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

[jmcrae]

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.

Well, give them a break; after all, they didn’t have a Bible, yet. Pope Innocent I gave us the canon of the Scriptures in 405 AD, and Bibles began to be copied by hand and distributed to the Churches shortly after that. But, if they were getting the disciplines of the Church all wrong, then how can we be sure that they got the Bible right? After all, the Council of Carthage was also debating the canon of Scripture in 390 AD, at the same time that they were ruling on clerical celibacy.

How do you know for certain that the one is wrong, and the other is right? After all, it was the exact same group of Catholic Bishops who made both rulings.

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

These are disciplines of the Church. Jesus gave the Apostles (and through them, their successors) the authority to set discipline for the Church when He told them that everything they bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and everything they loose on earth is loosed in Heaven. St. Paul further emphasizes that we are to obey lawful authority, even when we disagree with it.

 

[moondweller]

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.

No it doesn’t! That’s a restriction against polygamy.

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.

1 Tim 3:2 “An overseer (Gr. episkopos), then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. {He must be} 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?),”

Titus 1:5 "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders (Gr. presbuteros) in every city as I directed you, {namely,} if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer [Gr. episkopos) must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict."In the above verses “elder” (presbuteros) and “overseer” (episkopos) are one and the same. They’re synonymous. Scripture knows nothing of forcing appointed elders (or, overseers) to be celibate. Nor does it know anything of celibate “priests” (Gr., “hiereus”) since in the Apostolic age there was no such thing as a separate “priesthood.” Priests ended with the Law of Moses. Christ’s church has only one High Priest to mediate for us (1 Tim. 2:5). This whole idea of “priests” and celibacy evolved after the Apostolic age and has no Apostolic or Biblical support.

 

[jmcrae]

No it doesn’t! That’s a restriction against polygamy.

And how is serial monogamy not a form of polygamy? If you have children from more than one wife, then you are polygamous; not monogamous, even if you were married to the different women at different times.

"In the above verses “elder” (presbuteros) and “overseer” (episkopos) are one and the same. They’re synonymous. Scripture knows nothing of forcing appointed elders (or, overseers) to be celibate.

Neither does the Catholic Church. We choose men for the priesthood who are voluntarily celibate. Nobody forces them to be celibate.

Priests ended with the Law of Moses. Christ’s church has only one High Priest to mediate for us (1 Tim. 2:5). This whole idea of “priests” and celibacy evolved after the Apostolic age and has no Apostolic or Biblical support.

Then how is it that we have presbuteros (priests) and episkopos (Bishops) in Christian leadership, right there in the Bible?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
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?

jmcrae
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.

What if the married catholic man knows he is being “called” to be a bishop or priest?

Secondly in protestant churches many bishops are married. Do you think this is wrong and unbilical?
Are they able to sustain their marriages, family and vocation to serve the church adequately? Have you read any reports that demonstrate how unhealthy or difficult this is to do?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The Radical Importance of the Graced Gift of Priestly Celibacy - by Cardinal Hummes

 

[justasking4]

JMJ_coder;3426613]Hello,

The Radical Importance of the Graced Gift of Priestly Celibacy - by Cardinal Hummes

Hello,

The Radical Importance of the Graced Gift of Priestly Celibacy - by Cardinal Hummes

---

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Thanks for the reference. Here is a quote from it that actually goes against it being a NT practice but appears over 300 years after the NT was written,

"Scholars note that the origins of priestly celibacy date back to apostolic times. Fr Ignace de la Potterie writes: "Scholars generally agree that the obligation of celibacy, or at least of continence, became canon law from the fourth century onwards… However, it is important to observe that the legislators of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed that this canonical enactment was based on an apostolic tradition.
How can you have an apostolic tradition if the apostles never wrote of such a thing?

"The Council of Carthage (390), for instance, said: “It was fitting that those who were at the service of the divine sacraments be perfectly continent (continentes esse in omnibus), so that what the Apostles taught and antiquity itself maintained, we too may observe” (1).

I wonder if anyone ever challenged this assertion i.e. “so that what the Apostles taught….”? Their writings never attest to such a thing. Now if someone wants to claim some kind of oral tradition then were back to square one again in trying to demonstrate exactly who spoke it and when… .

 

[moondweller]

And how is serial monogamy not a form of polygamy? If you have children from more than one wife, then you are polygamous; not monogamous, even if you were married to the different women at different times.

Neither does the Catholic Church. We choose men for the priesthood who are voluntarily celibate. Nobody forces them to be celibate.

They volunteer because its required of them.

Then how is it that we have presbuteros (priests) and episkopos (Bishops) in Christian leadership, right there in the Bible?

I already explained this in my post:

presbuteros = elder
episkopos = overseer (synonymous with “elder”)
hiereus = priest
*
“Hiereus*” is not used in the N.T. when referring to the church. The function of a priesthood ended with the Law and its sacrificial system. All believers may now go directly to the throne of grace in time of need (Heb. 4:16).

 

[jmcrae]

They volunteer because its required of them.

They don’t know yet for sure that they are going to be invited to become priests, when they make the choice not to get married, although certainly it would occur to them that they are opening themselves up to the possibility of being invited. But not every celibate man is invited to become a priest.

 

[jmcrae]

They volunteer because its required of them.I already explained this in my post:

presbuteros = elder
episkopos = overseer (synonymous with “elder”)
hiereus = priest
*
“Hiereus*” is not used in the N.T. when referring to the church. The function of a priesthood ended with the Law and its sacrificial system. All believers may now go directly to the throne of grace in time of need (Heb. 4:16).

Well, the Early Church (which was speaking Greek as its native language) understood it quite differently, since they were appointing Bishops and priests pretty much straight away - in 110 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch (who had no reason to be kidding around, since he was being taken away to the Colloseum to be eaten by lions, at the time that he wrote it) said, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church,” and from the context, it’s clear that he’s referring to a leader with authority, and not just an elder who is making suggestions to the young 'uns.

 

[moondweller]

Well, the Early Church (which was speaking Greek as its native language) understood it quite differently, since they were appointing Bishops and priests pretty much straight away - in 110 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch (who had no reason to be kidding around, since he was being taken away to the Colloseum to be eaten by lions, at the time that he wrote it) said, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church,” and from the context, it’s clear that he’s referring to a leader with authority, and not just an elder who is making suggestions to the young 'uns.

The overseer (episkopos) was not a priest. He was an elder (presbuteros). Episkopos can be translated “Bishop” but neither episkopos or presbuteros can be translated priest.

 

[moondweller]

They don’t know yet for sure that they are going to be invited to become priests, when they make the choice not to get married, although certainly it would occur to them that they are opening themselves up to the possibility of being invited. But not every celibate man is invited to become a priest.

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.”

 

[Lampo]

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.”

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

 

[jmcrae]

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.”

Yes, but the way you guys talk, it makes it sound like they don’t find out about it until two seconds before Ordination or Final Vows, and then suddenly someone jumps out and yells “Surprise!! You can’t get married, now!!”

People who don’t want to be celibate don’t become priests, or monks, or nuns, or sisters, or even single people living in the world - they get married. Marriage is also a vocation from God, and it is considered a Sacrament of the Church. (Marriage also requires self-control more often than not. Self-control is not actually a “bad thing.”)

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Thanks for the reference. Here is a quote from it that actually goes against it being a NT practice but appears over 300 years after the NT was written,

Who ever said it was explicitly a practice ordered in the Bible? It is a discipline, one that can and has changed throughout history.

Again, priestly celibacy is not dogma, it is discipline!

I wonder if anyone ever challenged this assertion i.e. “so that what the Apostles taught….”? Their writings never attest to such a thing. Now if someone wants to claim some kind of oral tradition then were back to square one again in trying to demonstrate exactly who spoke it and when… .

The Apostolic Tradition could refer to (if you are looking for Scripture quotes):

Matthew 19:11-12

There are also several instances where Saint Paul recommends celibacy to those who can handle it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.”

Any minister who thinks of his ministry (and I am specifically addressing Priests here) as a job is being deceived by Satan. It is not a job!

That being said, would you deny that in other professional areas that there are always certain requirements that potential candidates must fulfill.

Would you allow a doctor to do surgery on you who never went to school because he wasn’t smart and we can’t discriminate against the less intelligent so they just gave him a medical degree.

To be a doctor, or a firefighter, or a police officer - you must be willing to live a lifestyle that you are constantly ready to be on the job. 24/7 you must be at a moments notice prepared to go to work. Yet, you don’t claim that as an unfair request from the emergency professional field.

Do you think it unfair that to be a soldier (and many other jobs today) that they make you travel all over the world and even to live in strange quarters and not in ones own home.

Every vocation and profession has its sacrifices which one must be willing to accept. If you are unwilling to accept the sacrifices, find another profession.

If a man cannot remain celibate and is adamant that he doesn’t want to be celibate, then don’t become a Priest. Seriously, move on to someplace else because we don’t want you. This is not a job, it is a way of life, a vocation. If you don’t want to live that life, then move on to other options.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for the reference. Here is a quote from it that actually goes against it being a NT practice but appears over 300 years after the NT was written,

"Scholars note that the origins of priestly celibacy date back to apostolic times. Fr Ignace de la Potterie writes: "Scholars generally agree that the obligation of celibacy, or at least of continence, became canon law from the fourth century onwards… However, it is important to observe that the legislators of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed that this canonical enactment was based on an apostolic tradition.
How can you have an apostolic tradition if the apostles never wrote of such a thing?

"The Council of Carthage (390), for instance, said: “It was fitting that those who were at the service of the divine sacraments be perfectly continent (continentes esse in omnibus), so that what the Apostles taught and antiquity itself maintained, we too may observe” (1).

I wonder if anyone ever challenged this assertion i.e. “so that what the Apostles taught….”? Their writings never attest to such a thing. Now if someone wants to claim some kind of oral tradition then were back to square one again in trying to demonstrate exactly who spoke it and when… .

This is a good example of how one’s perceptions and preconceived notions influence how a text is interpreted. I note your statement:

Thanks for the reference. Here is a quote from it that actually goes against it being a NT practice but appears over 300 years after the NT was written,

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.

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

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.

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!

 

[moondweller]

Yes, but the way you guys talk, it makes it sound like they don’t find out about it until two seconds before Ordination or Final Vows, and then suddenly someone jumps out and yells “Surprise!! You can’t get married, now!!”

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.

People who don’t want to be celibate don’t become priests, or monks, or nuns, or sisters, or even single people living in the world - they get married.

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.

 

[Lampo]

Moondweller…please see post #429.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

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

And yes, he isn’t likely to be taken by surprise by the requirement for celibacy - so what is the big deal?

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.

Every vocation has its pitfalls and its lifestyle requirements.

 

[moondweller]

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.

First of all Paul did not “practice” celibacy in the religious sense you’re suggesting. As far as we know Paul at the time of his calling as an Apostle was not married, therefore, he was 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.

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.

Jesus cannot be used as an example at all. The Son incarnated and took on humanity, but unlike the first Adam, the “Last Adam” did not come to be “fruitful and multiply” in the physical sense (Gen. 1:27-28). His purpose and work in this world was that of redemption, our Redeemer:Heb 10:5-7 "Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for Me; in whole burnt offerings and {sacrifices} for sin you have taken no pleasure (i.e., animal, according to the Law). Then I said, “Behold I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of Me) to do your will, O God””

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

But he pointed out the inconsistency of that statement:

“I wonder if anyone ever challenged this assertion i.e. “so that what the Apostles taught….”? Their writings never attest to such a thing. Now if someone wants to claim some kind of oral tradition then were back to square one again in trying to demonstrate exactly who spoke it and when… .”

This is what you need to address, not just avoid it.