Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

[moondweller]

Moondweller…please see post #429.

Non sequitur. It’s not the context we’re discussing.

 

[Lampo]

Non sequitur. It’s not the context we’re discussing.

My bad. I though you made the comment, “Any man who thinks about becoming one of your “priests” (hiereus) knows he is required to be celibate for the job.” That statement would be false because a married minister/reverend/pastor from a protestant denomination can become a Catholic priest.

 

[jmcrae]

My bad. I though you made the comment, “Any man who thinks about becoming one of your “priests” (hiereus) knows he is required to be celibate for the job.” That statement would be false because a married minister/reverend/pastor from a protestant denomination can become a Catholic priest.

Not “any.” There are pastoral reasons for allowing some Lutherans and Anglicans to do so, but those that have no liturgical tradition generally do not.

 

[Lampo]

Not “any.” There are pastoral reasons for allowing some Lutherans and Anglicans to do so, but those that have no liturgical tradition generally do not.

Yep. I was just reiterating what moondweller said.

 

[moondweller]

He is a presbyter; not a hiereus. He doesn’t make blood sacrifices, and he only worships one God - Jesus.

Which is why in Scripture in reference to the church Christ is building the Greek word hiereus (priest) is not used. For the church It refers only to presbuteros and *episkopos *(elder and overseer/bishop, which are one and the same). But no hiereus. Such a function belonged to the previous dispensation of Law when animal sacrifices and grain offerings were offered, which all prefigured the once for all sacrifice of Christ.

A boy or girl who wants to be a fire fighter learns that firefighters have to live at the fire station for four days at a time, with four days off to stay at home. If they don’t like that lifestyle, they choose a different vocation.

That’s not the issue. The issue is was a celibate priesthood ever taught by Christ and His Apostles for the church? All Scriptural evidence says no. The word hiereus is not even used in reference to the church and the elders/overseers/bishops are mentioned in reference to marriage and children.

Every vocation has its pitfalls and its lifestyle requirements.

Pitfalls? Not a positive view of a Catholic, priestly vocation.

 

[Lampo]

Paul himself saw no prohibitions against his getting married if he so desired:1 Cor 9:5 "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

The point of Paul’s teaching is not that a man must be married in order to be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once. If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married, Paul would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5). A rule forbidding a man to have more than one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule. Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if he enjoined such a rule (“to be a bishop you must be married”) and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-9) ignored his own rule.

Please don’t give me some off-the-wall, bizarre interpretation of this passage in order to bend it to your belief/religious system.

How do determine what is an accurate interpretation? Who’s authority do you base it on? Your own?

Why priestly celibacy is Biblical

 

[jmcrae]

Which is why in Scripture in reference to the church Christ is building the Greek word hiereus (priest) is not used. For the church It refers only to presbuteros and *episkopos *(elder and overseer/bishop, which are one and the same).

And which from the very beginning offered the bread and wine of thanksgiving in sacrifice (Eucharist), which is also known as “the breaking of the bread,” every Sunday. It is Christ Himself who replaces the substance of the bread and wine with Himself.

But no hiereus. Such a function belonged to the previous dispensation of Law when animal sacrifices and grain offerings were offered, which all prefigured the once for all sacrifice of Christ.

That is correct.

That’s not the issue. The issue is was a celibate priesthood ever taught by Christ and His Apostles for the church?

What we know is that the Apostles were given authority to make the rules of the Church, that they passed this authority on down to their successors even until now, and that Heaven is also bound by those rules - this is Biblical and is supported by the Tradition in every way.

You have already admitted that we got priestly celibacy at the same Council that gave us the Bible, which means that if those Bishops were “off the rails” at that time, then you have to doubt your Bible, as well.

 

[Lampo]

Matthew 19:12
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. "

1 Cor. 7:32-33
“I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,…”

1 Tim. 3:4
“He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity.”
Does this mean a bishop *must *have children?

Titus 1:5-6
“For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.”

