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

[Lampo]

Where do you see this in this verse?

Of course it requires marriage. Here is the verses;
An overseer, then, **must be **above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He **must be **one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

For a man to keep his children under control requires him to be a father i.e. a married man.

i’m not trying to make my case from these verses but from chapter 3.

Not only must he be married but he must be one who manages his “own household” well. His “own household” involves his own children. We see this verses 4-5:
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, **keeping his children **under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),

The catholic church violates this by requiring its leaders to be celibate. In other words if a catholic man wants to be a bishop he cannot if he is married. This is in direct contradiction to the I Timothy 3.

You are saying a bishop must be married and have children? Maybe we should consult the pillar and bullwark of truth?

 

[submittedjoy]

So you believe that a bishop must be married *and *have children? It doesn’t say *if *he has children does it?

Celibacy and the Priesthood

Children are usually a natural part of being married. I thought the Pope was generally against birth control? I thought that God should do the “Family Planning”? Besides… there was no “real” form of birth control with the Bible was written except for abstinence. So… this argument doesn’t hold water.

 

[Lampo]

Of course it requires marriage.

It must require him to have children too if you are going to be consistent with your fallible interpretation.

 

[Lampo]

Children are usually a natural part of being married.

Just like children and infants are usually a natural part of household that was baptized. But that’s a different topic.

I thought the Pope was generally against birth control? I thought that God should do the “Family Planning”? Besides… there was no “real” form of birth control with the Bible was written except for abstinence. So… this argument doesn’t hold water.

The first form of birth control was withdrawal, which most definitely occurred before, during and after biblical times.

 

[Lampo]

I thought the Pope was generally against birth control?

He is as is the Catholic Church.

Birth Control

 

[jmcrae]

Children are usually a natural part of being married. I thought the Pope was generally against birth control? I thought that God should do the “Family Planning”? Besides… there was no “real” form of birth control with the Bible was written except for abstinence. So… this argument doesn’t hold water.

They had chemical birth control back then, too. And condoms. These things weren’t invented in the 20th century; they only became legal to use in the 20th century.

 

[submittedjoy]

He is as is the Catholic Church.

Birth Control

Well… it’s one of the things the Pope and I agree with!

 

[submittedjoy]

They had chemical birth control back then, too. And condoms. These things weren’t invented in the 20th century; they only became legal to use in the 20th century.

You may be right… I don’t know about that… But I do know that most people frowned upon women who couldn’t or wouldn’t have children. I don’t imagine that there were many in Biblical times that held back or “withdrawed” to avoid making their wife pregnant. They might have to avoided a scandal (incest, fornication & adultery for instance)

 

[jmcrae]

They might have to avoided a scandal (incest, fornication & adultery for instance)

Well, and for centuries, it was simply assumed that a woman who wanted these things was either having an affair or working as a prostitute - and it was most likely a very fair assumption.

 

[guanophore]

Where do you see this in this verse?

I don’t think you can. If you take it together with the other Teachings, we can understand it in context. This is the Apostolic practice from the early days of the Church until now. Even priests that were married, if their wife left or died, were not to remarry.

Of course it requires marriage. Here is the verses;
An overseer, then, **must be **above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He **must be **one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

For a man to keep his children under control requires him to be a father i.e. a married man.

It does not mandate marriage, ja4, or fatherhood. However, if a man was married, he was not to have been married more than once, and if he had children, even if he no longer had his spouse, they were not to be unruly.

i’m not trying to make my case from these verses but from chapter 3.

Not only must he be married but he must be one who manages his “own household” well. His “own household” involves his own children. We see this verses 4-5:
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, **keeping his children **under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),

The catholic church violates this by requiring its leaders to be celibate. In other words if a catholic man wants to be a bishop he cannot if he is married. This is in direct contradiction to the I Timothy 3.

The Catholic Church, having received the Teaching of the Apostles, understands that this passage does not represent a requirement of marriage to become a bishop. The Church preferes to take for shepherds those who are called to be eunuchs for the kingdom, so that their interests will not be divided. If a Catholic man is married, then he is already in his Sacred Vocation. The Catholic Church considered marriage to be a Holy Sacrament, and that it is a full time commitment.

Children are usually a natural part of being married. I thought the Pope was generally against birth control? I thought that God should do the “Family Planning”? Besides… there was no “real” form of birth control with the Bible was written except for abstinence. So… this argument doesn’t hold water.

The passage is not requiring marriage. It requires that a bishop not have been married more than once. A married man who had not been blessed with children would not be “prohibited” either, just because he has not “proved” that he can manage a houseful of children.

 

[guanophore]

It may be possible but is it biblical? I think there were good reasons why Paul wanted married men with children to be pastors. He makes that case that how well a man—father manages his own home will be a good indicator how well he will manage the church. He makes this clear in I Timothy 3:4-5 where he writes–
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),

There are a lot of similarities between being a father with children and pastoring a church. I also think having a believing wife who can support the pastor is also an essential ingredient. Only in marriage between a husband and wife do we find such intimacy and strength.

Since Catholic Teaching is not based on the Bible, but on the Teachings of Jesus, “is it biblical” is not really relevant. You are free to reject the example of Paul and Jesus, and the teaching of both in regard to the celibate life. My curiosity is, since you have made up your mind on this point, why do you keep bringing it up? Do you hope to convince Catholics that their pastoral practices received from the Apostles 2000 years ago are incorrect, according to your modern interpretation of the text?

 

[submittedjoy]

Even priests that were married, if their wife left or died, were not to remarry.

I feel justified in interupting your conversation with Ja4 since I am the one that brought up the “forbidding to marry” issue.

I agree with guanophore about the wife leaving part… but where does it teach that if the priest’s wife dies ** he not to remarry**?

