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

[moondweller]

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

If the “discipline” is of Apostolic origin, as some are saying on this thread, how is it that the Apostles knew the difference between the “Latin Rite” vs. the other 22?

 

[moondweller]

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?

I’m not trying to be insulting at all. You call them priests (hiereus). For some reason you’re missing my point. Catholics (and some Protestants) ordain “priests” (hiereus) in their churches. But in the N.T. the Greek word hiereus is never used for the church. IOW, the church Christ is presently building has no priests (hiereus). In Scripture a presbuteros or episkopos is never called a hiereus (priest).

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.

I know there is a probation period, after which time they must decide whether or not they still desire to pursue the vocation. Those that continue know very well that the vocation calls for them to remain unmarried and celibate. Now is it not true that one who is married and becomes a priest (hiereus) is required also live a life of celibacy? He and his wife must live out the rest of their lives as “sister and brother?” I don’t know the official rules of the RCC on this, but that’s what I’ve been told.

 

[moondweller]

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

You’ll notice that in the text the decision to remain single or to marry was left completely up to the individual. Nor was Paul addressing elders (presbuteros). Neither Presbuteros nor episkopos (they’re one and the same) were required to remain single or to take a vow of celibacy. There was no such restriction imposed on any church office.

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.

Can you show me where any of the Apostles taught that a presbuteros/episkopos was to be spiritually “married to the Kingdom” and vowed to live a life of celibacy? Even a Levitical Priest [a true Biblical *hiereus) was allowed to marry.

I agree. I think part of that calling was celibacy.

Can you supply me with any kind of proof of this, rather than just, “I think?”

By that I don’t just mean “abstinent” but being a eunuch for the Kingdom.

Well, a “eunuch” isn’t just vowed to celibacy but he’s been castrated. I’m sure you’ll come back with something like “spiritual castration” and make a Biblical reference to Matt. 19:12, which has no bearing on Apostles or any church office.

I am sorry, there is no inconsistency for me. We trace these teachings back to the Apostles.

If you can “trace” such a teaching back to the Apostles then you should be able to demonstrate it step by step and supply us with some quotes.

 

[jmcrae]

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

Not ordinarily. I think discussions about convert priests and Eastern Rite priests, while educational, do tend to muddy the waters with regard to what is normal for the Latin Rite. And while it’s technically possible, I’m not aware of it happening within the past at least thousand years, in the Latin Rite, where a man born into the Latin Rite ever got married and then became a priest - I could be mistaken about that, but I am reasonably certain that it has been at least a thousand years since that happened.

As moondweller has already pointed out, the discipline of celibacy was formalized at the Council of Carthage in 390 AD, at the same time that they determined the list of the 27 books of the New Testament.

 

[jmcrae]

If the “discipline” is of Apostolic origin, as some are saying on this thread, how is it that the Apostles knew the difference between the “Latin Rite” vs. the other 22?

The authority to set discipline was given to the Apostles by Christ - “What you bind (forbid) on earth is bound in Heaven. What you loose (permit) on earth is loosed in Heaven.” This is repeated several times, and in many different ways throughout the Gospels.

It’s also clear when we look at St. Paul’s instructions to his Bishops that this authority was passed down to the next generation, and there is nothing to indicate that they weren’t supposed to keep passing it on from generation to generation, even until today, with our Popes and our Bishops.

What this means is that the Council of Carthage had Apostolic authority not only to set the canon of the New Testament, but also to impose the discipline of celibacy on the priests and Bishops of the Church.

 

[peary]

You’ll notice that in the text the decision to remain single or to marry was left completely up to the individual. Nor was Paul addressing elders (presbuteros). Neither Presbuteros nor episkopos (they’re one and the same) were required to remain single or to take a vow of celibacy. There was no such restriction imposed on any church office.Can you show me where any of the Apostles taught that a presbuteros/episkopos was to be spiritually “married to the Kingdom” and vowed to live a life of celibacy? Even a Levitical Priest [a true Biblical *hiereus

) was allowed to marry.Can you supply me with any kind of proof of this, rather than just, "I think?"Well, a “eunuch” isn’t just vowed to celibacy but he’s been castrated. I’m sure you’ll come back with something like “spiritual castration” and make a Biblical reference to Matt. 19:12, which has no bearing on Apostles or any church office.If you can “trace” such a teaching back to the Apostles then you should be able to demonstrate it step by step and supply us with some quotes.

