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

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

A life of celibacy is not “freely” chosen by your priests. It is imposed upon the office by your ecclesiastical hierarchy, and if one chooses that vocation he does not have freedom of choice in respect to celibacy.

No man is compelled to be a Priest. If God calls a man to be a Priest in the Latin Church, God has also called him to a life of celibacy. God does not call a man to be Latin Priests and to be married.

If you are sure that you are called to be a Priest, then it is guaranteed that God has not called you to marry. If you are sure that God has called you to be married, then it is guaranteed that God has not called you to be a Priest. If you are sure that God has called you to be a Priest in the Latin Church and to be married too, it is guaranteed you are either deluding yourself or being deceived by the devil.

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;3433438]
Originally Posted by justasking4
If i am then someone is going to have to show me from the Scriptures that i am.
I’m actually beginng to think that the Roman Catholic priesthood is really not an office of the NT church at all but is a later development in church history.

Lampo;
Could you be wrong on your interpretation of Scripture in reference to priestly celibacy? Yes or no?
Only if you have facts that show me otherwise. When you study the scriptures carefully you don’t see a celibate leadership.

 

[peary]

A life of celibacy is not “freely” chosen by your priests. It is imposed upon the office by your ecclesiastical hierarchy, and if one chooses that vocation he does not have freedom of choice in respect to celibacy.

**By the very fact that one chooses the vocation of priesthood means that he freely chooses not to marry. The eastern branch of the Catholic Church allows married priests only if they have been married prior to Orders; they cannot marry if they are already priests. Also, the Eastern Orthodox churches do the same. **

It doesn’t bother me either that your priests are required by your church to go that direction. The point I’ve been trying to make is that (1) there is no office of “priest” (hiereus) mentioned in Apostolic teaching for the church.

The Greek ‘presbyteros’ is what has been translated in English as ‘priest’ since the English word derives directly from it. The word was never ‘hiereus’.

There is the presbuteros/episkopos (elder), but not a priest (hiereus). And (2) when you read of the qualifications for a presbuteros/epikopos, celibacy is NOT one of them.

Irelevent point.

There were no priests (hiereus) in the church during the Apostolic age, nor in the early church. A “Bishop” (episkopos) was not a priest (hiereus). A separate priesthood from the laity was a later development by men, the office cannot be traced back to the Apostles, nor does it have any Biblical support.

Now what you demand of your priest (hiereus) is up to your church. It’s not a legitimate office in Christ’s church anyway. There’s absolutely no need for them. “For Christ our Passover also has been (not, “is being”) sacrificed.” "It is finished."1 Tim 2:5 “For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus,”

That is mere opinion on your part, and not historical fact. You need to read up on the historical development of the priesthood in the Catholic Church. A good scholarly reading for you would be found at this website:

newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

**The best to you in your search for the Truth. **

 

[sodak]

Then we can say that the office of a catholic priest is not really an office described in the NT. Correct?

Who cares? It’s an office that the Church decided that it needed. The Church that Jesus founded.

There were no priests (hiereus) in the church during the Apostolic age, nor in the early church. A “Bishop” (episkopos) was not a priest (hiereus). A separate priesthood from the laity was a later development by men, the office cannot be traced back to the Apostles, nor does it have any Biblical support.

See above response.

It’s not a legitimate office in Christ’s church anyway. There’s absolutely no need for them.[/indent]

Duly noted and reported to the moderators. You have no authority to make such a statement. You are wrong, and attacking Christ’s Church is putting you on whose side?

 

[Swan]

So you do base it on your own, fallible, personal interpretation. You are basically your own pope.

I realize that you are trying to educate - IMO, the problem arises with statements like the above. We are in the non-Catholic religion section which I am guessing is the best place in the forum to respectfully disagree with Catholic teaching. The role of the papal office and/or papal infallibility seem to the one of the major areas of disagreement. So to come back again and again to the issue of papal authority just leads one in a circle. Most, if not all, of those who disagree with papal authority do so because we believe that the guidance of the holy spirit is given to us all. This is not an insult to the RC, it is simply a different belief. When you begin a conversation with the attitude that only you have the truth, then you do not have a dialogue, you have a sermon. I think that the issue of papal authority is one where most will simply have to agree to disagree.

In peace.

 

[guanophore]

This really does not answer my question.
What “disciplines” did Jesus teach? Can you give me some examples?

He gave a number of disciplines to individuals. However, He gave the power to make disciplines to the Church. He also taught His disciples that when they had a dispute that they were not able to settle, they should “take it to the Church”.

We see one discipline in the book of Acts, when believers came to donate money, and lied to the HS about how much there was.

Jesus told the Apostles “he who hears you, hears me”, and “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven”. This is the power to create disciplines.