Does this mean that the “presbyter” must have more than one child that can never be accused of licentiousness or rebellious? What if the children are non-believers? Does that disqualify the presbyter? What if his children were believers when he was ordained, but then became unbelievers? Does he relinquish his duties then? What if he had one child that was accused of such things, but his other children were not? What if his children were not accused of being licentiousness or rebellious at the time he was ordained but afterwards they were accused of being licentiousness or rebellious?

Luke 20:35-36
“…but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.”

 

[guanophore]

Any man who thinks about becoming one of your “priests” (hiereus) knows he is required to be celibate for the job. You’re rationalizing. If he wants to be a Catholic priest (hiereus) he has no choice in the matter. It’s one of the requirements for the vocation. Same requirement for a woman who wants to be one of your “nuns.”

This is a discipline that is only required in the Latin Rite, not the other 22 Rites of Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know how you got that out of anyone’s post. To not know that a Catholic hiereus is required to be non-married and celibate he must have been living in a cave all his life and dragged out just prior to ordination. Nor would he have been raised Catholic or ever stepped into a Catholic church. LOL.But to desire to become a hiereus he is required to be non-married and celibate.

Now someone brought up the fact that there are married hiereus, but such is not the norm in the western, Latin church.

I read that it has been explained to you that the Catholic role of priest is best described in scripture with the word presbyterios. Yet you continue to apply this other word? Are you using this term to be deliberately insulting?

You are wrong about the vocational discernment. Persons who think they may be called to become a priest do not have to be unmarried, nor do they make a vow of celibacy. They are only required to be chaste in whatever state of life they have. Most people that are discerning the priesthood do not pursue it to final vows. Those that do so already have, or are prepared to take a vow of celibacy as part of that calling.

 

[guanophore]

First of all Paul did not “practice” celibacy in the religious sense you’re suggesting.

Really? What did he mean, when he said:

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” 1 Cor 7:8-9

As far as we know Paul at the time of his calling as an Apostle was not married, therefore, he was celibate.

No, being unmarried does not equal celibacy. He was most likely chaste (not sexually active in the unmarried state aka fornicating) but celibacy is a lifetime commitment to be married to God’s Kingdom. It is a spiritual marriage. Most young people who are unmarried have no intention of living this lifestyle. They cannot be considered celibate.

He wasn't going to commit the sin of fornication and at the same time preach against it (as is the case of some Catholic and Protestant clergy).  Paul took his calling very seriously.

I agree. I think part of that calling was celibacy. By that I don’t just mean “abstinent” but being a eunuch for the Kingdom.

Paul himself saw no prohibitions against his getting married if he so desired:1 Cor 9:5 "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?Please don’t give me some off-the-wall, bizarre interpretation of this passage in order to bend it to your belief/religious system.

I don’t believe that Paul would make this decision based on his “desire”. Paul’s writings are clear throughout that one should base their decisions on the will of God, and not on “desire”. He was constantly putting passion under subjection. Persons committed to become eunuchs for the Kingdom freely lay aside the “right” to take a wife.

Jesus cannot be used as an example at all.

This kind of statement just completely boggles the mind. I don’t even know how to respond to such a thing! I guess I will post is non-exemplary words:

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs **who have made themselves eunuchs **for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” Matt 19:12

This is something that an individual chooses.

But he pointed out the inconsistency of that statement:This is what you need to address, not just avoid it.

I am sorry, there is no inconsistency for me. We trace these teachings back to the Apostles. We know their Source, because it is consistent with the Teachings of Jesus. I can’t really address something that does not exist for me. I accept the testimony of holy men about where they got their training. ja4 does not.

Not “any.” There are pastoral reasons for allowing some Lutherans and Anglicans to do so, but those that have no liturgical tradition generally do not.

Such persons are also not assigned as Pastors of a parish, either, because their interests are divided, and they must attend to their marriage and children first.