**Moondweller -
You are forgetting that, for Catholic Christians, the CHURCH makes the decisions, not the Bible - though the Bible is the Church’s sacred scripture. The Catholic Church is an institution, and it has all the rights to formulate its own laws and practices, just as any other institution. This bothers protestants, yet, they themselves allow all sorts of non-biblical decisions to be made in the name of God by their own ecclesial councils and pastors.

Celibacy is a western Church discipline among its clergy, although, I must admit, that the eastern church also recognizes it - eastern rite bishops are celibate; if the wife of a priest passes away he is not allowed to marry again, and if a man is already a priest, he may not marry. This is also an Orthodox church discipline. now, if a western Church council would want to change it at any time, it could. After all, Eastern-rite Byzantine Catholics and other eastern Catholic rites continue to have valid married priests. Sacred chastity and celibacy has a long ‘tradition’ within the Church beginning with desert hermits and in formal communities of monks and nuns (monastery life).

Personally, it doesn’t bother me one way or the other as to whether the discipline of celibacy is ‘imposed’ on the priesthood by the Church, as that is the Church’s decision for priests of the western church. Priests have many years to decide for themselves if they want this lifestyle or not - nobody holds a gun to their heads and forces it on them - it is freely chosen. They know what they are getting themselves into. If they don’t, then it is a problem of seminary formation, not the decision in itself.

It may or may not help your understanding of the historical content of celibacy in the Church, but please take time to read the entire article here:**

newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

 

[jmcrae]

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

I’m getting it from a translation into English of the notes from the Council (actually it was a Synod, not a Council, as such) of Carthage. (Pages 39-40 of The Sources of Catholic Dogma, by Henry Denzinger.)

 

[justasking4]

JMJ_coder;3430251]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Was it ever a requirement to follow Christ or to be a leader?

JMJ_coder
Hello,

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

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

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3430933]
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

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

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]

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?

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.

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;3430425]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I thought if you are a roman catholic married man you could not?

Lampo
Is my statement incorrect?

I believe in that specific situation you are correct.

The person I was responding to didn’t specify a Catholic married man like you did.

i know.

CCC on Celibacy

Can a married man without any children become a bisphop in your theology?

Yes.

BTW, you could be wrong on your interpretation of Scripture in reference to the celibacy of the priesthood couldn’t you?

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.

 

[peary]

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

**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. **

 

[jmcrae]

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.

When the Church was small, it only had Bishops. One Diocese equalled one parish community, in most cases. But when there came to be more parishes in each Diocese, Bishops began to appoint “assistant Bishops” (priests) who were under their authority, to administer the Sacraments and teach the people in each of the parishes of their Diocese.

Although this was a later development, it wasn’t actually that much later - there were “assistant Bishops” (priests) in Rome during St. Peter’s lifetime. The Diaconate is actually referred to in the Book of Acts itself - there have always been Deacons, and in fact, there may have been Deacons even before there were Bishops who were ordained separately from the Apostles themselves.

 

[justasking4]

When the Church was small, it only had Bishops. One Diocese equalled one parish community, in most cases. But when there came to be more parishes in each Diocese, Bishops began to appoint “assistant Bishops” (priests) who were under their authority, to administer the Sacraments and teach the people in each of the parishes of their Diocese.

Although this was a later development, it wasn’t actually that much later - there were “assistant Bishops” (priests) in Rome during St. Peter’s lifetime. The Diaconate is actually referred to in the Book of Acts itself - there have always been Deacons, and in fact, there may have been Deacons even before there were Bishops who were ordained separately from the Apostles themselves.

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

 

[jmcrae]

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

It is an office that became necessary when the Church began to grow. There were assistants to Bishops (which is what priests are) during the lifetime of St. Peter, and in his own Diocese. If they were not allowed, the Apostles would have abrogated them at that time; they did not.

 

[Lampo]

Do you have someone interpret the newspaper for you?

No. I also don’t equate the newspaper with the Bible.

 

[Lampo]

There’s nothing complex about it. It’s a very simple, straightforward verse.

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

 

[Lampo]

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.

Could you be wrong on your interpretation of Scripture in reference to priestly celibacy? Yes or no?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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

:banghead:

I said that you must listen to the Church in what the Church in the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ has decided in matters of discipline. Basically, listen to the Church!!!

Examples of discipline:

fasting requirements
days of penance
the language the Liturgy is celebrated in
universal feast days
clerical celibacy

 

[moondweller]

Personally, it doesn’t bother me one way or the other as to whether the discipline of celibacy is ‘imposed’ on the priesthood by the Church, as that is the Church’s decision for priests of the western church. Priests have many years to decide for themselves if they want this lifestyle or not - nobody holds a gun to their heads and forces it on them - it is freely chosen.

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.

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. 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.

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,”