If, at one time, the Apostolic Authority commends one who is married with children to the bishopric, and at another time, the Apostolic Authority commends the celibate, this is the perogative of the Church.

Am to understand you to say that the “teachings of the apostles” is not only in the NT writings but also in the church somehow.

Yes, this would be an accurate understanding of what we are saying.

The Apostolic Teachings are present in the Scripture, the Catechism, the Liturgy, the disciplines, the prayers, the doctrine , and most especially, in the Magesterium.

If i am then someone is going to have to show me from the Scriptures that i am.

This may not be possible, since all of the Apostolic Teaching is not confined to the scripture.

I’m actually beginng to think that the Roman Catholic priesthood is really not an office of the NT church at all but is a later development in church history.

Like most of the major aspects of the Church, what we see in the NT is the “seed” and it is difficult to recognize the large tree that exists now. The present priesthood is most parallel to the NT “presbyter”.

**Jesus was - historically - a Jew. He was born into the religion of Judaism. For all accounts and purposes, supported by the Bible, he was a devout Jew and followed the discipline of Judaism. **

This is a good example. Paul was also, and observed fasts, vows, and practices of dedicated Pharisees. We can read about these in the book of Acts.

Then we can say that the office of a catholic priest is not really an office described in the NT. Correct?

The duties that are not the purview of the priest are described by the use of the word “presbyter” in the NT.

When you study the scriptures carefully you don't see a celibate leadership.

Do you see celibacy taught, and valued? Or do you mean to tell me that you can’t “see” that either!

Do you see that celibate persons are prohibited from leadership? Do you think that Timothy must have had a wife and children, to qualify as a Bishop? Where does it say that Titus was married and had children?

 

[guanophore]

A life of celibacy is not “freely” chosen by your priests. It is imposed upon the office by your ecclesiastical hierarchy, and if one chooses that vocation he does not have freedom of choice in respect to celibacy.

You have it backwards, moondweller Yes, the discipline is imposed on the office by he ecclesiastical hierarchy, but people who are chosen for this office are chosen (especially in the Latin Rite) from among those called to celibacy. I think where you might be getting off track may be that you believe a person has a “right” to choose that vocation. This is not the case. One is called, and the Church confirms the call. It is a privilege, not a “right”. Those who are called to it (especially in the Latin Rite) are also called to celibacy. If one is called to marriage, one might also be called to the diaconate, but marriage is not “required” of them either.

It doesn’t bother me either that your priests are required by your church to go that direction.

Why do you keep complaining and finding fault with it then? You have it backwards again. Those that go the direction of celibacy may be called to the priesthood, and not the other way around.

The point I’ve been trying to make is that (1) there is no office of “priest” (hiereus) mentioned in Apostolic teaching for the church.

I agree. the NT equivalent of the function of the priest is “presbyteros”. The “sacrifice” has been made, and there are no others required. Jesus is “all in all”.

There is the presbuteros/episkopos (elder), but not a priest (hiereus). And (2) when you read of the qualifications for a presbuteros/epikopos, celibacy is NOT one of them.

Being as how these requirements are disciplines, and not doctrines, they are subject to change.

There were no priests (hiereus) in the church during the Apostolic age, nor in the early church.

I agree. there were elders, and there still are today. Today we call them priests.

A “Bishop” (episkopos) was not a priest (hiereus).

No, but he was usually a promoted elder or a deacon.

A separate priesthood from the laity was a later development by men, the office cannot be traced back to the Apostles, nor does it have any Biblical support.

I guess we see it differently!

Now what you demand of your priest (hiereus) is up to your church.

Do you just continue this inaccurate representation for the sole purpose of slander? The Church has no “hiereus”. :tsktsk:

It’s not a legitimate office in Christ’s church anyway.

By whose authority have you established that?

There’s absolutely no need for them. “For Christ our Passover also has been (not, “is being”) sacrificed.” "It is finished."1 Tim 2:5 “For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus,”

Amen! And our presbyteros and episkopos bring the reality of these truths to use daily by there service to the Church!

 

[guanophore]

The role of the papal office and/or papal infallibility seem to the one of the major areas of disagreement. So to come back again and again to the issue of papal authority just leads one in a circle. Most, if not all, of those who disagree with papal authority do so because we believe that the guidance of the holy spirit is given to us all. This is not an insult to the RC, it is simply a different belief. When you begin a conversation with the attitude that only you have the truth, then you do not have a dialogue, you have a sermon. I think that the issue of papal authority is one where most will simply have to agree to disagree.

In peace.

Papal Authority does not negate that all who are led by the Spirit are the sons and daughters of God. Catholics believe that the HS will not contradict what God has already revealed to the Church. Therefore, if a person follows the HS, one will end up in unity with the Church that Jesus started.