The Catholic Church, having received the Teaching of the Apostles, understands that this passage does not represent a requirement of marriage to become a bishop.

The passage is not requiring marriage. It requires that a bishop not have been married more than once. A married man who had not been blessed with children would not be “prohibited” either, just because he has not “proved” that he can manage a houseful of children.

I agree… I don’t think that it is a requiremen for Bishops that they “have to be married”. I agree that it is just clarifying that they should only have one wife. But… I agree with Ja4 that **it is not scriptural **to require a Bishop be celibate either. This is tradition and not Biblical Mandate.

 

[guanophore]

For one, they were not recognized by the church as fully canonical until the council of Trent.

I beg of you, ja4, please read just a little smidgen of history:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3421759&postcount=16

and stop pandering these lies and misrepresentations about the truth of your own family history. I realize that you will grasp at any straw to slander the Catholic faith, but it damages the whole Body of Christ for you to support and promulgate this type if misinformation. Not only does it damage the Body, but it presents an image of you as an individual to be ignorant and mean.

 

[guanophore]

I feel justified in interupting your conversation with Ja4 since I am the one that brought up the “forbidding to marry” issue.

I agree with guanophore about the wife leaving part… but where does it teach that if the priest’s wife dies ** he not to remarry**?

This is part of the Sacred Tradition. The priest takes on the Bride of Christ as his Spouse. It is not anyone “forbidding to marry”, though. Persons called to this gift/ministry spend years in discernment, and take it on of their own free will.

I agree… I don’t think that it is a requiremen for Bishops that they “have to be married”. I agree that it is just clarifying that they should only have one wife. But… I agree with Ja4 that **it is not scriptural **to require a Bishop be celibate either. This is tradition and not Biblical Mandate.

No, however, the Latin Rite prefers to choose for Pastors those persons who have been called to be eunuchs for the Kingdom, so that their interests will not be divided. But even in the Eastern and Orthodox communions, Bishops from monastic communities were preferred, so that they could give the whole of their atteniton to the flock of God, and not be hindered by the cares of pleasing a wife, and the matters of this world (providing for children).

Thank you for participating in the discussion.

 

[NDfan]

This is part of the Sacred Tradition. The priest takes on the Bride of Christ as his Spouse. It is not anyone “forbidding to marry”, though. Persons called to this gift/ministry spend years in discernment, and take it on of their own free will.

Sorry to barge in as well. Are you saying then that a Priest can be married?? That the RCC does not forbid a priest to marry?

 

[jmcrae]

I feel justified in interupting your conversation with Ja4 since I am the one that brought up the “forbidding to marry” issue.

I agree with guanophore about the wife leaving part… but where does it teach that if the priest’s wife dies ** he not to remarry**?

Where it says that he is to be the husband of one wife. This means that he is only allowed to get married once in his whole life. This is how the first generation of Christians understood it, and not only that, but almost right from the very beginning, Bishops had to be celibate men - priests could be married men in those days (just as Deacons can, today), but they could not become Bishops until after their wives died. The Desert Fathers were celibate right from the start, and gradually, the priesthood moved to the model of the Desert Fathers, because it was easier.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry to barge in as well. Are you saying then that a Priest can be married?? That the RCC does not forbid a priest to marry?

No one is “forbidden” to marry. The current practice of the Church is that we choose for our priests men who have freely and voluntarily chosen to remain single. If a young man chooses to get married, he will simply not be asked by his Bishop to consider the priesthood.

 

[justasking4]

No one is “forbidden” to marry. The current practice of the Church is that we choose for our priests men who have freely and voluntarily chosen to remain single. If a young man chooses to get married, he will simply not be asked by his Bishop to consider the priesthood.

Why should a man who is married be not considered to be a bishop if he has all the qualities of a bishop?

On what grounds will he be rejected and why?

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3425121]
Originally Posted by submittedjoy
I feel justified in interupting your conversation with Ja4 since I am the one that brought up the “forbidding to marry” issue.

I agree with guanophore about the wife leaving part… but where does it teach that if the priest’s wife dies he not to remarry?

jmcrae
Where it says that he is to be the husband of one wife. This means that he is only allowed to get married once in his whole life. This is how the first generation of Christians understood it, and not only that, but almost right from the very beginning,

This first generation of Christians may have understood it like this but you don’t find this in the NT itself.
This is the earliest council rulings on this:
celibacy of the early church’s priests:[3]
Council of Elvira **(300-306) **
(Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.
Council of Carthage **(390) **
(Canon 3): It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.
These canons are purely local to Latin Catholics, as the prohibitions do not apply to Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome.

Notice a couple of things here. One are the dates–300-390. This centuries after the apostles. Notice also the unbiblical mandate from these councils in regards to marriage—“let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.”
God never called husbands and wives to “perfect chastity” i.e. life long chastity.

Bishops had to be celibate men - priests could be married men in those days (just as Deacons can, today),

How could it be right in “those days” for priests to be married but not in “these days”?

but they could not become Bishops until after their wives died.

Again another man-made requirement.

The Desert Fathers were celibate right from the start, and gradually, the priesthood moved to the model of the Desert Fathers, because it was easier.

Its to bad the catholic church took its cue from this model. It certainly goes against the scriptures that leaders are to be married and not modeled after these Desert Fathers.

 

[jmcrae]

Why should a man who is married be not considered to be a bishop if he has all the qualities of a bishop?

On what grounds will he be rejected and why?

It’s not a matter of being “rejected.” This isn’t a job from the Manpower office that one applies for with a resume, etc. One is invited to be a priest or Bishop - chosen.

We simply don’t invite or choose men who are already married, and the reason is that they already have a full-time vocation - that of husband and father. It is very rare that someone can sustain two full-time vocations.