatican.

Interesting, the tapestries exclude the "Donation of Constantine" (Donation of Constantine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which was the basis for the Pope's temporal power.

[kentbrookug]

Old Mama, I reread your post and indeed, it was about "reconfirmation". Sorry for this mistake

[vulikox]

This is an interesting discussion but if you read my post, I wasn't talking about Baptism. I was talking about Confirmation, another sacrament entirely.

The Episcopalians did not re-confirm me. Since I had been confirmed by a Roman Catholic bishop (Krol, in fact), the Episcopalians considered me confirmed by a bishop in the line of succession from Peter. Therefore, my Roman Confirmation was just fine. Another adult in that "Confirmation class" had been confirmed in the Lutheran Church. She was then re-confirmed in the Episcopal church because the Lutheran bishops are not seen as in the line of succession from Peter. I was just "received" which consisted basically of a handshake from the bishop and a blessing. I wore a red dress anyway. The nuns taught me well.

I love that this kinda stuff all goes back to Luther!

Of course the Episcopalians would consider you confirmed from a bishop in decent from Peter - they broke off from the Catholic Church cuz' of Henry VIII. The Lutherans on the other hand, were a whole 'nother sort of movement.

[Wluwsdtn]

Dayman,
Exactly. It's also why some Episcopalians do not consider themselves Protestant. But I assure you, my Roman Catholic family considers me Protestant! However, since I am the only one of my siblings to attend ANY church, even my Irish Catholic, goes to Mass everyday father is okay with it.

[halfstreet]

Technically no Episcopalian is protestant. The Anglican rite really isn't all that different from the Latin one, and was never meant to be. The division was political, not religious. Protestantism was a religious movement in protest to the perceived corruption and what they considered misguided doctrines in the Catholic Church. A lot of the stuff in Church today like the Bible in your language comes from the Counter-Reformation, the official Catholic response.

The Protestant movement didn't feel that connection to Peter was all that important, they believe that a person can read the Bible on their own in their own language and didn't rely on the interpretation of the local bishop.

[Navzrrqt]

I agree with you, Dayman. I don't consider myself Protestant. But most Roman Catholics, and even some members of my own Church, tend to lump us in with the other reform/protest movements.

[xtrslots]

I agree with you, Dayman. I don't consider myself Protestant. But most Roman Catholics, and even some members of my own Church, tend to lump us in with the other reform/protest movements.

I feel the same way, OldMama. Episcopalians/Anglicans are definitely in a gray area. It's a shame that Anglicans accept all of the Roman sacraments as valid but the Romans consider the Anglican sacraments to be rubbish.

[arerrurrY]

I agree with you, Dayman. I don't consider myself Protestant. But most Roman Catholics, and even some members of my own Church, tend to lump us in with the other reform/protest movements.

I had a really good church history teacher at North. Now because I'm a history nerd it stuck with me, for most it probably never even registered.

I feel the same way, OldMama. Episcopalians/Anglicans are definitely in a gray area. It's a shame that Anglicans accept all of the Roman sacraments as valid but the Romans consider the Anglican sacraments to be rubbish. The rift between Rome and the CofE isn't nothing compared to historically what happened between Rome and Constantinople.

Before the ERE fell, their patriarchs it accepted the results of the Council of Florence to reunite the two churches. It was received so badly by the Greeks that there were riots in Constantinople.