 

[jmcrae]

Such persons are also not assigned as Pastors of a parish, either, because their interests are divided, and they must attend to their marriage and children first.

I am under the impression that some of them have been, since I have read where some members of this Forum have parish priests who are married. (Perhaps they are Eastern Rite Catholics? I don’t know … )

I agree with the rest of your post; it is mindboggling that someone with a 20th century high school education can consider himself more expert than the Apostles themselves about what they meant, with regard to celibacy in the priesthood.

 

[justasking4]

You do realize that married men can become priests don’t you?

I thought if you are a roman catholic married man you could not?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3428562]
First of all, we know that celibacy was a NT practice because both Jesus and Paul were celibate, and both of them promoted that those who are called to this gift should receive it. Therefore, celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is most definitely a NT practice, starting with Jesus Himself.

Was it ever a requirement to follow Christ or to be a leader?

Your source then specifically states that priestly celibacy dates back to the Apostolic times. This is why we call it Apostolic Teaching, ja4.

What years are considered “Apostolic times”?

The implementation of this discipline, most especially in the Latin Rite, did appear over 300 years later, largely as a result of priests being taken from celibate monastic communities that were found to be more appropriate for pastoral work.

Since the canon was composed even after that, an was also based on information that “goes back to the Apostles”, I am not sure how you have any grounds for dispute of this practice.

To trace something back to the apostles you need some teaching by the apostles themselves. Now the NT are the only teachings of the apostles and they never make celibacy a requirement for leadership.

However, I would have to say, if you are burning with passion, and need to stay in a marriage because you have not been called to the celibate life, and you still feel called to become a Catholic priest, then I would suppose that you are being called to serve in one of the other 22 Rites that does not require this discipline. If you feel this is the case, then there is a vocation director near you that would like to speak with you!

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Was it ever a requirement to follow Christ or to be a leader?

It was always a requirement to listen and obey the Church even in matters of discipline.

What years are considered “Apostolic times”?

Generally, the “Apostolic Age” is said to have closed with the death of Saint John the Apostle - ~100 A.D.

There were those whom we call Apostolic Fathers, those who knew and learned directly from the Apostles - the first, second, and even third generation of Christians. This period is generally the first and second centuries.

 

[Lampo]

I thought if you are a roman catholic married man you could not?

Is my statement incorrect? The person I was responding to didn’t specify a Catholic married man like you did.
CCC on Celibacy

Can a married man without any children become a bisphop in your theology? BTW, you could be wrong on your interpretation of Scripture in reference to the celibacy of the priesthood couldn’t you?

 

[guanophore]

I thought if you are a roman catholic married man you could not?

The Catholic Church considers both a full time vocation, that is why the Latin Rite prefers to select priests from among those called to celibacy. However, married men who have been in Protestant communities and feel called to the priesthood may receive a pastoral dispensation when they enter the Church, if their call to the priesthood is confirmed after they are received. There are also married men who find themselves in a marriage that is invalid, and may be separated with no intention to reconcile. There are also those married men who have a terminally ill spouse or that become widowed that feel called to the priesthood.

Most married persons who wish to receive Holy Orders enter the diaconate. For most, the assistance they give to the Priest is sufficient to fulfill their calling. The can administer sacraments and preach at Mass.

Was it ever a requirement to follow Christ or to be a leader?

Only for those who are called to follow Christ as part of a monastic order. Leadership is not synonmous with priesthood. In fact, most parish leaders are married laypeople.

To trace something back to the apostles you need some teaching by the apostles themselves. Now the NT are the only teachings of the apostles and they never make celibacy a requirement for leadership.

No, and neither does the Catholic Church. This exists only in the head of ja4. Not sure why.

 

[moondweller]

The point of Paul’s teaching is not that a man must be married in order to be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once. If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married, Paul would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5).

I agree. I do not agree with those who interpret those passages to mean an elder/overseer (bishop) MUST be married with children. It’s simply giving instruction for those who are married and do have children.

A rule forbidding a man to have more than one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule.

Absolutely.1 Tim 3:2 "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,“Paul says he must [be] the husband of one wife. He doesn’t say he must [have] one wife. [If] he is married he is restricted to only one wife.”(vs. 4-5)…one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),[If] he has children he must prove to be a good manager of his own household before he is appointed to help to take care of the church of God.

Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if he enjoined such a rule (“to be a bishop you must be married”) and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-9) ignored his own rule.

I completely agree. However, Paul was an Apostle who appointed elders/overseers (bishops) in the churches he planted, or had others do it (Titus 1:5).

How do determine what is an accurate interpretation? Who’s authority do you base it on? Your own?

There’s nothing complex about it. It’s a very simple, straightforward verse. Do you have someone interpret the newspaper for you?

 

[moondweller]

And which from the very beginning offered the bread and wine of thanksgiving in sacrifice (Eucharist), which is also known as “the breaking of the bread,” every Sunday. It is Christ Himself who replaces the substance of the bread and wine with Himself.

In the early church, after the Apostolic age, it was considered a “thank offering”, not a “sacrifice.” Eventually in the minds of men it evolved into a “propitiatory sacrifice.” If the Apostles actually taught that the bread transubstantiated into Christ Himself for His once for all sacrificial death to be re-presented through a separate priesthood, then you would find the Greek word hiereus (priest) used in reference to the church in the Scriptures. But it’s nowhere to be found. The Greek words for the appointed elders are (1) presbuteros, (2) episkopos (translated in English as either “overseer” or “bishop”) In Scripture an overseer/bishop (episkopos) is an elder (presbuteros). Nowhere in Apostolic writings are they ever called priests (Gr. hiereus).

The only “sacrifice” believers are involved with this side of the cross, according to the Scriptures, is a living one (not propitiatory). This being the presenting of one’s own body (not Christ’s) as a living and holy sacrifice, separated (which is what “holy” means) from the lusts of this fallen, world system, wilfully not conforming one’s body to it (see Rom. 12:1-2). This “sacrifice” does not require a separate priesthood since it’s totally personal. That’s why a presbuteros (elder) or episkopos (overseer/bishop) is nowhere in Scripture called a priest (hiereus). There’s no need for priests hiereus) in the church Christ is building.

MD: But no hiereus. Such a function belonged to the previous dispensation of Law when animal sacrifices and grain offerings were offered, which all prefigured the once for all sacrifice of Christ.

JM: That is correct.

Then why do you have priests (hiereus) functioning in your church?

What we know is that the Apostles were given authority to make the rules of the Church, that they passed this authority on down to their successors even until now,

I don’t see where they passed down any Apostolic authority down to “successors.” The elders/overseers/bishops were to shepherd the flock allotted to their charge based on the sound doctrines and instructions given to them by the Apostles.

You have already admitted that we got priestly celibacy at the same Council that gave us the Bible,

Don’t know where you’re getting this from, but no council gave us a Bible.

 

[moondweller]

Does this mean that the “presbyter” must have more than one child that can never be accused of licentiousness or rebellious? What if the children are non-believers? Does that disqualify the presbyter? What if his children were believers when he was ordained, but then became unbelievers? Does he relinquish his duties then? What if he had one child that was accused of such things, but his other children were not? What if his children were not accused of being licentiousness or rebellious at the time he was ordained but afterwards they were accused of being licentiousness or rebellious?

It just means that a presbuteros/episkopos must demonstrate at the time of appointment that he is able to manage his own household. Neither he nor his children would be strangers to the congregation. It could occur, however, that if an elder encounters such grief from his children, he might volunteer or be asked to relinquish the office to concentrate more on the spiritual needs of his own household.

Luke 20:35-36
“…but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.”

This has to do with the believer’s glorified state, after the resurrection. No relevance to the church.