 

[moondweller]

Do you just continue this inaccurate representation for the sole purpose of slander? The Church has no “hiereus”.

Yet you call a presbuteros and episkopos a “priest” (Gr. “hiereus”).

Since you claim that your “priest” is a presbuteros or episkopos, then look at 1 Tim. 3:2-7. Do you see a requirement of celibacy there? That passage is giving the Apostolic requirement for the office of episkopos (translated either “overseer” or “bishop,” - NOT “priest”). Verse two says he must be the husband of one wife. In verse four it states that he must manage his own household well, keeping HIS CHILDREN under control with all dignity. So where do you come up with the idea of a vow of celibacy required for the office of “overseer/bishop” in those passages? I don’t see a celibate requirement in Titus 1:5-9 either. So it seems quite clear that such a requirement has no traceable Apostolic origin.

Your Catholic Encyclopedia says:"The word priest (Germ. Priester; Fr. prêtre; Ital. prete) is derived from the Greek presbyteros (the elder, as distinguished from neoteros, the younger),This is pure sophistry. The English word “priest” doesn’t have to be “derived” from another Greek word. The Greek already has a word for priest: hiereus. "…and is, in the hieratical sense, equivalent to the Latin sacerdos, the Greek iereus, and the Hebrew kahane. By the term is meant a (male) person called to the immediate service of the Deity and authorized to hold public worship, especially to offer sacrifice.Again, pure sophistry! Presbuteros is not at all in the “hieratical sense” equivalent to the Latin sacerdos. The Greek word “hiereus” certainly is, however. Neither the Greek word presbuteros or episkopos carry the connotation of “priest.” Nor are they historically associated with any kind of priesthood. Paul, according to the Jewish custom of the synagogue, appointed “elders” (presbuteros) in all the local churches he planted. He did not appoint “priests.” A synagogue was run by a board of elders, not Levitical priests.

A celibate priesthood in the church is a completely foreign concept to both the Apostles and the Scriptures. It developed by men after the Apostolic age and the close of the canon of Scripture. Hence, it finds its origin in neither.

 

[Lampo]

I realize that you are trying to educate - IMO, the problem arises with statements like the above. We are in the non-Catholic religion section which I am guessing is the best place in the forum to respectfully disagree with Catholic teaching. The role of the papal office and/or papal infallibility seem to the one of the major areas of disagreement. So to come back again and again to the issue of papal authority just leads one in a circle. Most, if not all, of those who disagree with papal authority do so because we believe that the guidance of the holy spirit is given to us all. This is not an insult to the RC, it is simply a different belief. When you begin a conversation with the attitude that only you have the truth, then you do not have a dialogue, you have a sermon. I think that the issue of papal authority is one where most will simply have to agree to disagree.

In peace.

I will take that under advisement. We do believe that the Church that Jesus founded (the Catholic Church) does have the *fullness *truth. When you boil down all of the disagreements with the Church, the issue is authority. That authority is the hierarchy of the Church; the Pope and Magisterium. Since the Pope is part of the authority, him being infallible in matters of faith and morals is at the heart of most issues. To me, it’s always a matter of “could you be wrong in your interpretation?” For Protestants, the answer must be yes because they don’t believe in infallibility. Therefore, they must admit that they might be wrong.

I’m just going by the way Jesus set up His Church. This might sound arrogant to some, but thems are the just the facts as I see em. If it’s arrogant to claim that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, is the pillar and bullwark of truth and can never be wrong in areas of faith and morals, then so be it. Jesus promised he would guide his Church into all truth and I believe Him.

 

[peary]

Yet you call a presbuteros and episkopos a “priest” (Gr. “hiereus”).

Your Catholic Encyclopedia says:"The word priest (Germ. Priester; Fr. prêtre; Ital. prete) is derived from the Greek presbyteros (the elder, as distinguished from neoteros, the younger),This is pure sophistry. The English word “priest” doesn’t have to be “derived” from another Greek word. The Greek already has a word for priest: hiereus. "…and is, in the hieratical sense, equivalent to the Latin sacerdos, the Greek iereus, and the Hebrew kahane. By the term is meant a (male) person called to the immediate service of the Deity and authorized to hold public worship, especially to offer sacrifice.Again, pure sophistry! Presbuteros is not at all in the “hieratical sense” equivalent to the Latin sacerdos. The Greek word “hiereus” certainly is, however. Neither the Greek word presbuteros or episkopos carry the connotation of “priest.” Nor are they historically associated with any kind of priesthood. Paul, according to the Jewish custom of the synagogue, appointed “elders” (presbuteros) in all the local churches he planted. He did not appoint “priests.” A synagogue was run by a board of elders, not Levitical priests.

.

If you would haved read the rest of the article that I shared with you from the Catholic Encyclopedia, it specifically and historically outlined the development of the Catholic priesthood from the days of the early Church to what we have now as the sacrament of Orders. It is obvious that once you encountered the word ‘hiereus’ you stopped short in reading the rest of the encyclopedic entry and thereby gaining for yourself the knowledge and understanding of something you don’t know much about, and I can’t help you with that…none of us can.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3433942]
Originally Posted by justasking4
When you study the scriptures carefully you don’t see a celibate leadership.

guanophore
Do you see celibacy taught, and valued? Or do you mean to tell me that you can’t “see” that either!

Perhaps you can give me some examples that will help me see.

guanophore
Do you see that celibate persons are prohibited from leadership?

Probably not.

Do you think that Timothy must have had a wife and children, to qualify as a Bishop?

It would not suprise me since Paul worked specifically with him. Keep in mind it does not say in scripture as far as i can tell.
Where do the scriptures say Timothy was a bishop?

Where does it say that Titus was married and had children?

I’m not aware of any.

 

[jmcrae]

A life of celibacy is not “freely” chosen by your priests.

Of course it is. Just as a life of marriage is freely chosen. (Nobody is “free” to commit sin, of course.)

Once the choice has been made, either way, it isn’t revokable, but the fact that the decision isn’t revokable certainly doesn’t mean that it wasn’t freely made, at the time that it was made.

A married man can’t suddenly decide after the wedding vows have been taken, to take up a life of celibacy, but I don’t see you complaining about that.

Once the choice has been made, it is made.

It is imposed upon the office by your ecclesiastical hierarchy, and if one chooses that vocation he does not have freedom of choice in respect to celibacy.

And I suppose wives “impose” a life of sexual and emotional intimacy in marriage, as well?

There is the presbuteros/episkopos (elder), but not a priest (hiereus). And (2) when you read of the qualifications for a presbuteros/epikopos, celibacy is NOT one of them.

There were no priests (hiereus) in the church during the Apostolic age, nor in the early church. A “Bishop” (episkopos) was not a priest (hiereus). A separate priesthood from the laity was a later development by men, the office cannot be traced back to the Apostles, nor does it have any Biblical support.

Actually it can; the offering of the bread and wine in the Mass is alluded to several times throughout the New Testament, and is referred to quite directly in the Letter to the Hebrews, with reference to the priest Melchizedek. Our priests take after the order of Melchizedek; they are not Levitical priests, other than in the sense that they make it possible for Christ to offer Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3432917]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Am to understand you to say that the “teachings of the apostles” is not only in the NT writings but also in the church somehow. If this is the case, where is this taught in your church? Is it in the catechism?

jmcrae
The Catechism is a good starting place. The Tradition is embedded in the culture of the Catholic faith. It is transmitted by means of story-telling, customs, and ritual actions.

Are you saying then that the “teachings of the apostles” is the Tradition?
Can you give me an example of a teaching of the apostle not found in the NT that is either a story-telling, customs, and ritual actions?

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying then that the “teachings of the apostles” is the Tradition?
Can you give me an example of a teaching of the apostle not found in the NT that is either a story-telling, customs, and ritual actions?

The Mass is all three.

 

[jmcrae]

It would not suprise me since Paul worked specifically with him. Keep in mind it does not say in scripture as far as i can tell.
Where do the scriptures say Timothy was a bishop?

St. Paul gave him the laying on of hands for authority, which is the Sacrament of Ordination. Since he was given authority to appoint priests and other Bishops, it’s clear that when Timothy received the laying on of hands, he was being ordained as a Bishop.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Are you saying then that the “teachings of the apostles” is the Tradition?
Can you give me an example of a teaching of the apostle not found in the NT that is either a story-telling, customs, and ritual actions?

jmcrae
The Mass is all three.

Who was the first apostle to say Mass?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
It would not suprise me since Paul worked specifically with him. Keep in mind it does not say in scripture as far as i can tell.
Where do the scriptures say Timothy was a bishop?

jmcrae
St. Paul gave him the laying on of hands for authority, which is the Sacrament of Ordination. Since he was given authority to appoint priests and other Bishops, it’s clear that when Timothy received the laying on of hands, he was being ordained as a Bishop.

Where in Pauls writings do it show him ordaining or appointing priests?

Where is the reference to Paul laying his hands on Timothy?

 

[jmcrae]

Who was the first apostle to say Mass?

St. Peter, after he baptized 3,000 people after his sermon at Pentecost.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3436176]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Who was the first apostle to say Mass?

jmcrae
St. Peter, after he baptized 3,000 people after his sermon at Pentecost.

What makes you think “breaking of bread” means the Mass?
Secondly, where does it say in Acts 2 that Peter is the one “breaking bread”?