To: Houghton M.
“At a Roman council held by Pope Siricius in 386 an edict was passed forbidding priests and deacons to have conjugal intercourse with their wives (Jaffe-Löwenfeld, Regesta, I, 41), and the pope took steps to have the decree enforced in Spain and in other parts of Christendom (Migne, P.L., LVI, 558 and 728). Africa and Gaul, as we learn from the canons of various synods, seem to have been earnest in the same movement, and though we hear of some mitigation of the severity of the ordinance of Elvira, was enforced against transgressors than that if they took back their wives they were declared incapable of promotion to any higher grade, it may fairly be said that by the time of St. Leo the Great the law of celibacy was generally recognized in the West.”
Teaching the commandments of men that contrary to the God's commandments was one of the identifiers of the apostate.
and I don't believe in the idea of sola scripture.
47 posted on
03/02/2010 7:48:40 PM PST by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: count-your-change
#47 post Quote from Catholic Encyclopedia.
48 posted on
03/02/2010 8:06:39 PM PST by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: count-your-change
What you quote is exactly what I wrote, except that your author misuses the term celibacy. He meant “the law of continence was generally recognized.” Since a lot of people misuse the term “celibacy” in this way, it’s understandable. That’s why I was careful to make the distinction.
You, on the other hand, apparently think that because he uses the term “celibacy” to mean continence, he contradicts me. But the content of the laws he describes from the 4th century is EXACTLY what I said it was.
So he confirms my argument.
Simply matching up words is not smart. You have to make sure that words are being used in the same way.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson